Tornado Cash sold crypto “privacy”; the US saw “money laundering.” A jury isn’t sure what to think.

But Storm fought back. In a trial in Manhattan over the last few weeks, his defense team has introduced text messages showing that Storm was glad to have the North Koreans identified. As he put it, “I’m glad those f*ckers are detected.” They contend that Storm tried to help the crypto exchange recover its money by pointing them to blockchain analysis tools; he could not do more because it simply wasn’t possible with the Tornado system, which was built for anonymity. As for regulatory compliance, Storm’s defense introduced chats in which he talked about making sure Tornado Cash was “legal” so that “people wouldn’t think that it’s some kind of damned mixer. So that the reputation would be clean.”

(Storm apparently does not see Tornado as a “mixer” because of its technical infrastructure and the use of smart contracts, which create a “non-custodial” system in which Tornado itself does not technically accept or control the money. Also, because Tornado doesn’t advertise on the dark web, as did the Helix mixer, which was shut down a few years ago.)

Storm’s venture capitalist backers also assured him at one point that, in their view, Tornado was operating legally.

Mixed verdict

The trial wrapped up last week, and the jury in Storm’s case has deliberated for multiple days, struggling to reach a consensus on the main charges. Today, they announced that they were deadlocked on the two largest—money laundering and violating sanctions on North Korea. (Prosecutors will decide later if they plan to re-try Storm on those charges.)

But they did find Storm guilty on a lesser charge of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. He will be sentenced soon and is out on a $2 million bail until then.

The government continues to pressure crypto mixers. The team behind the mixer Samourai Wallet was arrested in 2024 and last week agreed to plead guilty to some of the charges in their case.

But the Tornado Cash saga shows that, at least when the services are built and run and advertised in a certain way, juries are not always convinced about maximal government claims.