The defense in Samulai’s case believes it is necessary to hear delayed Brady’s disclosure
On Monday, May 12, the defense in the Samourai Wallet case submitted a letter to the SDNY in which it made the case for the court to schedule a hearing regarding the information that came to light on April 1, 2025 about an August 23, 2023 call between the prosecution (“Government”) and FinCEN in which members of FinCEN stated that they didn’t believe that Samourai Wallet was a money transmitting business due to the noncustodial nature of the product.
The letter was submitted immediately after a letter filed with the court on Friday, May 9 Brady Rules (deduct evidence).
Defence claims prosecution does suppress key evidence
In this letter, the defense pointed out that the prosecution Have done it Rejection can clear evidence from Samulai developers for allegedly conspiring to run a monetary service business.
“The message of government suppression for nearly a year is classic Brady: In investigating Samulai wallet, the prosecutor called Fincen to determine whether he was eligible to be a “money service business” required to obtain a license and implement anti-money laundering controls,” the defense wrote.
They added: “Two Fincen employees, including Fincen’s virtual assets and emerging technology divisions, responded to the emerging technology division in the law enforcement and compliance divisions, and under Fincen’s guidance, the answer was “no” because Samourai did not keep the user’s cryptocurrency.”
“Because this response happens to be related to the public statements of Samourai Wallet, Samourai Wallet has provided strong evidence for Mr. Hill and Mr. Rodriguez that its business does not meet the money laundering requirements for licensing and currency transmitters. [the defendants] Trustfully believe they have not violated any laws. ”
The defense continued to point out that the prosecution brought in unauthorized currency transfer fees for conspiracy to operate, despite the telling of them by Fincen members. It also argues that the prosecution still sticks to the allegation despite two U.S. senators protesting in a letter and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department would no longer target virtual currencies mixing or shutting down services.
Furthermore, the defense stressed that, in customary terms, evidence favoring the defense should be disclosed within two weeks of the indictment, whether or not the defense has requested – and two separate court orders under Rule 5 (f) reaffirmed the need for disclosure Brady Once information is found.
The defense argued that the long-term delay in the government’s disclosure of the August 23, 2023 call with Fincen is enough to guarantee a hearing on the events it requested.
The government downplays what it learned from Fincen
The defense also pointed out that the government has minimized the importance of the information shared with Fincen members on August 23, 2023.
It highlights the appeal of how the government calls Fincen “informal” and the message of Fincen members is their “personal opinion” and the interpretation of the law lacks any “authoritative effect”.
“It’s sophistry,” the defense wrote, the government’s downplaying of the information Fincen received.
The defense added that it is important to consider that the interpretation of Fincen’s guidance by two members was the same as the defendant expressed in his public statement.
Danger of estimation detention
The defense acknowledges Brady The rules simply require the disclosure of evidence that is beneficial to the defendant before the trial begins. However (importantly), it also noted that the government’s suppression of what it has learned was problematic because for the conspiracy, “there is no reason to believe that the prosecution, in the case of first-year charges against developers at Samourai, was transgender in the case of first-year, and in the case of first-year, the ineffective commercial expenses were restricted.
It also noted that during the year, the defendants “experienced significant restrictions on freedom and spent a large portion of their savings to defend themselves”, partly because of the government’s withholding information.
Precedents for hearings
In the last part of the letter, the defense noted that there was a precedent for the type of hearing required.
“When faced with belated disclosure Brady “Information, the district’s courts did not hesitate to ask prosecutors to explain their actions, including through disclosure of internal letters on whether and when the information was disclosed.”
“Before the government refuses to disclose this information to the defense, the court should force this to do so and then hold a hearing to determine if the government is late Brady Information and appropriate remedies. ” the defense concluded.
