What is your honest take on this? The document sounds relatively reasonable. The big problem seem to be that Samourai was actively marketing their service for unlawful activities. How feasible would it be to get a judge to say that the DoJ (or whatever) would first have to contact these business first and ask them to cooperate before indicting them? That would make the Phoenix people much less fearsome, for example. Maybe they did that in this case?

Replies (3)

The document has a section on fair warning, mentioning Ross Ulbricht as an example. They don't believe they needed to. I don't believe marketing matters that much. The DoJ mentions it because it works well for them with media and jury. But Tornado Cash had very pro compliance marketing. Then they just went and looked for internal chats to find something to make them look like they don't care. If you're super careful about your chats, they'll send an undercover to a conference, get you drunk and then make you say something self-incriminating. I think the only real metric is usage.
Then I am confused on what one should do and how to treat law enforcement. From what you're saying the best approach is for everybody to just close shop since they can come up with any excuse they want and get away with it? What do you mean by "usage"? Like if there are no obvious criminals using your service you are ok or what?