JUDGMENT AGAINST ROMAN STORM: victims of hackeos claim that Tornado Cash did not provide support

Victims of hacks involving the use of Tornado cash They declared in the trial against Roman Storm, indicating that they did not receive support from the platform once they were attacked by bad actors who took advantage of the service.

***

• Three victims of hacks related to Tornado cash They testified at the trial against Roman Storm.
• Indicated that they requested help from Tornado cash After hackeos, but their requests were ignored.
• Roman Storm’s defense argues that the decentralized nature of the protocol prevents its intervention.
• The trial could mark a key legal precedent on the responsibility of decentralized software developers.

The trial against Roman Storm, co -founder of the Privacy Protocol Tornado Cash, He has revealed testimonies of victims of scams and hacks that sought help without receiving concrete answers.

As detailed a report published by COINDESKon the second day of the trial in New York, three witnesses offered details about failed attempts to recover stolen funds through this crypto tool.

Silence for help requests

One of the witnesses was a woman born in Taiwan and resident in Georgia, QUien reported having lost about USD $ 250,000 in a type scam “Pig Butchering” Started by a text message with a wrong number. Part of the money was channeled through Tornado Cash, And the victim said that, after contacting the developers of the protocol to try to recover the funds, he obtained no response.

The second witness was Joseph Evans, the firm’s lawyer McDermott, Will and Emery and representative of Bitmart, A cryptocurrency exchange that suffered a hack for almost USD $ 200 million in 2021. As indicated, Roman Storm responded directly by an email dated December 15, 2021, explaining that, due to the decentralized nature of the protocol, he could do nothing to reverse the transactions.

The third witness was Andy Ho, technology director and co -founder of Sky Mavis, company behind the popular game Axie Infinity and Ronin Network. This reported the impact of USD $ 625 million in 2022, where the attackers exploded the bridge Ronin. Although the manager did not mention it in his testimony, subsequent investigations revealed that the attack was the work of Lazarus Group, organization backed by the North Korean government, which used Tornado cash To wash part of the stolen funds.

Decentralization as a key argument

Roman Storm’s defense lawyers tried to counteract the testimonies pointing out that his client had power over the protocol, due to his decentralized design. According to the defense, the developer did not refuse to help, but simply lacked the technical and legal tools to intervene.

Evans, the lawyer of Bitmart, recognized under interrogation that Tornado cash It was not the only destination of stolen funds. His firm also contacted other services such as the Decentralized Exchange aggregator 1inch “That she asked them for a court order,” as well as Cloudflare and Binance, without obtaining a response from these last two companies.

In contrast, he said that the only person who responded directly was Roman Storm. “It’s right”, Evans said when asked by Brian Klein, defense lawyer of Storm and partner of the firm Waymaker LLP.

As for HO’s testimony, this was less explicit in his answers during the interrogation. Although he made accusations against Tornado Cash, The defense stated that a report on the case of Ronin Network proves that the funds were not only channeled through said protocol, but also went to exchanges as FTX, Huobi and Crypto.comwhich the witness claimed not to remember.

Responsibility of protocol developers?

The Storm case could establish an important precedent regarding the legal responsibility of software developers in the crypto ecosystem. Tornado Cash, As an open source protocol, it allows users to hide the origin and destination of their funds through mixing techniques (“Mixing”), which has generated both support between privacy defenders and concerns among regulators.

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.

This trial not only questions the ethics of decentralized protocols developers, but also the degree to which the authorities can hold them responsible for the actions of their users.

Article written by a content editor. Edited by Angel Di Matteo / Diariobitcoin

Original image of Unspash

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