custodial

On Monday, software developer Michael Lewellen filed a comprehensive reply brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, escalating his legal challenge against the Department of Justice (DOJ). At the heart of the dispute is the DOJ’s expansive interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960, a criminal statute governing unlicensed money-transmitting businesses. Lewellen, who is developing "Pharos," a non-custodial software platform intended for decentralized crowdfunding, contends that the government’s current legal stance creates a persistent, credible threat of prosecution that stifles innovation and forces developers to operate under the constant shadow of potential federal incarceration.

The legal battle represents a critical inflection point for the broader cryptocurrency industry. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has previously provided guidance suggesting that the mere development of software—which does not involve the custody of user funds—does not constitute money transmission, the DOJ has frequently pursued a divergent, more aggressive path. By filing this reply brief, Lewellen is seeking a declaratory judgment to clarify that his activities do not fall under the purview of federal money-transmitting laws, effectively attempting to shield developers from what he characterizes as an overreach of executive authority.

Chronology of a Regulatory Confrontation

The conflict began when Lewellen initiated a pre-enforcement challenge in the Northern District of Texas. His objective was to obtain a court ruling that would provide legal certainty before he formally launched Pharos. However, the district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of a "credible threat" of prosecution. This dismissal was largely predicated on a memo issued by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, which outlined the DOJ’s enforcement priorities regarding cryptocurrency.

Lewellen’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit argues that the district court’s reliance on the Blanche memo was fundamentally flawed. The chronology of events is central to his argument: the suit was filed before the memo was released, and the memo itself is a statement of discretionary policy rather than a binding legal interpretation. Consequently, Lewellen asserts that the threat of prosecution remains active, particularly given the DOJ’s history of targeting other developers in the crypto space.

The Divergence Between FinCEN and the DOJ

The core of the legal tension lies in the conflicting signals coming from U.S. regulatory and law enforcement bodies. In 2019, FinCEN issued formal guidance clarifying that individuals who create, distribute, or provide software—without exercising control over the underlying assets—generally do not qualify as money transmitters. This interpretation is consistent with the traditional understanding of financial regulation, which requires "custody" or "control" as a prerequisite for money transmission licensure.

Conversely, the DOJ has adopted a novel and significantly broader interpretation. In its high-profile prosecutions of the developers behind Samourai Wallet and Tornado Cash, the DOJ bypassed the traditional requirement of asset custody. Instead, it pursued charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1960 by framing the simple act of publishing software as the operation of an unlicensed money-transmitting business. These actions have created a chilling effect across the developer community, as they suggest that the DOJ considers the mere act of writing and releasing code to be a criminal act if the software facilitates transactions that the government deems non-compliant.

Analysis of the Legal Arguments

Lewellen’s latest brief rests on four pillars designed to demonstrate why his challenge is not only valid but necessary for the protection of constitutional rights.

First, he addresses the issue of "standing." The government argues that because Lewellen has not been charged, he lacks standing to sue. Lewellen counters that the purpose of a pre-enforcement challenge is precisely to prevent the state from waiting until a citizen has crossed a perceived legal line before taking action. He maintains that he should not be required to risk federal imprisonment simply to test the government’s interpretation of the law.

Second, he cites the precedent of the Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet prosecutions as evidence of a "credible threat." The DOJ contends that Lewellen cannot simultaneously claim to be a law-abiding citizen and fear prosecution. Lewellen’s legal team argues this is a logical fallacy, noting that the government frequently "overreads" the law, and that he does not need to replicate the exact conduct of previously targeted developers to fall within the scope of the DOJ’s broad, and potentially erroneous, interpretation of § 1960.

Third, the brief highlights the DOJ’s refusal to "disavow" future prosecution. Even when asked to clarify whether the release of non-custodial software is per se illegal, the DOJ has provided only ambiguous statements. For a developer, this lack of clarity is a functional equivalent to a threat, as it leaves them vulnerable to unpredictable enforcement actions.

