From 1974-1986, the Golden State Killer committed 13 known murders, up to 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 a new innovative technology. Using Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which combines forensic DNA analysis and genealogy, we cracked 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 around the world has solved over a thousand cold cases using this innovative technology. But what would have happened if lawmakers suddenly overregulated, or worse, banned the use of IGG? We would see countless children, women and grieving families denied their justice.
We should encourage innovation, not punish it. In areas like cryptocurrency, ambiguous regulations and enforcement lead to confusion and stifle growth, driving industries underground and offshore. This creates an environment where real “bad actors” take advantage of the law and target the vulnerable – and get away with it.
As the District Attorney of Sacramento, I have spent more than 25 years holding people accountable. I prosecuted gang members, charged hate criminals and went after drug dealers. I have also prosecuted fraud, financial crime, corruption and high-tech crime at the highest level. As someone who has authored and helped pass legislation, I am aware that both prosecutors and the public need clarity about 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 matters more than ever, as federal prosecutors have weaponized a statute against software developers who have never touched a customer’s money, never run a business in the traditional sense, and never had criminal intent. As someone who has devoted his career to justice, I’m here to say that’s not justice, it’s overreach.
Congress enacted 18 USC Section 1960 to target money-transmitting businesses, such as storefronts, banking services, and exchange houses, that handle other people’s money and exceed licensing requirements designed to prevent money laundering. It was designed as the enforcement mechanism for 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 is to criminalize writing software.
Yet that is exactly what has happened. Federal prosecutors have stretched Section 1960 to reach developers of non-custodial, peer-to-peer blockchain technology. These are people who built open source tools that automate transactions between willing parties, but who never had a single dollar of user funds, never had “customers” in any real sense of the word, and never had any ability to intercept or divert assets. Neither the developers nor the software themselves control other people’s money or transfer money on their behalf. Charging them under a law built for traditional financial intermediaries is a mistake because it is misinformed and misdirected. As prosecutors, justice requires that we charge people with what they actually did under laws designed to cover it.
The “regulation-by-prosecution” approach to crypto development fails this test badly. This approach chills open source innovation and pushes many American developers offshore. This unfairly saddles some with a criminal conviction and erodes American technological leadership in an area of consequential financial innovation. The US share of open source developers fell from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025, driven by a lack of clear rules for software development. Every developer we chase overseas is a developer who is now building infrastructure beyond the reach of US oversight and beyond the reach of US law enforcement when things go wrong.
It is not a victory for public safety; it is a self-inflicted wound.
The good news is that some of this is starting to change. In April 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum titled “Ending
Regulation-by-Prosecution,” making it clear that the DOJ will not enforce pure regulatory violations under Section 1960. After the memo, the DOJ announced that it would not approve new Section 1960 charges “where the evidence shows that software is truly decentralized and solely automates peer-to-peer regulatory transactions, and where a third party has control over what a third party’s assets have.” has always required.
But neither a memorandum nor a speech is a statute. Prosecutorial guidance is subject to change with administrations and with U.S. attorneys. The American innovation community and the public deserve clarity written into law. Therefore, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act now 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 to bad actors – there are real criminals who use digital assets to launder money and defraud victims. I have sued them. I support robust enforcement of these criminals with the full weight of existing 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 fraud. We identify the actual bad actor, build the case and prosecute with evidence.
Section 1960 remains a powerful instrument against genuine money-transmitting criminals in the digital asset space. Custodial exchanges that knowingly process criminal proceeds, centralized mixers that operate specifically to hide illicit funds, platforms that ignore FinCEN registration while holding client assets—these are legitimate targets, and the law reaches them. It doesn’t have to be a stretch to reach a software developer in an apartment in Sacramento who wrote a peer-to-peer protocol and never had a dime of someone 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. Legal certainty cuts both ways. It protects communities from violent crime, but it also protects innovators from overreach.
I run an office of nearly 500 employees that prosecutes nearly 30,000 cases a year. As the head of the second largest District Attorney’s Office in Northern California, I have stood in courtrooms for 25 years sworn to represent victims, the vulnerable and the voiceless. I believe that achieving this distinction should be a fundamental commitment of our federal government. Section 1960 is a good law that has been misused against those involved in developing truly decentralized financial technology. Fix the application, target the actual criminals and let American innovation breathe. This is what justice demands and I will continue to fight for it.
