Between 1974 and 1986, the Golden State Killer committed 13 known murders, more than 67 sexual assaults, and 120 robberies in 11 different California jurisdictions, but suddenly he stopped. He simply disappeared and his identity remained a secret for over 30 years, until we finally discovered him using innovative new technology. Using Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which combines forensic DNA analysis and genealogical research, we solved the case and led the prosecution team that brought the Golden State Killer to justice. Since we first used IGG to solve this case, authorities around the world have resolved over a thousand cold cases using this innovative technology. But what would have happened if lawmakers suddenly overregulated or, worse yet, banned the use of IGG? We would see countless grieving children, women and families denied their due measure of justice.
We should promote innovation, not punish it. In areas like cryptocurrencies, ambiguous rules and enforcement create confusion and stifle growth, fueling underground and offshore industries. This creates an environment where real “bad actors” exploit the law and attack the vulnerable, and get away with it.
As Sacramento District Attorney, I have spent more than 25 years holding people accountable. I prosecuted gang members, charged offenders with hate crimes, and pursued drug dealers. I have also prosecuted fraud, financial crimes, corruption and high-tech crimes at the highest level. As someone who has written and helped pass legislation, I am aware that both prosecutors and the public need clarity about the laws that govern them. I know what real crime is like, and I know the difference between a genuine criminal and an industry caught in the crosshairs of a law that was never designed for them.
That distinction matters now more than ever, as federal prosecutors have been using a statute against software developers who have never touched a client’s funds, have never operated a business in the traditional sense and have never harbored criminal intent. As someone who has dedicated his career to justice, I am here to say that that is not justice, it is overreach.
Congress enacted 18 USC Section 1960 to target money transmitting businesses, such as stores, news services, and exchange houses, that handle other people’s money and circumvent licensing requirements designed to prevent money laundering. It was designed as the enforcement mechanism for licensing requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, aimed directly at traditional money services businesses. It was a sensible tool for a sensible purpose. What it was never intended to do is criminalize the writing of software.
However, that is precisely what has happened. Federal prosecutors have expanded Section 1960 to reach non-custodial peer-to-peer blockchain technology developers. These are people who created open source tools that automate transactions between willing parties, but never had a single dollar of user funds, never had “customers” in the true sense of the word, and never had the ability to intercept or redirect assets. Neither the developers nor the software itself control other people’s funds or transfer funds on their behalf. Charging them under a statute drawn up for traditional financial intermediaries is a mistake, because it is misinformed and misdirected. As prosecutors, justice requires that we charge people with what they actually did, under laws designed to cover it.
The “regulation by processing” approach to cryptocurrency development fails that test miserably. This approach chills open source innovation, pushing many American developers abroad. This unfairly burdens some with a criminal conviction and erodes American technological leadership in an area of important financial innovation. The US share of open source developers fell from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025, driven by the lack of clear rules for software development. Every developer we pursue overseas is a developer who is now building infrastructure beyond the reach of American oversight and beyond the reach of American authorities when something goes wrong.
That’s not a victory for public safety; That is a self-inflicted wound.
The good news is that some of this is starting to change. In April 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum titled “End
Regulation by process,” making it clear that the DOJ will not enforce pure regulatory violations under Section 1960. After the memo, the DOJ announced that it would not approve new Section 1960 charges “where evidence demonstrates that the software is truly decentralized and solely automates peer-to-peer transactions, and where a third party has no custody or control over the user’s assets.” That’s what the law has always required.
But neither a memorandum nor a speech is a statute. Procedural guidance may change with administrations and with U.S. attorneys. The American innovation community and the public deserve clarity into law. That’s why the Blockchain Development Innovation Promotion Act now before Congress deserves serious support. Restores the original intent of Section 1960: to protect the public from unlicensed financial intermediaries.
I’m not naïve about bad actors: there are genuine criminals using digital assets to launder money and defraud victims. I have processed them. I support strict enforcement against these criminals to the full extent of the applicable law. The answer here is simply not to abandon the distinction between the tool and the criminal who wields it. We do not charge email providers for electronic fraud. We identify the true bad actor, build the case and prosecute with evidence.
Section 1960 remains a powerful instrument against real criminals who transmit money in the digital asset space. Custodial exchanges that deliberately process criminal proceeds, centralized mixers operated specifically to hide illicit funds, platforms that ignore FinCEN registration while holding client assets – these are legitimate targets and the law catches up with them. You don’t have to go out of your way to reach a software developer in a Sacramento apartment who wrote a peer-to-peer protocol and never had a cent of anyone else’s money.
I came to this country as a child refugee from Vietnam, with nothing but my family and the belief that America rewards hard work and respects the rule of law. The rule of law works in both senses. It protects communities from violent crime, but it also protects innovators from overreach.
I run an office of almost 500 employees that processes almost 30,000 cases a year. As head of the second largest District Attorney’s Office in Northern California, I have been in court for 25 years and sworn to represent the victims, the vulnerable, and the voiceless. I believe that getting this distinction right should be a basic obligation of our federal government. Section 1960 is a good law that has been misused in relation to those involved in the development of truly decentralized financial technology. Fix the app, target the real criminals, and let American innovation breathe. That is what justice demands and that is why I will continue fighting.
