Tornado Cash Turmoil: Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Misleading Telegram Evidence

Attorneys for Roman Storm, co-founder of the controversial crypto protocol Tornado Cash, have accused the U.S. Department of Justice of presenting misleading evidence just days before his criminal trial begins. At the center of the dispute are Telegram messages allegedly retrieved from the phone of his co-defendant, Alexey Pertsev.

Confusion Over Forwarded Messages Storm’s legal team pointed out that the government’s evidence failed to correctly identify forwarded messages—an omission that could significantly alter their meaning. The messages were reportedly extracted by IRS Special Agent Peter Dickerman from a device seized by Dutch authorities. While prosecutors initially claimed to have delivered the relevant chats in September 2023, they admitted in a recent filing that a final version—clearly marking forwarded content—was only shared in December 2024. According to Storm’s lawyers, the initial evidence lacked crucial metadata, preventing proper verification of the messages’ origin. They warned that this misrepresentation may have influenced the grand jury’s decision. The defense called the government's interpretation “illogical,” comparing it to blaming a victim who forwards a threat to the police for making the threat themselves.

Prosecutors’ Stance Under Scrutiny Storm faces charges of money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmission service via Tornado Cash. Prosecutors argue that the messages are authentic and were available to the defense for months. They insist that formatting discrepancies do not undermine the evidence's validity. However, the defense noted that Telegram usually marks forwarded messages, which was missing here. They argue this leaves room for misinterpretation and weakens the overall reliability of the government's claims.

Verification and Timeliness Are Key According to digital law experts, the admissibility of such evidence hinges on whether the error was intentional and whether the defense has a reasonable opportunity to verify the source. If key metadata is missing, the evidence could be ruled invalid due to authentication concerns. Ironically, the prosecution’s late admission may work in the defense’s favor. Under the legal precedent known as the Brady Rule, prosecutors are obligated to correct any misrepresentations that could affect a fair trial.

Potential Impact on the Trial This issue casts a new shadow over Roman Storm’s upcoming trial. If any part of the prosecution’s case is found to rely on misinterpreted or flawed evidence, it could seriously weaken their position in court. The trial will now have to address not only technical specifics but also whether due process and fair trial standards were upheld.

#TornadoCash , #Cryptolaw , #MoneyLaundering , #crypto , #Regulation

Stay one step ahead – follow our profile and stay informed about everything important in the world of cryptocurrencies! Notice: ,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“