On the second day of the Tornado Cash trial, the jury heard two contrasting narratives about Roman Storm, the co-founder of the renowned cryptocurrency anonymization service.
At the center of the accusations and defenses, delicate issues emerge related to financial privacy and the possibility of facilitating money laundering through decentralized tools like Tornado Cash.
RIASSUNTO DEL GIORNO 2 DEL PROCESSO TORNADO CASH
L’accusa e la difesa presentano le dichiarazioni di apertura, e il primo testimone prende posizione… pic.twitter.com/ZIKt3SE2ZP
— Frank Corva (@frankcorva) 15 luglio 2025
The jury: composition and technical challenge of the Tornado Cash case
The composition of the jury evaluating the Tornado Cash case is diverse: seven women and five men, ranging in age from their twenties to their sixties, with educational levels varying from high school diploma to university master’s degree.
This platea eterogenea encountered, from the early afternoon of the second day, opening statements rich in both technical and moral aspects.
For a case concerning the use of complex technologies and the ethical-legal consequences in the context of blockchain, the limited background of the jury on cryptocurrencies represents a significant challenge.
The accusations of the Prosecutor’s Office: personal enrichment and money laundering
The part of the accusa was initiated by prosecutor Mosley, who focused on the alleged intention of Roman Storm to exploit Tornado Cash for personal enrichment. According to Mosley, hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrencies would have passed through the mixer, facilitating money laundering.
The prosecution claims that Storm and his colleagues, Roman Semenov and Alexey Pertsev, could have limited the attractiveness of Tornado Cash for criminals but deliberately chose not to intervene.
Evidence is cited that North Korean hackers allegedly used Tornado Cash to launder illegal proceeds, particularly after the cyberattack on the online game Axie Infinity.
Mosley drew the jury’s attention to a worried phrase (“Guys, we’re done for”) sent by Storm to the co-founders; a sign that, according to the prosecution, would demonstrate awareness of the damage created.
According to the prosecution, Storm allegedly acted with intent even when he transferred millions of dollars through an account not in his name, in an attempt to hide his tracks.
Furthermore, encrypted chat quotes have emerged regarding the management of Tornado Cash and communications between Storm and some hack victims who passed through the service. Among the announced evidence are also documents concerning “cashing out” maneuvers that took place in August 2022, when Storm allegedly used an external account to cash out funds.
The defense narrative: privacy, innovation, and impossibility of intervention
Opposing the accusatory framework is the reconstruction offered by the defense, represented by attorney Axel. The picture presented is diametrically opposed: Roman Storm is described as a talented immigrant, driven by an interest in programming and the desire to find real solutions for the limitations of the blockchain, particularly the lack of privacy in cryptographic transactions.
According to the defense, Tornado Cash was designed to provide financial privacy on public blockchains. Storm would not have had any direct involvement with the criminals who would later exploit the mixer.
It would have been an inspiring conversation with Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, that pushed Storm to work on Tornado Cash, with the declared aim of improving the privacy of transactions.
To the technical explanations on anonymization through Tornado Cash, the defense added that the service never made a profit through commissions, even though it could have done so.
Another crucial point: Buterin himself participated in 2020 in a “trust ceremony” from which the first test pool of Tornado Cash originated.
The defense particularly emphasized a technical-legal element: once the pool were created, Storm and the co-founders would have “burned” the access keys, losing the ability to intervene in the functioning of the service. Consequently, Axel argues, they would not have been able to prevent the illicit use of the pool by hackers or other malicious actors.
A difficult comparison on the responsibility of developers
At the center of the clash between prosecution and defense lies a fundamental debate for the world of criptovalute and open source technology: to what extent is a developer responsible for the use others make of their tool? Storm’s defense compared Tornado Cash to communication tools like WhatsApp or a VPN, emphasizing that any neutral technology can be used for legitimate or illicit purposes.
The thesis of the government, on the other hand, insists on the active choices made by the co-founders of the mixer, who, despite being aware of the presence of criminal activities on the platform, allegedly deliberately maintained a position of non-intervention.
The evidence announced in the courtroom: encrypted chats and financial documentation
The next phase of the Tornado Cash trial will focus on the presentation of evidence. Mosley announced encrypted chats between the co-founders and chats between Storm and some victims of hacker attacks, often involving the transfer of assets through the mixer. At the center of several pieces of evidence are financial documents concerning cash-out operations carried out through third-party accounts, which could suggest attempts at concealment of revenues attributed to Storm.
The defense, for its part, argues that the technical nature of the operation of the pools – with the access keys eliminated after their opening – makes it impossible for Storm to exercise ex post control. According to Axel, the demonstration of the project’s validity also lies in the lack of a profit-oriented business structure and in the transparency of the initial operations, to which a central figure like Vitalik Buterin contributed.
The impact of the Tornado Cash affair: privacy, legality, and innovation
The evolution of the Tornado Cash case defines a crucial juncture not only for its co-founder but for the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. The tensions between financial privacy and anti-money laundering prevention remain more relevant than ever. The ongoing trial will provide an important insight into the responsibilities of those who create anonymization tools and how the line between innovation and abuses is drawn.
With the attention of the international community and regulatory authorities, the upcoming sessions of the process could redefine the relationship between decentralized technology and regulatory compliance. Whatever the outcome, what happens in the court will set a significant precedent, suggesting new perspectives for developers, policy makers, and digital privacy enthusiasts. Closely following the development of this case means reflecting on the future of online privacy and responsibilities in the crypto world.
