From 1974 to 1986, the Golden State Killer committed 13 known murders, more than 67 sexual assaults and 120 burglaries in 11 different California jurisdictions, but then he suddenly stopped. He simply disappeared and his identity remained a secret for over 30 years, until we finally caught him using innovative new technology. Using IGG (Investigative Genetic Genealogy), which combines forensic DNA analysis and genealogical research, we solved the case and I led the prosecution team that brought the Golden State Killer to justice. Since we first used IGG to solve this case, law enforcement agencies around the world have solved more than a thousand cold cases using this innovative technology. But what would have happened if lawmakers had suddenly over-regulated, or worse yet, banned the use of IGG? We would see countless children, women and grieving families denied the justice they deserve.
We must promote innovation, not punish it. In areas such as cryptocurrency, ambiguous rules and enforcement lead to confusion and stifle growth, driving industries underground and offshore. This creates an environment where truly “bad actors” exploit the law and target vulnerable people – and get away with it.
As Sacramento District Attorney, I spent more than 25 years holding people accountable. I’ve prosecuted gang members, indicted hate crime perpetrators, and prosecuted drug dealers. I have also prosecuted fraud, financial crimes, corruption and high-tech crimes at the highest levels. As an author and contributor to the passage of laws, I understand that prosecutors and the public need clarity on the laws that govern them. I know what real crime looks like, and I know the difference between a real criminal and an industry caught in the crosshairs of a law that was never intended for them.
That distinction is more important than ever as federal prosecutors have used a statute against software developers who never touched a client’s funds, never operated a business in the traditional sense, and never harbored criminal intent. As someone who has dedicated his career to justice, I am here to say that this is not justice, it is excess.
Congress enacted Section 18 USC of 1960 to target money transmitting businesses, such as storefronts, wire services, and currency exchange houses that handle other people’s money and circumvent licensing requirements intended to prevent money laundering. It was designed as a mechanism for enforcing 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 was criminalize writing software.
And yet, that is precisely what happened. Federal prosecutors have expanded Section 1960 to reach non-custodial peer-to-peer blockchain technology developers. These are people who have built open source tools that automate transactions between consenting parties, but who have never held 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 the funds of others or transfer funds on their behalf. Charging them under a statute designed for traditional financial intermediaries is a mistake, because it is ill-informed and misdirected. As prosecutors, justice requires that we charge people with what they actually did, under laws designed to cover that.
The “regulation by prosecution” approach to crypto development seriously fails this test. This approach inhibits open source innovation, driving many American developers abroad. This unfairly imposes criminal convictions on some and erodes American technological leadership in an area of significant financial innovation. The US share of open source developers fell from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025, due to 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 U.S. oversight and beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement if something goes wrong.
This is not a victory for public safety; It’s a self-inflicted wound.
The good news is that some things are starting to change. In April 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum entitled “Ending
Settlement by Pursuit,” clarifying that the DOJ will not enforce pure regulatory violations under Section 1960. Following the memo, the DOJ announced that it would not approve new charges under Section 1960 “when the evidence shows that the software is truly decentralized and only automates peer-to-peer transactions, and when a third party does not have custody and control of user assets.” » This is what the law has always required.
But neither a note nor a speech constitutes law. Prosecutorial guidelines may change between jurisdictions and U.S. Attorneys. America’s innovation community and the public deserve clarity in the law. This is why the Law on Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development, currently before Congress, deserves serious support. It restores the original intent of Section 1960: to protect the public from unlicensed financial intermediaries.
I’m not naive about bad actors: there are real criminals who use digital assets to launder money and defraud their victims. I chased them. I support rigorous enforcement against these criminals with the full weight of applicable law. The answer here is simply not to abandon the distinction between the tool and the criminal who uses it. We do not charge email providers for electronic fraud. We identify the real bad actor, build the case and follow up with evidence.
Section 1960 remains a powerful tool against real criminals transmitting money in the digital asset space. Custodial exchanges that knowingly handle the proceeds of crime, centralized mixers operated specifically to hide illicit funds, platforms that flout FinCEN registration while holding customer assets – these are legitimate targets, and the law hits them. There’s no need to reach out to a software developer in a Sacramento apartment who wrote a peer-to-peer protocol and never held a dime 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 cuts both ways. It protects communities from violent crime, but it also protects innovators from excess.
I manage an office of nearly 500 employees that pursues nearly 30,000 cases per year. As the head of the second-largest District Attorney’s Office in Northern California, I have been in courtrooms for 25 years and sworn to represent victims, the vulnerable and the voiceless. I believe that making this distinction should be a fundamental obligation of our federal government. Section 1960 is a good law that has been misused by those involved in the development of truly decentralized financial technology. Fix the app, target the real criminals, and let American innovation breathe. This is what justice demands, and this is what I will continue to fight for.
