Tech • IA • Crypto
Code, Compliance, & Consequences: What’s Regulated & What Isn’t | Bitcoin 2026
8/10TL;DR
Several high-profile legal cases in the United States are questioning the boundary between software development and financial crime in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
KEY POINTS
Samurai Wallet and Bitcoin Fog cases
The Samurai Wallet case ended with guilty pleas for unlicensed money transmission, in exchange for dropping more serious money laundering charges. The developers were accused of facilitating transactions via a non-custodial coinjoin tool, where users retain control of their funds. In the Bitcoin Fog case, Roman Sterlingov, a Swedish-Russian citizen, was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison for allegedly operating a mixing service, despite no direct evidence found on his devices.
A contested legal line
The core debate centers on the definition of money transmission. Traditionally, the law requires control or custody of funds to qualify. However, prosecutors argue for a broader interpretation: merely facilitating transactions would be enough. This expanded view raises concerns, as it could include simple software developers with no actual control over financial flows.
Non-custodial software under pressure
Tools like Tornado Cash or Samurai operate without intermediaries holding funds. Yet their creators are being prosecuted, blurring the line between publishing code and regulated financial activity. This confusion threatens a fundamental principle: software, as a form of expression, benefits from strong legal protections.
The controversial role of intent
Money laundering charges rely on proving criminal intent. In several cases, the evidence includes messages, posts, or debatable interpretations. More concerning is the use of “willful blindness”, which allows convictions without explicit proof of intent, suggesting the accused “should have known.”
Disputed technological evidence
Prosecutions rely heavily on blockchain analysis tools like Chainalysis Reactor. Their reliability is questioned: no known error rates, lack of independent scientific validation, and opaque code. Despite these limits, such technologies are accepted as evidence, reinforcing criticism of their decisive role in convictions.
Statistics considered unreliable
Authorities cite high levels of criminal usage, up to 91% for some Bitcoin ATMs, compared to 2% to 15% in other cases. These estimates, based on opaque methodologies, are disputed. Yet they strongly influence public policy and prosecutions.
A political and systemic issue
These cases are seen as reflecting a broader strategy to control financial flows. Critics point to harsher treatment than that applied to major banks, which are rarely criminally prosecuted despite money laundering scandals involving billions.
Divergences within authorities
Despite policy directions calling to limit prosecutions against developers, some jurisdictions continue to apply a hard line. This inconsistency fuels legal uncertainty and weakens the ecosystem.
Toward legislative clarification
A proposed law, the Clarity Act, aims to clarify regulation by clearly distinguishing actors who hold funds from those who develop tools. Its adoption remains uncertain, particularly due to debates over including specific protections for developers.
Impact on innovation
Current uncertainty is slowing technological development. In the long term, some believe fully decentralized solutions, impossible to target legally, could emerge, especially with advances in artificial intelligence.
CONCLUSION
These cases illustrate growing tension between financial regulation and technological innovation, whose outcome will shape the legal and economic future of cryptocurrencies.