NY Prosecutors: FinCEN Opinion on Samourai Wallet ‘Irrelevant’ in Roman Storm Case

Prosecutors in the Roman Storm case, involving Tornado Cash, are resisting a defense request for additional evidence, claiming it’s not obligatory under Brady obligations. The dispute centers around a parallel case against Samourai Wallet co-founders, where prosecutors admitted to pre-charge conversations with FinCEN officials. These officials reportedly stated that Samourai Wallet, a crypto mixing service, might not require a money transmitting business license.

Storm’s lawyers argue this omission constitutes a Brady violation in their case, as it involves a similar crypto mixing service. They contend the prosecution’s failure to disclose these communications, which suggested a potentially lenient interpretation of relevant regulations by FinCEN, is prejudicial to their client’s defense. The prosecution counters that the FinCEN conversation in the Samourai Wallet case is inadmissible opinion, not factual evidence. Furthermore, they argue its irrelevance to the Storm case, highlighting differences in the operation of Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet.

Prosecutors emphasize the lack of comparable conversations with FinCEN regarding Tornado Cash, asserting that no similar interactions occurred. They contend that even if such an informal opinion existed, it wouldn’t be legally admissible and therefore doesn’t qualify as Brady material. The prosecution’s stance maintains that no FinCEN opinion was sought or obtained about Tornado Cash’s registration obligations. They underline that informal opinions from agency employees, who explicitly state they’re not representing the agency, lack legal admissibility.

The core of the disagreement lies in the interpretation of Brady obligations and the admissibility of evidence. The defense argues for the relevance of the FinCEN opinion in the context of establishing the prosecution’s knowledge of potentially differing interpretations of regulatory guidelines. The prosecution’s rejection focuses on the admissibility of the evidence and its perceived irrelevance to the specific charges against Storm. The trial’s commencement on July 14th will likely clarify this legal dispute.