Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti stated at the American Innovation Project Summit on August 21, 2025, that “merely writing code, without ill intent, is not a crime.”
This was part of a broader discussion on the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to digital asset enforcement, emphasizing that developers contributing to open-source projects without specific intent to facilitate criminal activity, such as fraud, money laundering, or sanctions evasion, are not criminally liable. Galeotti clarified that the DOJ will not pursue charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (unlicensed money transmitting) for decentralized software that automates peer-to-peer transactions without third-party control over user assets.
This stance follows a memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, signaling a shift from previous aggressive crypto enforcement policies. However, Galeotti noted that developers with proven criminal intent could still face prosecution.
The statement has been welcomed by the crypto community as reducing regulatory uncertainty, though some skepticism remains about its practical impact, especially in light of recent convictions like that of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm.
Developers contributing to open-source projects, such as decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols or blockchain tools, are less likely to face criminal liability under laws like 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (unlicensed money transmitting) if their work lacks criminal intent. This provides a clearer legal boundary, protecting developers from prosecution for simply creating software.
This could lead to fewer investigations or prosecutions of open-source developers, fostering a less adversarial regulatory environment.
However, the caveat that developers with proven criminal intent remain liable means due diligence is still critical. Developers must avoid knowingly enabling illegal activities, such as by designing software explicitly for criminal purposes. By alleviating fears of criminal prosecution, developers may feel more confident contributing to open-source projects.
The clarification may encourage more developers to engage in open-source projects without worrying about unintended legal consequences, especially for tools like mixers or privacy protocols that have faced scrutiny (e.g., Tornado Cash). While the statement is a step toward clarity, skepticism persists due to recent cases like the conviction of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm.
The clarification is limited to criminal liability under specific statutes and does not address civil or regulatory actions (e.g., by the SEC or CFTC), which could still pose risks for developers. Jurisdictional differences and international regulations may complicate the global open-source ecosystem, as other countries may not adopt a similar stance.
The crypto and open-source communities have largely welcomed this clarification, as it reduces the “chilling effect” of regulatory overreach. It may boost trust in the U.S. as a jurisdiction supportive of blockchain innovation. However, the DOJ’s continued scrutiny of intent means developers must maintain transparency and ethical practices.
Open-source projects thrive on community contributions. With reduced fear of criminal liability, more developers — especially those in the U.S. — may participate in projects like decentralized exchanges, privacy protocols, or blockchain infrastructure, leading to richer, more robust software ecosystems.
The clarification could make open-source blockchain projects more attractive to investors and developers, as the legal risks associated with contributing to or funding such projects are diminished. This could lead to increased funding for open-source initiatives, enabling faster development and broader adoption.
Open-source solutions in DeFi, NFTs, and other blockchain applications often rely on decentralized, peer-to-peer frameworks. The DOJ’s acknowledgment that software automating such transactions (without third-party control) is not inherently criminal validates these models, encouraging their development.
The statement aligns with the view that writing code is a form of expression, potentially strengthening legal arguments that code is protected under free speech principles. This could benefit open-source developers in future legal battles, particularly in cases involving privacy or encryption tools.
Open-source projects can now better structure their development processes to avoid legal pitfalls. For example, clear documentation of intent, adherence to anti-money laundering (AML) best practices, and transparency in code contributions can help projects stay within the DOJ’s clarified boundaries.
The DOJ’s clarification is a significant win for open-source solutions, particularly in the blockchain and digital asset space. It reduces legal risks, encourages innovation, and supports the growth of decentralized technologies by reassuring developers that writing code, absent criminal intent, is not a crime.
Open-source projects stand to benefit from increased participation, investment, and legal clarity, fostering a more vibrant ecosystem. However, developers must remain vigilant about compliance, and the industry should advocate for consistent enforcement and broader regulatory alignment to fully realize these benefits.
