The defendant declared that it was never his intention to break the law or to facilitate criminal activities. With Tornado Cash, he wanted to offer a legitimate solution for a growing need for privacy in the crypto community. According to him it is up to the users not to abuse Tornado Cash. And besides, it was impossible for him to prevent the abuse because of the technical specifications of Tornado Cash. 

The court disagrees. It was Tornado Cash that executed the concealing and disguising activities, previously described. When executing these activities with cryptocurrency derived from crime, Tornado Cash carries out money laundering activities. Therefore the court judges that Tornado Cash is not just a instrument for users.

Tornado Cash functions in the way the defendant and his cofounders developed Tornado Cash. So the operation is completely their responsibility. If the defendant had wanted to have the possibility to take action against abuse, then he should have built it in. But he did not. Tornado Cash does not pose any barrier for people with criminal assets who want to launder them. That is why the court regards the defendant guilty of the money laundering activities as charged.