Roman Storm Jury Deadlocked, Judge Tells Them to Keep Deliberating

The jury in the trial of Roman Storm, the developer of Tornado Cash, announced a deadlock on Wednesday, after four days of deliberations. They were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on at least one of the charges against Storm. His lawyers proposed accepting a partial verdict, while the prosecution requested an Allen charge—an instruction for the jury to continue deliberations to reach a unanimous decision on all counts.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla sided with the prosecution, directing the jury to strive for a verdict while emphasizing their right to disagree if consensus remains impossible. The jury’s careful consideration of the case is evident in their questions throughout the deliberation process.

Early in the deliberations, the jury requested evidence presented to the grand jury in 2023 to justify the venue (Southern District of New York). Subsequently, they sought transcripts from an FBI agent’s testimony regarding cell-site analysis of Tom Schmidt, a Dragonfly Capital venture capitalist who invested in Tornado Cash’s parent company. Prosecutors used Schmidt’s New York residency to establish venue, a point the jury seemed to question, requesting transcripts to verify this.

Further questions highlighted the jury’s thoroughness. They inquired about Storm’s legal obligation to cooperate with foreign law enforcement and whether intermediary wallets were also listed on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

Storm faces charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, and conspiracy to violate international sanctions. A guilty verdict on all counts carries a maximum 45-year prison sentence. Prosecutors allege that Storm and his associates, Alexey Pertsev and Roman Semenov, facilitated the laundering of over $1 billion in criminal proceeds through Tornado Cash, allegedly assisting hackers, including North Korea’s Lazarus Group. The case highlights the complexities of cryptocurrency regulation and its intersection with international sanctions enforcement. The jury’s deadlock underscores the challenges in applying existing legal frameworks to the novel aspects of decentralized technologies and their use in illicit activities. The outcome of the deliberations remains pending.