Lawyers from Roman Storm accuse the public prosecutor of having held back finals who refute the allegations against Tornado Cash as a transmission of money

Veröffentlicht:

Von:

Vorwurf der Beweisunterdrückung im Fall Tornado Cash Im aktuellen rechtlichen Streitfall rund um Tornado Cash gibt es erhebliche Vorwürfe gegen die Staatsanwaltschaft. Die Anwälte von Roman Storm, einem der Hauptakteure in diesem Prozess, haben behauptet, dass die Anklagebehörde Beweise der Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) zurückgehalten hat. Diese Beweise würden im Widerspruch zu den gegen …
Allegation of the suppression of evidence in the Tornado Cash case In the current legal dispute around Tornado Cash, there are considerable accusations against the public prosecutor. Roman Storm's lawyers, one of the main actors in this process, claimed that the prosecution has held back evidence of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Fincen). These evidence would be contradicted to ... (Symbolbild/KNAT)

allegation of evidence suppression in the Tornado Cash

In the current legal dispute around Tornado Cash, there are significant allegations against the public prosecutor. Roman Storm's lawyers, one of the main actors in this process, claimed that the prosecution has held back evidence of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Fincen). These evidence would contradict the allegations raised against Tornado Cash, according to which the service acts as a transmission of money.

The lawyers' allegations aim to invalidate the allegations against Storm and Tornado Cash and to question the public prosecutor's argument. The accusation that fincen has held back evidence could have a significant impact on the course of the procedure and could possibly question the credibility of the charges raised against them.

tornado cash is known as a smart contract-based program that enables users to carry out transactions anonymously. In the past, this has led to legal and regulatory challenges, since anonymity in the financial sector is often associated with money laundering and other financial crimes.

The allegations of Roman Storm's lawyers raise important questions about the transparency of the legal procedures, especially when it comes to digital currencies and the associated technologies. The distinction between whether Tornado Cash can actually be classified as a transmission of money is a central point in the ongoing legal dispute.

In an environment that is characterized by rapid technological developments and different regulatory approaches, it remains to be seen how this case will develop and what effects it could have on the future regulation of cryptocurrency services.