美国司法部引用“比特币迷雾”案裁决，对抗罗曼·斯托姆……

Federal prosecutors invoke the "Bitcoin Fog" verdict to strengthen their acquittal plea against Tornado Cash developer Storm

Federal prosecutors are using a new appeals court ruling involving the cryptocurrency mixer "Bitcoin Fog" to strengthen their stance against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm's acquittal plea. Prosecutors argued that even limited use of mixed-currency services in a jurisdiction would be sufficient to establish jurisdiction. In documents filed in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York on October 5, prosecutors cited a September 25 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit that upheld the conviction of "bitcoin fog" operator Roman Sterlingov and his 150-month prison sentence.

The appeals court confirmed that four charges against Sterlingov-including money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmission business-have jurisdiction in Washington, D.C. The government said the ruling directly supported its argument that the Tornado Cash deal from Manhattan could establish jurisdiction in Storm's case. However, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla has yet to rule on Storm's post-trial motion for not guilty.

Why is the Bitcoin Fog ruling so important to Storm?

The core of the jurisdiction issue is that crimes must occur where and where to a sufficient extent for prosecutors to prosecute in specific federal areas. In the Sterlingov case, an undercover agent used "Bitcoin fog" from Washington, D.C., to deposit approximately $250 in Bitcoin in a transaction, followed by a small transfer. The Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit held that receiving and withdrawing funds in the region through "Bitcoin fog" was sufficient to constitute a jurisdictional basis for money laundering because these transfers formed part of the alleged money laundering activity. Regarding the charge of unlicensed currency transmission, the court alone found that the evidence proving that "Bitcoin fog" served customers in Washington, D.C., was sufficient to establish jurisdiction there.

Prosecutors said similar facts emerged in Storm's trial. Witness Shakeeb Ahmed testified that he visited Tornado Cash from his Manhattan apartment and deposited funds into the agreement for about several days. Storm argued that Ahmed's deal did not sufficiently advance alleged collusion and therefore could not establish jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York.

Investors suggest

The impact of this controversy may not be limited to the Storm case. If the court accepts customer activity as a sufficient basis for establishing jurisdiction, developers and operators of globally accessible encryption protocols could face prosecution even if they have no physical presence in these regions, as long as individual users interact with their software.

Can jurisdiction be established for small mixed currency transactions?

Prosecutors emphasized that the transactions underpinning the Bitcoin Fog ruling were small compared to the service's overall activities. The Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit noted that the "Bitcoin fog" handles hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency, but its jurisdictional analysis relies largely on transactions conducted by undercover agents in Washington. The court also rejected Sterlingov's argument that allowing the government to rely on these deals was effectively equivalent to allowing prosecutors to "create" jurisdiction. The government is applying this reasoning to the Tornado Cash case. Trial testimony showed that additional deposits would increase the size of the anonymous collection of money mixers, making it more difficult to trace the origin or ultimate destination of funds. As a result, prosecutors argued that although Ahmed's funds only stayed in the agreement for a short time, his deposits helped Tornado Cash perform its functions at the core of the alleged conspiracy.

The latest filing does not address this issue, but it provides Judge Failla with additional appeal authority to consider when reviewing Storm's motion.

What are still outstanding matters in the Tornado Cash case?

In August 2025, a Manhattan jury found Storm guilty of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmission business, but failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the separate counts of money laundering and sanctioned conspiracy. Storm subsequently sought an acquittal, arguing that prosecutors had not provided sufficient legal evidence needed to uphold the conviction. His defense team also challenged the government's interpretation of the Money Transfer Act, including arguments involving FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of America) guidelines, which became another controversy before the trial. Judge Failla heard arguments on the motion for not guilty in April 2026, but has not yet issued a decision. Meanwhile, Storm's retrial on two deadlocked charges is set for April 26, 2027, provided the charges remain valid.

Investors suggest

The immediate legal issues are procedural, but the result may shape the jurisdictional risk exposure of decentralized agreements. Broad jurisdictional standards will give federal prosecutors greater flexibility when filing cases involving borderless encryption services.

Why is the withdrawal of the Ministry of Finance's currency mixer rules relevant? **

The same day the Justice Department filed the filing, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) withdrew another 2023 proposal for the blending of convertible virtual currencies. The proposal had regarded international cryptocurrency hybrids as a type of transaction of primary money laundering concern and imposed additional reporting obligations on regulated financial institutions. FinCEN said on October 5 that it decided to withdraw the proposal after considering public comments and as part of the government's efforts to make digital asset rules more targeted. Storm criticized the comparison, publicly arguing that prosecutors continued to pursue its criminal case while the Treasury Department was backing away from the proposed regulatory framework for currency mixers. However, these actions address different legal issues. FinCEN's withdrawal eliminates the proposed reporting system; it does not determine whether Storm violated existing criminal statutes or whether New York's jurisdiction is appropriate. As a result, the next key decision still rests with Judge Failla, whose ruling on Storm's motion for not guilty could determine the status of his current conviction and the legal boundaries around the next phase of the case.

Investor Revelation

Policies for cryptographic privacy tools are becoming less uniform, not just stricter or looser. The Treasury can narrow the scope of future supervision while prosecutors continue to apply existing anti-money laundering and money transfer regulations in court, leaving developers at legal risk even if some proposed rules are withdrawn.