What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Federal prosecutors reportedly cited a recent Bitcoin Fog appeals ruling while opposing Roman Storm’s challenge to New York venue on two conspiracy counts. The D.C. Circuit decision affirmed Roman Sterlingov’s convictions in a separate case; it did not decide Storm’s venue challenge or his motion for acquittal. As of October 7, 2026, the reported filing was DOJ’s argument, not a ruling by Storm’s judge.
What DOJ reportedly argued about Roman Storm
On October 6, PrimeXBT reported that prosecutors had filed a letter the previous day asking U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla to reject Storm’s challenge to venue in New York for the money-laundering and money-transmission conspiracy counts. The report says DOJ invoked the D.C. Circuit’s September 25 decision in United States v. Sterlingov, the Bitcoin Fog case.
The underlying October 5 letter was not independently available in the sources reviewed for this article. Its detailed reasoning and any response from Storm should therefore be checked against the Southern District of New York docket. The report establishes what prosecutors were said to argue; it does not establish that Judge Failla agreed.
What the Bitcoin Fog ruling actually decided
In United States v. Sterlingov, No. 24-3161, the D.C. Circuit affirmed Roman Sterlingov’s convictions on four counts and his 150-month sentence. The panel rejected challenges that included arguments about venue and evidence, and held that venue was proper in the District of Columbia for the counts in Sterlingov’s case. The opinion was argued May 12 and issued September 25, 2026.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11#1 Best Overall
The court’s venue analysis relied in substantial part on transactions involving undercover Special Agent Matthew Price in D.C. The opinion describes a 2019 Bitcoin Fog deposit and withdrawal, as well as a later transaction in which Price told the service that his bitcoin came from ecstasy sales and then withdrew funds in the district. For the money-laundering count, the court reasoned that the alleged unlawful source and withdrawal in D.C. supported venue under the applicable statute. For conspiracy, it concluded that transfers furthered the conspiracy in D.C. It also found sufficient evidence that Bitcoin Fog served customers in the district for the licensing counts.
The opinion explains that a mixer pools bitcoin deposits and withdrawals, potentially making it difficult to trace a particular deposit to a later withdrawal. It also describes investigative methods such as clustering addresses and associating clusters with known users or entities. Those are the court’s general explanation and the evidentiary context in Sterlingov; they are not a guarantee that every transaction can be traced or that every mixer works the same way.
How Sterlingov and Storm differ
| Question | Bitcoin Fog / Sterlingov | Tornado Cash / Storm |
|---|---|---|
| What happened? | The D.C. Circuit issued a decision affirming Sterlingov’s convictions and sentence and holding venue proper in D.C. on that case’s record. | DOJ reportedly filed an October 5 letter opposing Storm’s New York venue challenge; the filing details are based on PrimeXBT’s October 6 report. |
| What facts were at issue? | The appellate opinion discussed undercover transactions in D.C., including a withdrawal there, and evidence that Bitcoin Fog served customers in the district. | The available report does not provide the actual letter or establish the full venue record in Storm’s case. |
| What question does it address? | Whether venue was proper for Sterlingov’s counts in D.C. | Whether Storm’s challenged conspiracy counts may proceed in New York; the venue dispute is distinct from his acquittal motion and any retrial. |
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling is relevant as a decision prosecutors can cite, but it concerned a different defendant, service, record, and district. The sources available here do not establish that the Sterlingov opinion controls Judge Failla’s decision in Storm’s case.
Does the ruling threaten Storm’s acquittal motion?
Only indirectly, if at all, on the information currently reported. DOJ’s cited argument concerns venue in New York for two conspiracy counts. A decision on venue would address where those counts may be tried; it would not itself resolve whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction or decide Storm’s acquittal motion.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The appellate court’s own conclusion was case-specific: “Under these principles, we hold that venue is proper in D.C. for all four Counts.” “All four Counts” refers to Sterlingov’s counts, not Storm’s.
Storm’s case status and what to verify
The latest procedural report cited here, published by The Block on August 26, 2026, said the jury convicted Storm on one money-transmission count in August 2025 but did not reach a verdict on the money-laundering and sanctions charges. It reported that Judge Failla had scheduled a retrial on the unresolved charges for April 26, 2027, and that Storm’s acquittal motion remained pending at that time. That is an August snapshot, not confirmation of the docket’s status on October 7. Later filings or orders may have changed it.
DOJ’s August 2023 charging announcement named Storm and Roman Semenov and alleged conspiracies involving money laundering, sanctions violations, and unlicensed money transmission. The announcement’s accusations are allegations, not findings of guilt; DOJ states that defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Figures in the cases: allegations versus findings
- DOJ said more than 1.2 million bitcoin moved through Bitcoin Fog, valued at approximately $400 million at the time of the transactions. That is DOJ’s characterization of total movement and value, not a finding that the full amount represented criminal proceeds.
- In its 2023 Tornado Cash charging announcement, DOJ alleged that the service facilitated more than $1 billion in money-laundering transactions and that hundreds of millions of dollars were laundered for the Lazarus Group. Those are allegations in the charging announcement, not adjudicated findings in that release.
Why venue matters
Venue is the geographic place where a federal criminal charge may be tried. The Sterlingov opinion quoted 18 U.S.C. § 1956(i)(3): “a person who conducts ‘any portion of [a] transaction may be charged in any district in which the transaction took place.’” That statutory language was part of the court’s analysis in Sterlingov. It should not be treated as a ruling on Storm’s venue challenge, whose record and arguments are separate.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
