Roman Storm, co-founder of Tornado Cash, has launched a vigorous defense against the impending trial through a series of pretrial motions aimed at challenging the prosecution's case.

In response to the government's opposition to Storm's motion to dismiss the trial, his defense team filed replies on Friday, reiterating their stance that the case against him lacks sufficient evidence to proceed. Central to their argument is the contention that Storm's alleged involvement in the crimes outlined in the indictment has not been adequately proven. They emphasize that, at the time of the alleged misuse of the Tornado Cash protocol, it was already immutable and accessible to anyone with internet access, a point conceded by the government.

A significant portion of Storm's filing challenges the government's characterization of Tornado Cash as a "money transmitting business." This assertion has drawn attention from Senators Ron Wyden and Cynthia Lummis, who expressed concerns about the government's interpretation of the term. Storm's defense argues that labeling Tornado Cash as a money transmitter violates principles of due process and leads to novel legal constructions that are unjust.

Additionally, Storm's lawyers are pushing for the disclosure of certain correspondence with authorities in the Netherlands and contesting the seizure of his cryptocurrency hard wallets. They argue that such actions constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment and amount to a fishing expedition by the government, lacking clear evidence linking Storm's cryptocurrency to any alleged illegal activity.

Support for Storm's defense has been evident, with amicus briefs from three crypto advocacy groups and widespread backing from crypto investors who have raised significant funds for his defense. However, government prosecutors have emphasized the rarity of pretrial dismissals in cases like these, suggesting that many of Storm's arguments are more suitable for jury consideration.

Despite the legal complexities and differing perspectives, Storm's motion hearing is scheduled to proceed on July 12 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in New York City. The outcome of this hearing will likely shape the trajectory of the case as it moves forward.