In a correspondence submitted today to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the attorneys representing the Samourai Wallet matter asserted that they did not retain exculpatory evidence and asked the judge to reject the defense’s petition for a hearing concerning the delayed revelation of crucial information obtained from FinCEN almost two years prior.
Earlier this week, the defense stated in a notice that they had discovered that FinCEN had “strongly suggested” that Samourai Wallet was not functioning as a money transmitting business due to the noncustodial characteristics of the service in discussions with specific FinCEN staff members (more on these individuals in the subsequent sections) and the prosecutors on August 23, 2023.
This information surfaced thanks to a Brady motion submitted by the defense. (This type of motion is named after the Brady v. Maryland Supreme Court case from 1963, which established the Brady rule mandating that exculpatory evidence be made available to the defense as part of due process.)
Considering that one of the two accusations against the Samourai developers includes conspiracy to conduct an unlicensed money transmitting operation, some believed this newly revealed information could justify dismissing the case.
No Dismissal, No Hearing
Nevertheless, today’s correspondence from the prosecutors indicates they have no plans to discontinue the case, nor do they consider the hearing requested by the defense to be justified.
“There is no justification for a hearing, nor is there any issue to rectify: the disclosure itself demonstrates that the government has not breached Brady,” the prosecutors articulated in the letter. “The Government disclosed all known substantive communications between the prosecution team and FinCEN months ahead of pretrial motions and trial.”
The prosecutors emphasized that they intend to continue with the case, underscoring the second charge: conspiracy to engage in money laundering.
“As alleged, Samourai laundered over $100 million in criminal proceeds sourced from, among other unlawful origins: illegal darkweb marketplaces such as Silk Road and Hydra Market; various wire fraud and computer fraud schemes that defrauded victims of funds, encompassing web-server intrusions, a spear phishing operation, and schemes to mislead multiple decentralized finance protocols; as well as other illicit activities,” they wrote.
Minimizing The Input From FinCEN
Moreover, the prosecutors argued that their recent disclosure of communications with FinCEN is insignificant to the case, as a substantial portion of the alleged conduct does not hinge on FinCEN regulations.
They further minimized the significance of the views expressed by the FinCEN employees who interacted with the prosecutors: Kevin O’Conner (Chief of FinCEN’s Virtual Assets and Emerging Technology Section within the Enforcement and Compliance Division) and Lorena Valente (a member of FinCEN’s Policy Division when she communicated with the prosecution).
The prosecutors characterized O’Conner and Valente’s perspectives as “individual, informal, and caveated,” noting they had already shared “substantive email exchanges between the prosecution team and FinCEN representatives pertaining to the August 23, 2023 conversation.”
They further stated that “the individual FinCEN employees were not representing FinCEN, they were not conveying FinCEN’s stance, and they ‘did not have insight into what FinCEN would determine if this matter were presented to their FinCEN policy committee.’”
No Brady Breach
In the concluding section of the letter, the prosecutors maintained that they had not transgressed legal standards by failing to present specific details of their August 23, 2023 dialogue with FinCEN until now in the pre-trial proceedings.
“The records indicate that there was no Brady violation in this instance,” the prosecutors noted.
“The government informed the defense about the content of this informal discussion prior to pretrial motions, and approximately seven months ahead of trial due to a request for that information,” they added. “No further action is necessary.”
Lastly, referencing a Second Circuit ruling included in their letter, the prosecutors mentioned that as long as the defense receives Brady evidence timely for effective utilization, the government has not denied the defense due process.
What Comes Next?
The timeline for when Judge Berman will address today’s letter from the prosecution remains unclear.
The defense’s initial motion was initially set for today but has been delayed by two weeks. A week after the opening motion, the prosecution is scheduled to respond to the defense’s initial motion.
According to the last pre-trial hearing, the prosecution is expected to offer its expert disclosure on July 15, 2025, while the defense is anticipated to do so by August 8, 2025.
The trial is planned to commence on November 3, 2025.
If you wish to contribute to the defense fund for the Samourai developers, you can do so through the P2P Rights Fund.
