3
District Court officially ordered to reverse sanctions against Tornado Cash
14d • macbudkowski.eth •

> "Contrary to the Department’s arguments, the immutable smart contracts are not services. So even when we consider OFAC’s regulatory definitions, the immutable smart contracts are not property because they are not ownable, not contracts, and not services. " > "Because these immutable smart contracts are not “property” under the word’s common, ordinary meaning or under OFAC definitions, we hold that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority."
Tornado Cash's TORN coin is up 91% on this news. Surprisingly, other privacy related projects like Railgun aren't up by the same amount
I pasted the PDF into Claude: This is a significant court ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that effectively overturns OFAC's (Office of Foreign Assets Control) sanctions against Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service. Key points: 1. The court ruled that OFAC exceeded its legal authority when it sanctioned Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts because these contracts don't qualify as "property" under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 2. The court's reasoning centered on three main arguments: - The smart contracts cannot be "owned" since they are immutable (unchangeable) - They are not actually contracts in a legal sense since they lack multiple parties - They are tools that provide a service rather than being services themselves 3. The practical consequences: - OFAC's sanctions against Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts are invalidated - The contracts will remain accessible and functional since they cannot be controlled or shut down - However, this doesn't affect sanctions against individuals or mutable parts of Tornado Cash 4. Broader implications: - This creates a limitation on the government's ability to sanction certain types of decentralized, immutable blockchain technology - The court acknowledged this could be problematic but said updating the law is Congress's job, not the courts' This ruling represents a significant development in how traditional regulatory frameworks interact with new blockchain technologies, particularly those designed to be outside anyone's control.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​