🚨🚨🚨 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 : 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹. ☠️☠️☠️ Roman Storm (@rstormsf) a construit un code open-source. Maintenant, il fait face à 45 ans de prison. Son procès commence dans 𝟮𝟬 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀. Seulement 𝟯𝟱% 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 $𝟮𝗠 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 fund est récolté. C'est plus qu'un homme. Il s'agit de 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵, du 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 du 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆. 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲. Montrons-leur de quoi sont faits les Bitcoiners. 👉 Faites un don en Bitcoin à @FreeAlexeyRoman:

Si @rstormsf n'est pas entièrement financé, nous avons vraiment perdu le fil dans cette industrie.

So the SDNY is still going forward with 1 of the original 2 charges of unlicensed money transmission in Roman's case. Let me help you understand how bizarre that is legally. A rant. The Federal criminal law defines unlicensed money transmission at 18 USC 1960(b)(1). That sub-part has three alternative prongs, (A)(B)(C). (A) says you are unlicensed because you fit a state law definition of money transmission and then transmitted in a state where you didn't have a license. SDNY never charged Roman with that. (B) says you are unlicensed because you fit the definition of MSB at section 5330 in the BSA and therefore needed to register with FinCEN but didn't. SDNY charged that but that charge has now been abandoned (rightfully because FinCEN clearly said non-custodial entities are not MSBs per 5330 and don't need to register). (C), the remaining charge [1960(b)(1)(C)] says you are unlicensed because you knowingly transported criminal funds. So the question is, if you are only "unlicensed" under (C) and not under (A) state law, or (B) federal BSA law, then who were you supposed to register or license with? FinCEN? no, that's who you register with to avoid (b)(1)(B). State money transmission regulators? no, the government never charged (b)(1)(A) which is failure to license in a state where a license is required. So if I can be "unlicensed" because of conduct described in (b)(1)(C) but no state or federal agency licenses that conduct then how in god's green earth am I unlicensed? Who does the SDNY think Roman was supposed to license with? They've admitted that it wouldn't be FinCEN by dropping the (b)(1)(B) charge. They never argued it was the states with a (b)(1)(A) charge? So who is it? If someone ends up going to jail because they failed to register when doing something that nobody required registration to do, then I'm going to lose my mind.

DOJ will not drop the charges against Roman Storm.