Roman Storm's Mistrial Request Over Testimony of Scam Victim

Defence Questions Witness Testimony

Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm's legal team is considering requesting a mistrial following the testimony of a government witness during his trial. The witness, Hanfeng Lin, was questioned by Storm's defense lawyers, who claimed that her testimony was irrelevant to the case involving the crypto mixer. The possibility of a mistrial was raised with Manhattan federal judge Katherine Polk Failla, as reported by Inner City Press.

Charges and Potential Consequences

Roman Storm faces serious charges, including money laundering conspiracy and running an unlicensed money laundering business in connection with Tornado Cash. If convicted, Storm could be sentenced to up to 45 years in prison. His co-founder, Roman Semenov, has not appeared in court and is believed to be in Russia. The trial took an unexpected turn when government witness Hanfeng Lin testified about being scammed out of $190,000 in a crypto romance scheme.

According to reports, Lin was approached online by a scammer who convinced her to buy Bitcoin and send it to a trading site. Although Lin's funds were reportedly sent through Tornado Cash, Storm's lawyer David Patton expressed doubts about the accuracy of this claim. The defense team is now considering a mistrial based on the discrepancies in the testimony.

Conflicting Testimonies and Expert Analysis

Following Lin's testimony, Storm's lawyers cross-examined FBI Special Agent Joseph DeCapua, a crypto tracing expert. DeCapua admitted that he had not analyzed Lin's specific transactions, leading to further confusion in the case. The defense team expected DeCapua to link Lin's funds to Tornado Cash, but he was unable to do so.

Prosecutors have indicated that they will bring in another crypto tracing expert to demonstrate that Lin's funds did, in fact, pass through Tornado Cash. However, blockchain researchers have refuted this claim, stating that there is no evidence to support this assertion. The ongoing trial continues to raise questions about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.