Crypto Giants Seek Congressional Clarity on US Money Transmitter Rules

The DeFi Education Fund and leading crypto companies have called out the U.S. Department of Justice for its “unprecedented and overly expansive” interpretation of criminal code that has been used to define crypto firms as unlawful money transmitters. 

In a letter signed today and addressed to leaders of the House and Senate Committees on Banking and Judiciary, and the House Committee on Financial Services, the DeFi Education Fund said that the DOJ’s position, which first appeared in 2023, “threatens the viability of U.S.-based software development in the digital asset industry and other industries.”

The letter was signed by 34 companies, foundations, and associations in the crypto industry, including the exchanges Coinbase, Kraken, and Crypto.com, as well as VC firms Andreessen Horowitz, Paradigm, and Dragonfly. The list continues with Uniswap Labs, Polygon Labs, and Consensys (one of 22 investors in an editorially independent Decrypt), among others.

“The DeFi Education Fund’s number one policy priority is obtaining Congressional clarity on Section 1960,” which has been misused by the DOJ to enact “regulation by criminal indictment,” Amanda Tuminelli, DeFi Education Fund executive director and chief legal officer, told Decrypt.

One of the most timely examples of the “money transmitter” definition being used by the DOJ is the ongoing prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm. He was arrested on money laundering charges.

In the case, the DOJ has underscored Tornado Cash’s use by state-sponsored hackers as a threat, while crypto advocates like the DEF have rallied around Storm, saying the code he wrote is protected under freedom of speech. But Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the case would proceed because of the statutes under which Storm was charged.

“These laws do not target protected expressive conduct,” Failla said of the laws Storm allegedly violated in launching and maintaining Tornado Cash. “They punish money laundering, […] the operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, and […] sanctions evasion.”

DEF wrote in its letter that Section 1960 is one of two pieces of U.S. legal code that defines a “money transmitting business.” It’s designed to be the “enforcement mechanism” that criminalizes operating an unlicensed money transmitter, the letter says. In Section 5330, where the definition of “who” should be licensed as a money transmitting business can be found, the definition is “substantively identical” to Section 1960, the DEF argues. 

“Despite the intentional similarity in definitions of ‘money transmitting business’ in both Section 5330 and Section 1960, and despite FinCEN’s 2019 Guidance, the DOJ has taken the position that the definition of a ‘money transmitting business’ under the [Bank Secrecy Act] is not relevant to determining whether someone is operating an unlicensed ‘money transmitting business’ under Section 1960,” the DEF wrote. 

The organization also argued that “in no case has a criminal court’s analysis of Section 1960 supported or endorsed the DOJ’s novel interpretation.”

If left unaddressed, the DeFi Education Fund says that the DOJ’s departure from a “clear, logically sound, and well-established definition of money transmission,” creates a liability for software developers of non-custodial technology in the United States. 

Crypto’s relationship with regulators has taken a major step forward under President Donald Trump’s administration, highlighted by the SEC’s growing list of closed investigations and lawsuits, plus progress on a regulatory framework for stablecoins. 

But getting clarity from the DOJ on Section 1960 remains an important challenge, according to the DeFi Education Fund. 

“We are seeing incredible progress, and as an industry are working towards a goal of ‘durable wins’—ultimately, our priority is to ensure that software developers (for DeFi, crypto, AI, etc.) are protected for the long-term,” a spokesperson for the DeFi Education Fund told Decrypt. “We believe that clarity around Congressional intent regarding Section 1960 is in the best interest of software developers.”

Earlier this year the non-custodial software developer of Pharos sued the DOJ regarding its interpretation Section 1960, alleging the agency criminalizes crypto development via its overly broad interpretation.

Edited by Stacy Elliott