JUDGMENT AGAINST ROMAN STORM: Defense requests to cancel judgment for suspicions of false testimonies

A woman was a victim of a crypto scam and a bad trace of funds led to Tornado cash to the center of the trial. The defense now considers asking for the legal process.

***

• Roman Storm’s defense alleges that a victim’s funds never went through Tornado cash.
• An independent investigation contradicts the evidence presented by US government prosecutors.
• The trial could be canceled if the financial tracking error is confirmed.

Roman Storm’s legal team, one of the crypto mixer developers Tornado cashsaid Monday before the Court You are evaluating the cancellation of the trial, after doubts arose about the validity of one of the key tests of the case.

The controversy focuses on a woman born in Taiwan and resident in Georgia, identified as Hanfeng Ling, who testified having lost approximately USD $ 250,000 after falling into a type scam “Pig Butchering” through WhatsApp.

Ling and her husband, after the loss, went to an alleged cryptoactive recovery company called Payback. This firm assured that part of the stolen funds had gone through Tornado cashwhich motivated the prosecutor to present that fact as evidence of Storm’s alleged indifference to the victims of fraud, not having responded to an assistance email sent by the one affected.

The analysis of independent experts contradicts prosecutors

Prior to the victim’s testimony, the founder of Mycrypto and recognized analyst Blockchain, Taylor Monahan (@tayvano_x), published an extensive thread in X, reviewed by COINDESKrefuting the narrative of prosecutors. He claimed to have tracked ling transactions and concluded that none of them went through Tornado cash.

In his investigation, he linked the movements of funds with NTU Capital, A firm linked to multiple scams in 2023, but clarified that tracking errors were probably due to the inexperience of Payback When facing tools such as Instawappers – Services that facilitate rapid cryptocurrency exchanges – hindering transaction monitoring.

In addition to his thread, Monahan published a technical report detailing the precise routes of the funds. Other researchers, such as Zachxbt, supported their analysis.

Zachxbt strongly criticized Payback, stating that “It is unfortunate that these predatory companies appear as the first results in Google when the victims seek help.”

Inconsistent testimony of government witnesses

Storm’s defense, headed by David Patton del Lupte HECKER FNCK LLPconfronted the agent of FBI, Joel decapua, who He acknowledged that he was not in charge of investigating the link between Ling and Tornado Cash, So he could not confirm this connection to the Court.

Given this, the Judge of the District, Katherine Polk Failla declared: “I just don’t know,” referring to whether the funds really passed through Tornado Cash, showing a clear lack of certainty by the court.

The main prosecutor, Nathan “Thane” Rehn, tried to counteract criticism by pointing out that another agent of the Irs It could testify and confirm the link. He said it was “Very simple” And there was only “A few jumps“Between the funds and the protocol.

Case weakness: technical ignorance and lagoons

Beyond the Ling case, the decapua agent gave a testimony that was the target of criticism for his lack of technical knowledge in cybercrime and cryptocurrencies. During the contrainterrogatory, he admitted not being aware of Ntucapital, nor of great cases such as hacking Wormhole in 2022 for USD $ 320 million.

He also acknowledged that he did not know the concept of “English key attacks” – violent robes to force access to Wallets, “an increasingly common phenomenon in the US and Europe.

He even expressed surprise about the common use of virtual private networks (VPNS), suggesting it would be “strange” That people outside the workplace will use them, ignoring the digital privacy standard adopted by many crypto users.

The future of judgment: cancellation or continuation?

With this series of inconsistencies, The defense considers presenting a motion to cancel the trial, arguing that the evidence presented by the government were misleading or incorrect. The situation raises a direct threat to the credibility of the case against Storm, who faces positions for his participation in the development of Tornado cash.

Let us keep in mind that the accusations against Storm focus on alleged complicity with illegal activities, since they have not implemented mechanisms to avoid the use of the protocol by criminals. However, the defense argues that Tornado cash It works without centralized control and that the developer had no technical authority to alter the system or reverse transactions, especially at the rate of complaints due to lack of support in specific cases.

Meanwhile, the trial continues, but the case of Hanfeng Ling has become an example of how bad praxis in the analysis Blockchain It can have serious legal repercussions, especially in an environment where technique and precision are essential to understand the truth.

Written article with the help of an AI content editor, edited by Angel Di Matteo / Diariobitcoin

Original image of Diariobitcoin, created with artificial intelligence, for free use, licensed under public domain.

WARNING: Diariobitcoin offers informative and educational content on various topics, including cryptocurrencies, AI, technology and regulations. We do not provide financial advice. Cryptactive investments are high risk and may not be adequate for all. Investigate, consult an expert and verify the applicable legislation before investing. I could lose all its capital.

Subscribe to our newsletter