U.S. prosecutors in Manhattan accuse Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm of conspiring to launder money, violate sanctions, and run an unlicensed money-transmitting business. A jury convicted him on the money-transmitting count in August 2025 but deadlocked on the other two, and his acquittal motion remains undecided. Retrial of the hung counts is set for April 26, 2027.
Latest development Oct 5, 2026
On October 5, 2026, federal prosecutors filed a letter opposing Roman Storm’s pending Rule 29 acquittal motion. They cited the D.C. Circuit’s September 25, 2026, decision affirming Bitcoin Fog operator Roman Sterlingov’s conviction and sentence as support for venue in Manhattan. Judge Failla has not yet ruled on the motion, which she heard on April 9, 2026.
Why it matters
The case will test whether writing and deploying immutable privacy code for decentralized finance can itself be a crime. The acquittal ruling, the retrial or an appeal could shape money-transmission and sanctions exposure for developers who publish open-source software on public blockchains.
Background
Roman Storm co-founded Tornado Cash, an immutable Ethereum smart-contract mixer. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Tornado Cash in August 2022. It acted after criminals, including North Korea’s Lazarus Group, allegedly laundered more than $1B through the mixer. OFAC delisted the protocol in March 2025, following the Van Loon ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The delisting did not bar the criminal case.
In August 2023, prosecutors indicted Storm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The indictment charged him with conspiring to commit money laundering, to violate U.S. sanctions, and to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business. Prosecutors cast his deployment and maintenance of the protocol and its front end as facilitation of laundering. The defense casts it as protected publication of open-source software.
A four-week jury trial began on July 14, 2025. On August 6, 2025, the jury convicted Storm on the unlicensed money-transmitting conspiracy count, which carries up to five years. It deadlocked on the money-laundering and sanctions counts. On September 30, 2025, Storm moved for acquittal under Rule 29, arguing that failing to prevent bad acts is not agreeing to assist them. On March 9, 2026, the government elected to retry the hung counts.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla heard argument on the acquittal motion on April 9, 2026. On April 24, 2026, she set the retrial for October 26, 2026, contingent on her ruling on that motion. On August 25, 2026, she granted Storm’s continuance request and adjourned the retrial to April 26, 2027. Sentencing on the count of conviction is deferred, and a final pretrial conference is set for April 20, 2027. On October 5, 2026, prosecutors cited a D.C. Circuit decision affirming Bitcoin Fog operator Roman Sterlingov’s conviction in opposing the still-pending acquittal motion.
Timeline 10 events
-
FilingProsecutors cite Bitcoin Fog ruling against Storm acquittal bid
Federal prosecutors filed a letter citing the D.C. Circuit’s September 25, 2026, ruling upholding Bitcoin Fog operator Roman Sterlingov’s conviction, arguing it supports venue in New York for Storm’s case. The filing opposes Storm’s pending Rule 29 motion for acquittal.
Prosecutors Cite Bitcoin Fog Ruling Against Roman Storm's Venue ChallengeDOJ invokes Bitcoin Fog ruling in potential blow to Roman Storm acquittal bidDOJ Uses Bitcoin Fog Ruling to Defend New York Venue in Storm Case
-
OrderJudge Failla postpones retrial to April 26, 2027
The judge granted Storm’s continuance request, citing the pending Rule 29 motion and defense scheduling conflicts. She set a final pretrial conference for April 20, 2027.
Roman Storm's Tornado Cash Retrial Pushed to April 2027Roman Storm's Tornado Cash Retrial Delayed Until April 2027
-
OrderCourt sets retrial for October 26, 2026
Judge Failla made the date contingent on her ruling on the acquittal motion, argued on April 9, 2026.
-
OrderProsecutors elect to retry the hung counts
Prosecutors asked for a retrial beginning in early to mid-October 2026 and estimated three weeks of trial.
-
OrderStorm moves for acquittal under Rule 29
The defense argued the evidence showed at most a failure to prevent misuse, not an agreement to assist it.
-
JudgmentJury convicts Storm on one count and deadlocks on two
The jury convicted Storm of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960). It deadlocked on the money-laundering and sanctions conspiracy counts.
-
HearingTrial begins in Manhattan
-
OtherOFAC delists Tornado Cash
Treasury removed the protocol from the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list after the Fifth Circuit’s Van Loon ruling. The delisting did not bar the criminal case.
-
FilingProsecutors indict Storm in the Southern District of New York
The indictment charged conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to violate sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business.
-
OtherOFAC sanctions Tornado Cash
Treasury designated the mixer over more than $7B in transaction volume, including proceeds laundered for North Korea’s Lazarus Group.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the retrial of Roman Storm on the two hung counts begin by June 30, 2027?
- Retrial of hung counts begins45%
- Still pending on June 30, 202733%
- Hung counts end without retrial22%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The retrial of Roman Storm on the hung laundering and sanctions counts is the likeliest result, at 45%, with jury selection set for April 26, 2027. The firm date and the government’s March 2026 election to retry support it. A second continuance or a disposition of the counts without trial remains a real alternative.
How it resolves. “Retrial begins” resolves if jury selection starts in the S.D.N.Y. on at least one of the hung money-laundering or sanctions conspiracy counts on or before June 30, 2027, per the docket or reliable reporting. “Ends without retrial” resolves if, by that date, both hung counts are disposed of without a trial, by judgment of acquittal, government dismissal, or any other disposition. “Still pending” resolves if neither has occurred by June 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Scheduled federal criminal retrials after a partial hung jury, especially complex cases with a pending Rule 29 motion and prior continuances: Roughly half to two-thirds of scheduled complex federal trial dates hold within a few months. Prosecutors retry most hung counts once they formally elect to do so.
Complex federal trial dates often hold once firmly set, but this one has already moved from October 26, 2026, to April 26, 2027, and continuances in multi-week cases are common. The government elected to retry in March 2026 and continues to defend the case actively, as its October 5, 2026, letter citing the D.C. Circuit’s Sterlingov decision shows. The Rule 29 motion has been pending since its April 9, 2026, argument, and a ruling for either side could affect scheduling or narrow the counts. Hung counts could also end without trial through dismissal or another disposition, given shifting federal enforcement priorities for digital assets. Nothing in the record since the September 24, 2026, forecast moves any outcome by five points, because the Sterlingov letter supports a position the government already held. The June 30, 2027, cutoff leaves about two months of margin for a short slip, but a further continuance past that date keeps the pending outcome at one third.
Firm April 26, 2027, retrial date with pretrial conference set · Rule 29 motion still undecided after April 2026 argument · Prior continuance shows the date can move again · Government’s active opposition signals intent to proceed · Federal digital-asset enforcement priorities could favor dropping counts
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 12, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made