Alexey Pertsev, the developer of the sanctioned cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash, faces denial of bail for the third time.
As his legal team prepares an appeal against his money laundering charges, Pertsev remains in detention.
Keith Cheng, Pertsev's defense attorney, revealed that the court also denied a request for Pertsev to access a computer, which is crucial for preparing his appeal. The court argued that Pertsev's detention does not hinder his defense and that allowing him computer access would violate safety protocols.
Did you know?
Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?
Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!
Harmony ONE Explained (Beginner-Friendly Animation)
Judith de Boer, another of Pertsev's lawyers, criticized the court's stance, labeling it unacceptable. She noted:
This unprecedented case questions when a software developer can be held criminally accountable for third-party misuse.
On May 14, the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal in the Netherlands found Pertsev guilty of money laundering, sentencing him to five years and four months for his role in laundering $1.2 billion through Tornado Cash.
The platform, which anonymizes crypto transactions, has been scrutinized for its connections to high-profile cybercrimes, including $147.5 million stolen from the HTX crypto exchange by North Korean entities linked to the Lazarus group.
During his trial in March, Pertsev contended that he should not be held responsible for the illegal activities of those who misused Tornado Cash. However, the court dismissed this defense, asserting that Pertsev and his co-founders could have implemented stricter security measures to prevent such misuse.
JusticeDAO, a group supporting the legal defense of Tornado Cash developers, voiced strong disapproval of the court's decision in a July 12 X post, describing the ruling as a "gross miscarriage of justice."
Thus, as Pertsev's legal team prepares for the appeal, he is expected to remain in custody. His lawyers argue that his prolonged pre-trial detention is unwarranted, especially in a case that could set significant precedents regarding the liability of software developers.
