A provocative challenge to DOJ theory: the co‑founder of Tornado Cash argues that if developers can be held liable for third‑party misuse, the same logic should apply to Google and OpenAI, reframing the issue around toolmakers versus criminals.

Building on his 2025 conviction for conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money‑transmitting business, Storm contends that sanctioned actors misuse AI tools like ChatGPT and Google Gemini, suggesting large AI firms should face prosecution just as he argues developers should.

Storm centers his defense on dual‑use technology, raising questions about responsibility for tools that can be misused, with implications for open‑source projects and privacy tools.

The comparison reframes the crypto case as a test of consistent legal principle: should toolmakers be accountable for criminal misuse, or should responsibility rest with the criminals who misuse the tools?

The argument sits within broader debates about how existing laws should apply to developers and platforms that provide powerful, easily misusable technologies, including privacy and crypto tools.

Storm was convicted in August 2025 on one count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money‑transmitting business; the jury found the other charges more serious but did not convict, leaving a potential maximum five years on the conviction count.

Prosecutors alleged Tornado Cash facilitated over $1 billion in criminal proceeds, including funds linked to North Korean cyber operations, while Storm maintains he wrote open‑source code and did not control user funds or illicit activity.

In an August 2026 post, Storm cites North Korean IT workers using OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini to argue that toolmakers knowingly permit misuse while profiting, raising questions about why those firms wouldn’t face similar sanctions.

Storm asserts that if the same logic is applied consistently, authorities could pursue sweeping subpoenas and charges under powers like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act against Google and OpenAI.

The case feeds into a broader policy debate about protecting developers from liability for third‑party misuse, as lawmakers consider clearer liability protections for creators of dual‑use technologies.

The discussion is part of a wider push on dual‑use, open‑source, and privacy‑enhancing software liability, with proposals such as the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act aiming to clarify protections for code authors.