Six people in search of to raise the ban against cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash, the platform that enhanced privateness by mixing transactions, put forth 4 main arguments in a filing on May 24. The submitting helps the Coinbase-backed lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury filed on Sept. 8, 2022.
In the newest submitting, the plaintiffs argued that this case is “not about carving out special rules for new technology” however reasonably, holding the Treasury chargeable for overreaching in its determination to sanction Tornado Cash. The six plaintiffs embrace Joseph Van Loon, Tyler Almeida, Alexander Fisher, Preston Van Loon, Kevin Vitale, and Nate Welch.
The plaintiffs argued that the Treasury failed to indicate Tornado Cash as a “foreign national.” The plaintiffs additionally questioned the Treasury’s definition of Tornado Cash. According to the Treasury, Tornado Cash is an unincorporated affiliation that features anybody who holds a digital TORN token, no matter whether or not the people have mixed for any frequent objective.
This definition fails to fulfill the Treasury’s definition of an “unincorporated association,” the plaintiffs argued. The submitting additional famous:
“The oddity of that definition is underscored by the Department’s unprecedented step of explicitly excluding from the designation the very individuals that it says create the “organizational structure” of that affiliation.”
In a Twitter thread, Paul Grewal, chief authorized officer at Coinbase, mentioned the definition offered by the Treasury is “novel as a legal theory, and it’s wrong as a factual matter.”
The plaintiffs additionally famous that sanctions solely apply to “property,” outlined as something that may be owned. But the Treasury didn’t clarify how the immutable, open-source good contracts of Tornado Cash may be owned.
The plaintiffs additional mentioned that even when the good contracts of Tornado Cash have been in some way proved to be “property,” the Treasury nonetheless has to indicate that Tornado Cash has an “interest” in them. According to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Treasury should exhibit that the Tornado Cash entity has a authorized, equitable, or useful curiosity in the property. But the Treasury Department has failed to indicate any such “interest,” the plaintiffs argue.
Grewal put it extra merely:
“No one – not the founders, not the developers, and certainly not the people who just happen to have TORN in their wallets–has a property interest in these immutable smart contracts.”
Tornado Cash sanction is unconstitutional, plaintiffs declare
In their closing argument, the plaintiffs mentioned that the sanction violates the First Amendment proper to free speech and is, due to this fact, unconstitutional. The plaintiffs famous that the Treasury’s arguments for the ban quantity to “little more than saying that Plaintiffs are free to engage in speech somewhere else.”
Grewal mentioned the ban is “worrisome” as a result of the government “can’t simply tell law-abiding Americans to exercise their freedom in some other venue with far fewer personal protections.”
Grewal clarified that the plaintiffs are usually not in search of particular guidelines for crypto. Instead, they ask the government to fulfill the fundamental authorized necessities earlier than banning entry to a privateness device that “protects legal purchases & donations.”
.