- Roman Storm’s defense attorneys have sought to block testimony from an alleged North Korean hacker in the Tornado Cash case
- They have argued that the testimony is irrelevant and prejudicial to co-founder Roman Storm’s trial
- Prosecutors have maintained that the hacker’s statements are key to showing Tornado Cash was knowingly used to launder illicit funds
Lawyers representing Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm have filed a motion to exclude testimony from an alleged North Korean hacker tied to the Lazarus Group. The defense contends the government’s proposed witness has no direct connection to Storm and that their statements would unfairly bias the jury, but prosecutors insist the testimony illustrates that Storm was aware the crypto mixer facilitated money laundering by sanctioned entities. Given that this is a core aspect of the prosecution’s case, the testimony from such a central witness could prove pivotal.
Relevance vs. Prejudice
In court filings this week, Storm’s legal team called on the judge to strike any references to a hacker interview conducted by the FBI, citing hearsay and lack of direct ties to the defendant. The individual in question, who remains unnamed, allegedly admitted that Lazarus Group used Tornado Cash to obfuscate stolen crypto, but Storm’s attorneys argue that introducing such evidence would “create an emotional reaction rather than a factual basis for guilt,” adding that “The government is attempting to conflate the alleged actions of a foreign actor with the intent of a U.S. software developer.” They also argued that Storm did not communicate with the hacker, had no role in enabling the use, and that the protocol operated autonomously.
Federal prosecutors have countered that the testimony goes to the heart of the case: whether Storm knew Tornado Cash was used for illicit finance. According to the government, the witness confirmed that Tornado Cash was “the tool of choice” for Lazarus after the $625 million Axie Infinity hack, and prosecutors argue that this establishes a pattern of use that Storm and his co-founders allegedly ignored or enabled despite public warnings. They believe the testimony shows Tornado Cash was not just a neutral privacy tool but had become integral to evading U.S. sanctions, a distinction critical to proving Storm acted “willfully” in violating federal laws.
Crucial Pretrial Decision Looms
The judge has not yet ruled on the motion, but the outcome could shape the trajectory of Storm’s upcoming trial. The defense’s strategy hinges on portraying Tornado Cash as open-source code beyond Storm’s control, while prosecutors aim to show he maintained control and intent. As the legal fight intensifies, the question looms: when does writing code cross the line into criminal conspiracy?
