Subnostr

Because the attorney in question was a moron. Tornado Cash is non-custodial and does not have possession. And there was nothing they could do.

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

Or they're really playing the same dirty trick as the Dutch prosecutor. First they pretend adding KYC to the UI would have been effective. Full well knowing that's false. Then, when it suits them, they suddenly argue it would NOT be effective.

The paper over this glaring contradiction with the red underlined nonsense. None of those things would have stopped the transactions. The developers understood this, so they didn't act. The prosecutor understands this too but hopes the jury doesn't. Or in the case of the Dutch system - where judges are way less educated on the topic and there's isn't a single attorney who can teach them - the judge doesn't.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

They keep playing this game fpr a while. But notice what's absent: there's no allegation, let alone evidence, that the North Koreans used the UI. In fact they had no reason to. It would save money for their great leader to just do it themselves. And if the UI ran on CloudFlare it wouldn't even work in NK.

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

This last bit is highly relevant in the Dutch case since they're accused of laundering 'billions' and without the Lazarus funds that would drop to way less.

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

The SEC might have an opinion about that...

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

It seems like they're undermining their case here. Clearly the money is coming from investors, not money launderers. This should have been a securities case.

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

Ok, that was quite possibly the worst move ever. Assuming it was unilateral move by Storm, now the other two co-founders are sitting on coins (fiat?) received after the sanctions were into effect. Which comes with onerous reporting requirements, $1000+ / hour lawyers and countless ways for an eager prosecutor to (selectively) make your life hell.

It's the kind of thing you do *after* you've all moved to a non-extradition tropical island of choice. Not when two of you are sitting ducks. (Not legal advice)

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

But also irrelevant to the Dutch case; these are US sanctions. Though perhaps there's an indirect case for laundering the proceeds of a crime (violating sanctions law of a befriended country). In any case this is the first time I hear about it. Pretty sure the Dutch prosecutor would have brought this up in the courtroom full of journalists if she knew about it at the time.

Sjors Provoost 2y ago

Didn't fincen write in like 2014 that non-custodial services don't need this license? Or was it more ambiguous?