Great interview with Rodriguez.

The regulatory agency in charge of illicit finance and money transmission is called FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It's a Department of the Treasury offshoot, and their whole remit is to stop illicit finance and to regulate money transmission. In 2013, they wrote, for a regulatory agency, very common-sense guidance. They said in order to be a money transmitter you have to take custody of the money, because how can you transmit something that you don't have? It was very clear in 2013. In 2019, they reiterated their previous guidance: You have to have custody and control of the money if you're a money transmitter.

The government, of course, we know they charged me with unlicensed money transmission, but what most people don't know is six months before the government brought the indictment, they actually went to FinCEN and the government asked FinCEN, "Is Samourai Wallet an unlicensed money transmitter?" And FinCEN responded to the government in writing, in black and white, "No, they don't take custody of the funds. We wouldn't consider them a money transmitter."

We operated Samourai Wallet openly and notoriously because we thought it was so clear that we are on the right side of the law. We weren't doing anything wrong. We were following the guidance. That was, I guess, some level of naiveté that the government will follow their own rules. Now, it's very clear that it doesn't matter. If you're in their targets, they'll figure out a way to take you down.

So yes, unfortunately, I think it is the case that future tools, even if they are clearly and unambiguously within the realm of the law, [they] need to take adequate protection against a government that will go after them if they don't like the tool.

They changed the judge on them.

Suddenly, two or three days before we're supposed to argue these motions in front of the judge, our judge changes, which is unusual. Normally, you get a judge at the beginning of your case and you see that judge throughout the entirety of your case. It can happen for real extreme sickness or something like that. But that wasn't the case here.

So you have a top prosecutor who's now a judge, and she has a reputation for being a very harsh sentencer. If she can give the max, she's giving the max. If you go to trial and you don't take a deal, you're not getting any leniency. It's called the trial penalty. You're getting the full 25 years, in my case. So these were concerning developments.

Our first time appearing in front of Judge Cote, we're there to argue these motions. She gets onto the bench, she sits down, she says, "I've read your motions. They're all denied." And that was the end of it. There was no argument, there was no trying to convince the judge of the merits of our motions. The fact that the government had withheld evidence wasn't even in contention, but it was denied. And the amicus briefs, which are something that are routinely approved throughout courts all over the country, because judges aren't experts at everything, they need guidance and help, that was also denied. And actually there was even no written or verbal opinion as to why she denied the motions. We have no understanding as to what her thought process is. We have nothing to even appeal, because she didn't say or write what her thought process was.

I don't want to copy and paste the whole thing. One last quote:

This new innovation of money and transactions being permissioned by the government: It's brand new. Last several decades. And so I don't even know if I have to defend it. I think they have to defend their interpretation to us.