The US Treasury does not see a need for the final ruling on a monetary sanctions claim: Report

According to the US Treasury, a federal judge, not to issue a final ruling on the Tornado cash penalties, which led to criticism from senior lawyers in Coinbase.

In September 2022, a group of Tornado Cash users filed a lawsuit against the US Treasury regarding the decision to add a encryption mixer to the list of citizens specifically appointed and banned persons (SDN).

Prosecutors claimed that the penalty for the cash hurricane violates their rights and threatens their ability to engage in free and private financial transactions.

Now, the Treasury Ministry asks the court to consider this issue, noting that the Office of Foreign Assets (OFAC) has led to the removal of Tornado Cash from the black menu for citizens (SDN).

Paul Ghroul, Coinbase’s chief legal official, Criticize This step warns that the encryption mixer may face future sanctions unless a ruling is already issued.

“Power does not go down voluntarily. It saves and moves until it is no longer able to do so. The US Treasury has lifted on Friday late on Friday that it wears against Tornado Cash. After they deleted TC (Tornado Cash) reluctantly, they now claim that they have approved any need for a final judgment for the court. But this is not the law, and they know …

Here, the Treasury has removed the cash entities from Tornado from SDN (the blacklist specially intended for citizens), but it has not provided any guarantee that it will not return the list of hurricanes again. This is not good enough, and this will be shown before the provincial court. “

Tornado Cash uses smart contracts for encryption and proof of zero knowledge to hide digital asset transactions paths. It has been criticized to facilitate bad actors, such as the Lazaros Group in North Korea, which uses Tornado Cash to launder stolen money tending to nuclear development.

Grewal is also cited legal examples of the reason for the court to make a final decision in the case.

“Under the exception of voluntary stopping, the defendant’s decision to end a challenged practice deceives a case only if the defendant can show that the practice cannot” be reasonably repeated “.

Depending on this decision, the Fifth Department rejected the agency’s argument that its withdrawal from a decision “unilaterally and avoiding the judicial review” did not harmonize the case, because the agency could decide to reconsider the decision and issue a similar decision against the private party in the future. Lewis V. UNITED States, 88 F.4th 1073, 1078-1079 (5th Cir. 2023). “

Follow us xand Facebook and cable

Don’t miss a rhythm – Subscribe to deliver email alerts directly to your inbox

Check the price procedure

Browse the daily Hodl Mix

Created Image: Midjourney