U.S. Judge Bars OFAC Sanctions Evidence in Tornado Cash Trial

A U.S. federal judge has issued a key ruling in the upcoming criminal trial of Roman Storm, the co-founder of Tornado Cash. The court has determined that sanctions imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against Tornado Cash will be inadmissible as evidence during Storm’s trial, scheduled to begin on July 14, 2025, in the Southern District of New York.

This ruling follows ongoing legal challenges by Storm and crypto advocacy groups, including Coin Center, represented by Peter Van Valkenburgh, which have contested the legality of OFAC’s sanctions. The judge’s decision comes in the wake of those sanctions being vacated, a development that boosted market confidence in the privacy-focused Tornado Cash protocol. Following the news, the price of TORN, the governance token for Tornado Cash, rose 5%, signaling renewed optimism among investors.

Judge’s Ruling Excludes Sanctions Discussion

Presiding Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defense’s request to exclude any mention of OFAC sanctions or related testimony from the trial. She cited concerns that such evidence could mislead jurors or result in what she described as “mental gymnastics,” detracting from the core criminal allegations. However, she left the door open for the prosecution to revisit the issue if they can show direct links between Storm’s actions and the sanctions.

Additionally, Judge Failla ruled that arguments over the legality of OFAC’s sanctions—such as those raised in the Van Loon v. Department of Treasury case—cannot be introduced. This move is seen as an effort to streamline the trial and maintain focus on the specific criminal charges against Storm.

Privacy Crypto Market Reacts

The exclusion of OFAC sanctions from evidence underscores the complex legal landscape of crypto regulation. Market observers noted increased interest in privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Tornado Cash, which operates on the Ethereum (ETH) blockchain. Experts suggest the ruling could shape future debates over the regulation of privacy coins and decentralized mixing services.

Prosecution and Defense Motions

Despite granting the exclusion of OFAC sanctions, the court denied other key defense motions. Judge Failla rejected a request to block references to Storm’s alleged ties to North Korea’s Lazarus hacking group. Prosecutors claim Storm profited significantly after sanctions were imposed, citing the sale of $12 million worth of Tornado Cash (TORN) tokens and the purchase of residential property.

Although Storm is not charged under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for failing to implement anti-money laundering (AML) or know-your-customer (KYC) measures, prosecutors will argue he deliberately omitted such safeguards, despite knowing their importance. Expert witnesses are expected to emphasize this omission as part of the prosecution’s case.

Forensic Evidence and First Amendment Limitations

The court also admitted a second FBI forensic report, based on the analysis of co-developer Alexey Pertsev’s mobile phone, provided by Dutch authorities. Storm’s defense had challenged its reliability, but the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution, making it a potentially pivotal piece of evidence connecting Storm to Tornado Cash operations.

Judge Failla further ruled that Storm cannot use the First Amendment or freedom of speech as a defense strategy. While he may discuss his personal beliefs about privacy rights, the court emphasized that this is not the proper venue for a First Amendment-based defense, as the trial focuses on criminal charges.

Broader Impact on Crypto Industry

The trial, which began on September 14, is expected to last approximately four weeks. Legal analysts are watching closely, as its outcome may set critical precedents for developers of decentralized privacy tools and the broader cryptocurrency industry.

Prosecutors will continue to highlight Storm’s alleged financial dealings and his role in operating Tornado Cash, a mixing service that has faced scrutiny for facilitating money laundering. The decision to exclude OFAC sanctions as evidence is widely viewed as a strategic effort to ensure a fair and focused trial, free from potential jury confusion over complex sanctions issues.