In a recent filing to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice urged the judge to reject an outside legal submission from the DeFi Education Fund.
Prosecutors argued that the proposed amicus brief adds nothing new to the legal questions already examined and would not assist the court as it reviews a motion to dismiss the charges against Anton and James Peraire-Bueno.
According to the government, the advocacy group’s arguments largely recycle positions the court has already considered. Because the brief is not tied directly to the trial record or the specific motion currently before the judge, prosecutors say it risks complicating the process rather than helping clarify the legal issues under review.
The dispute follows a mistrial declared in November, when jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The brothers are accused of orchestrating a roughly $25 million exploit involving automated trading strategies on the Ethereum blockchain, commonly associated with maximal extractable value, or MEV.
After the mistrial, prosecutors indicated they intend to retry the case, suggesting a new trial could take place as early as late February or early March 2026. The potential retrial has intensified debate within the crypto sector over where the line should be drawn between sophisticated onchain trading and criminal conduct.
The DeFi Education Fund has argued that prosecutions like this one could introduce uncertainty for developers and market participants, discouraging innovation and pushing activity outside the United States. In its view, applying traditional fraud statutes to complex blockchain interactions risks creating legal ambiguity in an area where regulatory clarity is still evolving.
This case has already attracted attention from other crypto policy organizations. Several groups have attempted to submit amicus briefs during earlier stages of the proceedings, raising concerns about the precedent such a prosecution could set. Prosecutors have consistently opposed those efforts, maintaining that outside commentary is unnecessary for the court’s decision-making.
If the case proceeds to retrial and results in convictions on the original charges — including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering — the brothers could face sentences of up to 20 years per count. Beyond the immediate legal stakes, the outcome is widely viewed as a potential turning point for how US courts interpret MEV strategies and complex smart-contract behavior within existing criminal law frameworks.
