Federal prosecutors have pointed to a recent appeals court decision involving the Bitcoin Fog cryptocurrency mixer as support for maintaining venue in the Southern District of New York against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm. In a filing submitted this week, the government said the ruling bolsters its position that limited activity involving Tornado Cash in Manhattan is enough to establish proper jurisdiction for remaining charges.

Appeals Court Decision on Bitcoin Fog

On September 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the convictions and 150-month sentence of Roman Sterlingov, the operator of Bitcoin Fog. The court found venue proper in Washington, D.C., for all counts. For the money-laundering charges, it relied on evidence that an undercover agent conducted Bitcoin Fog transactions from a D.C. office, including a deposit of roughly $250 in bitcoin that was largely withdrawn the next day. For the unlicensed money-transmission counts, the court determined that Bitcoin Fog had served customers in the district.

Prosecutors in Storm’s case told Judge Katherine Polk Failla that the decision “directly supports” their argument. They contend that Tornado Cash activity in Manhattan establishes venue for the money-laundering conspiracy and unlicensed money-transmission conspiracy charges. The filing references testimony from Shakeeb Ahmed, who stated he accessed Tornado Cash from his apartment in Manhattan. Prosecutors noted that Ahmed’s deposit remained in the pools for a couple of days, a duration they described as comparable to the undercover agent’s activity in the Bitcoin Fog matter.

Background on Storm’s Case

A jury in August 2025 convicted Storm of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business. Jurors deadlocked on the money-laundering conspiracy and sanctions-conspiracy counts. Storm filed a post-trial motion for acquittal in September 2025, arguing that prosecutors had not proved he intended to help criminals misuse Tornado Cash and challenging the sufficiency of the venue evidence. He contended that Ahmed’s use of the service did not further the alleged conspiracy and therefore could not support prosecution in New York.

Judge Failla heard arguments on the motion in April 2026 and has not yet ruled. A retrial on the unresolved counts is scheduled for April 26, 2027, if those charges remain pending. Prosecutors have maintained that even brief deposits can assist a mixer by expanding the pool of transactions used to obscure the movement of funds, a principle they say applies equally to Ahmed’s activity.

Storm’s Response and Broader Context

Storm criticized the government’s latest filing in a public post, stating that authorities continue to pursue him aggressively. He also referenced a Treasury Department notice issued the same day in which the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network withdrew a proposed rule that would have required reporting of certain international crypto-mixing transactions. The agency cited concerns from commenters that a broad definition of mixing could affect legitimate activity, while noting that illicit actors continue to use such services and that monitoring will continue.

Storm contrasted that development with statements made by prosecutors during the April hearing, in which they suggested that once Tornado Cash primarily served criminals, even legitimate transactions became illegitimate. The judge had expressed concern about that theory at the time. The current filing focuses primarily on the venue question tied to the Bitcoin Fog ruling and does not revisit the broader policy debate surrounding mixers.

Both Tornado Cash and Bitcoin Fog functioned as coin mixers, software that pools users’ cryptocurrency to obscure the link between the origin and destination of funds. The government has treated such tools as vehicles for money laundering when used in connection with criminal activity, while developers have argued that writing and publishing the software does not equate to operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business or intentionally facilitating crime.