Pull to refresh
Logo
Judge rules crypto protocols can be money transmitters without controlling funds

Judge rules crypto protocols can be money transmitters without controlling funds

Rule Changes

Decision allows Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet prosecutions to proceed

Yesterday: Judge rules control of funds not required

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

A federal judge has ruled that a crypto protocol can be a money transmitter even when its operators never control users' funds. Judge Katherine Polk Failla rejected the no-custody defense at the center of the Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet cases, letting the prosecutions proceed.

Under the ruling, control of funds is just one of four tests for money transmitter status, not a requirement. A 2025 federal appeals court decision reached the same conclusion. The ruling lands as Congress weighs the CLARITY Act, which would exempt non-custodial developers—leaving the meaning of a federal crime to the courts and Congress.

Why it matters

Developers of non-custodial crypto software can be charged as money transmitters even though they never hold a user's coin.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$237.8M
Forfeiture ordered against Samourai Wallet founders
A court ordered the total forfeiture; the founders paid $6.4 million from fees Samourai actually collected.
5 years
Longest U.S. sentence in a non-custodial crypto prosecution
Samourai co-founder Keonne Rodriguez received five years in November 2025; co-founder William Lonergan Hill received four.
4
Tests for money transmitter status under the ruling
Courts weigh whether a business accepts funds, transmits funds, controls funds, or instructs others to release funds; control is one factor, not a requirement.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict. Log in Sign Up
Predict 3 ways this could play out. Back the one you believe — contrarian picks score more when a scenario has a resolution date. Log in to play

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

August 2022 August 2026

10 events Latest: Yesterday
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. Money transmitter definition on trial

    Legislation

    With the Samourai sentences complete, Congress weighed the CLARITY Act's Section 604, which would codify that non-custodial software developers are not money transmitters. Industry groups pushed for the custody line to be written into statute.

  2. Treasury sanctions Tornado Cash

    Sanctions

    The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control added the Ethereum mixer to its sanctions list, alleging North Korea's Lazarus Group laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through it.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1999

Bernstein v. United States (1999)

In the 1990s, the U.S. government classified encryption source code as a munition subject to export controls. Mathematician Daniel Bernstein sued, and a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that source code is speech protected by the First Amendment. The decision was later vacated as moot after export rules were relaxed.

Then

Encryption software moved off the munitions list, enabling modern online commerce.

Now

It seeded the 'code is speech' tradition behind the crypto industry's slogan 'code is not custody.'

Why this matters now

The current dispute asks whether code that moves money is expression or regulated financial conduct, the same question Bernstein raised for encryption.

May 2019

FinCEN's 2019 crypto guidance (May 2019)

FinCEN, the Treasury bureau that enforces the Bank Secrecy Act, issued guidance stating that anonymity-enhancing cryptocurrency services such as mixers, and peer-to-peer exchangers, are money transmitters. The guidance applied rules written for wire transfer companies to software that moves digital coins.

Then

Crypto firms faced new registration demands, and some startups left the U.S. market.

Now

The interpretation became the legal foundation for the mixer prosecutions of the 2020s.

Why this matters now

The August 2026 ruling is the judicial enforcement of that 2019 interpretation, extended to software that never touches funds.

March 2021 – March 2024

Helix and Bitcoin Fog mixer convictions (2021-2024)

Larry Harmon, operator of the Helix bitcoin mixer, pleaded guilty in 2021 to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Roman Sterlingov, who ran Bitcoin Fog, was convicted in March 2024 of money laundering and unlicensed money transmitting. Both services held and moved customers' coins directly.

Then

The Justice Department established that mixer operators face felony liability, and prison sentences followed.

Now

The convictions confirmed that custodial mixers were illegal. The new cases test whether the same statute reaches code whose creators never hold funds.

Why this matters now

The custody boundary was not contested in those cases; it is the exact line in dispute now.

Sources

(8)