Finally, Lewellen attacks the district court’s reliance on the Blanche memo. He argues that a memo reflecting internal policy priorities does not—and cannot—amend the underlying criminal statute. Since the memo was issued after the lawsuit began, it cannot be used to retroactively negate his standing or the legitimacy of his claim.

The Broader Impact on Blockchain Development

The failure of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) to pass into law has left a significant vacuum in federal oversight. Even if the Act had been enacted, legal experts note that it likely would have left gaps regarding the specific criminal statutes the DOJ currently leverages against developers. The current reliance on judicial interpretation makes cases like Lewellen’s essential for defining the boundaries of software development in the United States.

Data from the industry suggests that the current regulatory climate has forced significant amounts of software development and capital to migrate to jurisdictions with clearer legal frameworks. When developers fear that the act of publishing code could result in felony charges, the natural consequence is a reduction in domestic innovation.

Official Positions and Industry Reactions

The DOJ has maintained that its actions are necessary to curb illicit financial activity and prevent the circumvention of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations. The department’s position is that bad actors often mask their activities behind the facade of "non-custodial" software, and therefore, prosecutors must retain the flexibility to interpret § 1960 in a way that captures these technological workarounds.

Conversely, advocacy groups such as Coin Center have consistently argued that the DOJ’s approach is a dangerous encroachment on the freedom to develop software. They contend that the law should be applied to the conduct of businesses that actually transmit money, not to the engineers who write the tools that others may use. The organization has pledged to support Lewellen throughout the appellate process, viewing the case as a litmus test for whether the judiciary will allow the DOJ to effectively "rewrite" criminal law through enforcement actions rather than through the legislative process.

Implications for the Future

As the Fifth Circuit considers the merits of the appeal, the outcome will likely have lasting implications for the digital asset ecosystem. If the court rules in favor of the DOJ, it will effectively cement a precedent where software developers are held legally responsible for the actions of their users, provided the DOJ deems their software capable of facilitating unlicensed money transmission. This would represent a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence regarding the liability of developers.

However, a ruling in favor of Lewellen would provide a critical safeguard for the industry. It would reinforce the principle that criminal statutes must be interpreted narrowly and that the government cannot use the threat of prosecution to chill the development of open-source technology. As the case proceeds, it remains a focal point for those monitoring the intersection of constitutional law, technological innovation, and federal regulatory authority. The industry now awaits the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which will either provide a clear path forward for developers or underscore the ongoing volatility of the current legal environment.

On Monday, software developer Michael Lewellen filed a comprehensive reply brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, escalating his legal challenge against the Department of Justice (DOJ). At the heart of the dispute is the federal government’s aggressive interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960, a criminal statute governing unlicensed money-transmitting businesses. Lewellen, the creator of a non-custodial crowdfunding platform titled "Pharos," argues that the DOJ’s broad reading of the statute creates a chilling effect, effectively criminalizing the act of publishing decentralized software by labeling developers as money transmitters.

The filing marks a critical juncture in the ongoing tension between the cryptocurrency development community and federal regulators. As legislative efforts like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) remain stalled in Congress, the judicial branch has become the primary battleground for determining whether the mere act of writing and releasing code can be equated to the operation of a financial institution.

Chronology of the Legal Conflict

The roots of the current litigation trace back to Lewellen’s initial pre-enforcement challenge filed in the Northern District of Texas. Seeking a declaratory judgment, Lewellen aimed to establish that the publication of non-custodial software—which does not require the developer to hold or control user funds—falls outside the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1960.

The case gained momentum following a series of high-profile DOJ enforcement actions against decentralized finance (DeFi) developers. In response, the district court initially dismissed the suit, citing a lack of a "credible threat" of prosecution. This determination was heavily influenced by a policy memo issued by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche regarding the DOJ’s enforcement priorities in the digital asset space. Lewellen’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit contends that this dismissal was premature and failed to account for the persistent legal risks posed by the DOJ’s interpretation of existing statutes.

The Conflict of Interpretation: DOJ vs. FinCEN

A central pillar of Lewellen’s argument is the stark divergence between the DOJ’s enforcement strategy and the guidance provided by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In 2019, FinCEN issued formal guidance explicitly stating that the development of software, in and of itself, does not constitute money transmission. The guidance emphasizes that the control of customer funds is a fundamental prerequisite for being classified as a money-services business (MSB).

