The air in the courtroom must have felt thick. Roman Storm, a co-founder of the Tornado Cash mixing protocol, was set to face trial. The date was July 14, and the proceedings were about to begin in the Southern District of New York. Then, a last-minute filing dropped. It pointed to a curious detail in the prosecution’s case.
- The prosecution used a misattributed quote to suggest the Tornado Cash team knew they were doing something wrong, calling it “consciousness of guilt.” Storm’s defense team argued the quote was misattributed.
- At the heart of the legal dispute is a Telegram message referencing the $600 million Axie Infinity Ronin bridge exploit. The prosecution used this to suggest the co-founders knew they were doing something wrong.
- Storm’s defense team produced filings showing the message came from a reporter, not a Tornado Cash co-founder. The defense is now trying to have all Telegram chat evidence dismissed.
This detail centered on a quote. The prosecution had used it to suggest the Tornado Cash team knew they were doing something wrong. They called it “consciousness of guilt.” But Storm’s defense team argued the quote was misattributed. This small error, they said, could have big implications for the trial.
At the heart of this legal tangle sits a Telegram message. It reads, “Heya, anyone around to chat about axie? Would like to ask a few general questions about how one goes about cashing out 600 mil.” This message, on its face, sounds rather incriminating. It directly references the massive $600 million exploit of Axie Infinity’s Ronin bridge.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Arad brought this message up in a July 8 hearing. He told the judge it showed the co-founders’ “consciousness of guilt.” Think about that phrase for a moment. It suggests they knew they were doing something wrong. Mr. Arad even paraphrased it, saying someone asked about “laundering $600 million worth of stolen crypto.”
The prosecution argued this showed the team knew people were watching. This awareness, they said, came after the OFAC sanctions hit. It painted a picture of individuals trying to figure out how to handle ill-gotten gains. A powerful image for a jury, certainly.
But here is where the story takes a turn. Storm’s defense team produced filings. These documents showed the message did not come from a Tornado Cash co-founder at all. It was written by Andrew Thurman. At the time, Mr. Thurman was a senior tech reporter for CoinDesk. Alexey Pertsev, another Tornado Cash developer, had simply forwarded it to a separate chat.
Pertsev, you might recall, was already sentenced to 64 months in prison by a Dutch court. His conviction was for facilitating money laundering through Tornado Cash. So, the message came from a reporter, then forwarded by someone else already facing legal trouble. Not quite the same as a direct admission from Storm’s inner circle, is it?
The defense filings suggest the government itself was unaware of this issue. They only learned about it when the defense raised the point. It seems the initial evidence provided to the defense in September 2023 lacked a crucial detail. It did not include the “forwarded” tag on these Telegram messages. A small detail, perhaps, but one with large implications.
The prosecutors, in their response, admitted the original version of the messages was missing this tag. They apologized for that. But they also stated they provided a corrected version in December 2024. This corrected version, they say, is the one they plan to use at trial.
They argued that the missing tag earlier “has no bearing on the authenticity of the chats or their reliability.” They also pointed out the defense had the corrected version for over seven months. This was before the defense raised the issue, just three days before the trial was set to begin.
Storm’s defense strongly disagreed with the idea they delayed their motion. They countered that the government itself did not disclose when it learned about the issue. “So they are not in a position to point fingers,” the defense stated. It’s a classic courtroom back-and-forth, isn’t it? Each side trying to control the narrative.
This misattributed quote is more than just a minor error for the defense. They used it as part of a larger argument. They asked the judge to dismiss all Telegram chat evidence from Pertsev’s phone from the trial. This would be a significant blow to the prosecution’s case.
The defense also asked to review grand jury transcripts. They stated they have “grave concerns about the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.” Their worry is that the government might have provided false information to the grand jury. This is a serious accusation, suggesting a fundamental flaw in the evidence gathering process.
The prosecutors, despite their apology for the formatting error, asked the judge to deny the defense’s motion. They want the evidence to stand. The judge now faces a difficult decision. Should the evidence be excluded? Or does the prosecution’s corrected version suffice?
This legal skirmish highlights the intense scrutiny around crypto cases. Every piece of evidence, every detail, can swing the balance. The outcome of this particular dispute could set a precedent for how digital communications are handled in future trials. It is a reminder that even in the digital age, the human element of evidence presentation remains crucial. We will be watching to see how the court rules on this intriguing twist.
