The U.S. Department of Justice cites the "Bitcoin Mist" ruling to narrow the scope of application

Federal prosecutors cited Bitcoin Fog jurisprudence to refute Tornado Cash developer Storm's motion for not guilty

In the latest filing, federal prosecutors cited an appeals court ruling involving Bitcoin Fog cryptocurrency mixers to oppose Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm's plea of not guilty. The filing, filed Monday, asked the court to view Bitcoin Fog's decision as "directly" supporting the government's argument about where Storm's alleged behavior occurred.

The motion points to a September 25 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit that upheld the conviction and sentencing of Bitcoin Fog operator Roman Sterlingov. Prosecutors said the logic used by the appeals court to establish jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., applies equally to the Storm case in the Southern District of New York.

Core Points

• Prosecutors used the September 25 decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Colombia Circuit on Bitcoin Fog to argue that it was appropriate to establish jurisdiction in Storm's New York case.
• The Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit found that Washington, D.C., had jurisdiction because an undercover agent traded from his office in Washington, D.C.
• In the Tornado Cash case, prosecutors highlighted witness Shakeeb Ahmed's testimony of using Tornado Cash from his Manhattan apartment, which helped establish New York State jurisdiction.
• Judge Katherine Polk Failla has yet to rule on Storm's motion for not guilty. If the pending charges remain, a potential retrial is scheduled for April 26, 2027.

Why the Bitcoin Fog ruling has become the focus

In a filing Monday, federal prosecutors said Bitcoin Fog's appeal ruling could serve as additional legal basis in Storm's ongoing lawsuit. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit resolved the issue of whether four charges against Sterlingov, including money laundering and unauthorized transfer of funds, should be tried in Washington, D.C.

According to an analysis by the Court of Appeals, jurisdiction was established for the money laundering charge because prosecutors provided evidence that undercover agents conducted Bitcoin Fog transactions at their Washington, D.C. offices. Regarding the allegation of unauthorized transfer of funds, the court held that there was sufficient evidence that Bitcoin Fog had a customer base in the jurisdiction.

The Prosecutor argued that the same basic framework should apply to Storm's case. They argued that Tornado Cash activities related to Manhattan were sufficient to establish jurisdiction over Storm's money laundering and unauthorized money transfer conspiracy charges.

Jurisdiction dispute in Storm's motion of innocence

Storm's motion of innocence is based in part on whether the government has proved the necessary connection to New York. In his 2025 post-trial motion, Storm argued that testimony about Shakeeb Ahmed's use of Tornado Cash from his Manhattan apartment was insufficient to establish jurisdiction in the South Side of New York, particularly because Storm claimed that the transactions did not facilitate alleged collusion.

检察官通过强调混币器即使在输入短暂的情况下也能运作来反驳这一观点。他们认为，短期的存款仍然可以通过增加用于隐藏转账的交易池来帮助混币器掩盖资金流动。检察官表示，这种逻辑适用于 Ahmed 据报道使用 Tornado Cash 的情况，并支持政府的立场，即 Ahmed 的活动促进了被指控的共谋。

在周一的文件中，检察官试图将管辖权辩论转化为一个已在 Bitcoin Fog 背景下得到法院解决的问题：区域内的活动达到何种程度才足以确立管辖权，以及调查人员如何证明此类活动符合政府的犯罪理论。

Tornado Cash 案件的后续发展

Katherine Polk Failla 法官已于2026年4月听取了关于 Storm 无罪动议的辩论。截至周一提交文件时，尚未就 Storm 是否会被免除剩余争议罪名作出决定。

Storm 于2025年8月被陪审团裁定犯有合谋经营未获许可的资金传输业务的罪行。陪审团在洗钱和制裁共谋指控上陷入僵局，导致这些问题未决。如果这些罪名在那时仍然有效，针对这些僵局的重新审判定于2027年4月26日举行。

Storm 于2025年9月提交了审判后的无罪动议，辩称检察官未能建立所需的意图——具体而言，即他没有意图协助犯罪分子滥用 Tornado Cash。

Storm 与更广泛的政策张力

After filing the documents on Monday, Storm posted on X criticizing the government for continuing to pursue the case, saying: "The Justice Department is still doing its best to deal with me."

He also pointed to another policy development involving U.S. cryptocurrency mixers rules. The document mentions the Ministry of Finance's announcement on Monday that it would withdraw its proposed cryptocurrency mixer rules. Storm describes this as evidence of the government's contradictory approach to privacy-oriented encryption tools-an argument that focuses less on jurisdiction and more on whether broader regulatory positions are consistent with prosecutors 'frameworks for building criminal liability.

Although this policy withdrawal itself is not a verdict in a criminal case, it highlights why these mixer prosecutions are both legally and politically sensitive. Prosecutors are continuing to build their legal theory through case law, while the defense is trying to expand the narrative about how the government handles currency mixing techniques.

The current focus for observers is whether Judge Failla will accept the Bitcoin Fog ruling as a persuasive basis for jurisdiction issues in the Storm case, and whether the ruling will affect the scope or stance of any future proceedings. With a retrial date for the standoff charges set for April 2027, the court's upcoming ruling could still significantly shape the remaining focus of controversy.