Despite this, the DOJ has frequently bypassed or outright rejected these parameters in its criminal filings. In the cases of Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet, the DOJ pursued charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1960, effectively treating the developers as though they were operating financial platforms. The DOJ has previously characterized FinCEN’s guidance as lacking "authoritative effect" in the context of criminal prosecution, a stance that has alarmed legal experts and the developer community alike. By asserting that publishing code can be classified as operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, the DOJ is arguably attempting to reshape regulatory definitions through the criminal justice system rather than through established rulemaking processes.

Arguments for Judicial Standing

The DOJ’s defense has largely relied on the argument that Lewellen lacks standing because he has not yet been subjected to an investigation or specific enforcement action. Government attorneys have described his fear of prosecution as "too generalized."

In his reply brief, Lewellen counters this by asserting that the entire purpose of a pre-enforcement challenge is to resolve legal ambiguity before a developer is forced to risk federal prison. He argues that he should not be required to "wait around for the government to investigate or prosecute him" to clarify whether his lawful professional activities constitute a felony. Furthermore, he contends that the Fifth Circuit must accept his factual allegations—namely, the nature of Pharos’s operation—as true at this stage of the proceedings.

Lewellen’s brief further posits that the recent prosecutions of developers in the Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet cases serve as clear evidence that his fear is well-founded. He argues that the DOJ’s willingness to ignore the non-custodial nature of those platforms demonstrates a broad, aggressive interpretation of § 1960 that could easily be applied to Pharos.

The Role of the Blanche Memo

The DOJ has leaned heavily on the memorandum issued by Todd Blanche to argue that there is no immediate threat to developers who are not engaged in the specific illicit activities outlined in the memo. However, the legal team representing Lewellen argues that the memo is insufficient for several reasons:

1. Discretionary Nature: The memo represents an enforcement priority list rather than a binding legal interpretation. It can be rescinded or altered by the DOJ at any time, leaving developers with no permanent protection.
2. Post-Suit Issuance: The memo was released after the initial lawsuit was filed, meaning it cannot retroactively negate the standing that existed at the time of the complaint.
3. Statutory Authority: The memo does not renounce the DOJ’s underlying legal authority to prosecute non-custodial software developers under § 1960. It merely outlines when the DOJ might choose to exercise its discretion, which does not provide the legal certainty required to foster innovation.

Broader Implications for the Blockchain Industry

The failure of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to pass as part of the broader Clarity Act has left the industry in a state of regulatory limbo. While some proponents had hoped for a legislative fix, analysts note that even the most comprehensive versions of the BRCA were limited in scope. Specifically, they likely would not have provided protection against the specific subsections of § 1960 that the DOJ has used to target developers.

This leaves the judiciary as the final arbiter. A victory for Lewellen in the Fifth Circuit could establish a vital precedent, shielding software developers from being classified as money transmitters simply by virtue of the code they publish. Conversely, if the courts continue to uphold the DOJ’s broad interpretation, the barrier to entry for decentralized software development in the United States could become prohibitively high, potentially forcing innovation into jurisdictions with more predictable regulatory frameworks.

Conclusion: The Future of Developer Rights

The case of Michael Lewellen versus the Department of Justice is more than a dispute over a specific piece of crowdfunding software. It is a fundamental contest over the scope of government power in the digital age. As the DOJ continues to leverage criminal statutes to regulate technology, the legal community is increasingly focused on the requirement for clear, predictable definitions of what constitutes a financial business.

For developers, the stakes are existential. Without clear judicial guidance that distinguishes between providing a tool and operating a financial service, the risk of prosecution remains a significant deterrent to the development of open-source software. As the Fifth Circuit reviews the reply brief, the decision will likely set the tone for how federal prosecutors interact with the crypto-asset industry for years to come. The outcome will ultimately determine whether the United States will continue to be a hub for blockchain innovation or whether legal uncertainty will compel the industry’s most talented builders to look elsewhere.