[downandout]

At least under US law, intent is still required. Meaning that while some users of TC may have violated this law, the devs did not, nor did they knowingly aid in it or have any provable intent to do so.

I don't know what Dutch law says with regard to intent/knowing participation, but I suspect that any system of laws in a civilized country would generally require it for criminal convictions.

[woodruffw]

(B)(ii) does not require specific intent. It requires knowledge that the transaction fails to meet reporting requirements.

The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality.

[downandout]

The intent in question is manifested in Tornado Cash's design, which doesn't pass the malfeasance smell test: you can't absolve yourself of illegality by automating the illegality.

Given that it also has legitimate uses, I think that's a very difficult case to make. Also, with very limited exceptions, nearly all crimes in the US require intent and/or knowing participation. It's a fundamental tenet of our system. There is a reason that they aren't being prosecuted in the US, and those reasons are outlined above. Perhaps Dutch law is different enough to allow a conviction; time will tell.

I'd also point out that Apple's device encryption scheme was specifically designed so that Apple itself cannot unlock devices, which thwarts law enforcement subpoenas for assistance. They can legitimately throw their hands up in the air and say "we have no ability to help you" - and that's by design. It is not illegal to design systems in this way. It just shifts the legal liability for misuse onto the users, where it should be.

[psychlops]

You should read about high frequency trading sometime.