The Golden State Killer committed 13 known murders, 67 sexual assaults and 120 burglaries in 11 different California jurisdictions from 1974 to 1986, before his criminal activities suddenly ceased. He simply disappeared, and his identity remained a secret for more than 30 years, until we finally caught him using an innovative new technology. Using Investigative Genealogy (IGG), which combines forensic DNA analysis and genealogical research, we solved the case and I led the prosecutorial 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 used this innovative technology to solve more than a thousand cold cases. But what happens if lawmakers suddenly overregulate, or worse yet, ban IGG? We will see countless children, women and grieving families denied the justice they deserve.
We should promote innovation, not punish it. In areas like cryptocurrency, vague rules and enforcement can lead to confusion and stifle growth, driving the industry underground and offshore. This creates an environment where the real “bad actors” take advantage of the law and target vulnerable people – and get away with it.
As the Sacramento District Attorney, I spent more than 25 years holding people accountable. I prosecuted gang members, charged hate crimes, and went after drug dealers. I have also prosecuted fraud, financial crime, corruption and high technology crime at the highest levels. As someone who has drafted and helped pass legislation, I have noticed that both prosecutors and the public need a clear understanding of the laws that govern them. I know what true crime is like, and I know the difference between real criminals and those caught up in an industry targeted by a law that never suits them.
That distinction is more important now than ever, as federal prosecutors have been working on a statute that would target software developers who never touched customer funds, never ran 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, but overreach.
Congress enacted 18 USC Section 1960 to target money transmission businesses such as storefronts, telecommunications services, and exchange houses that handle other people’s funds and circumvent licensing requirements designed to prevent money laundering. It was designed as an enforcement mechanism for licensing requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, specifically targeting traditional money services businesses. It’s a reasonable tool for a reasonable purpose. It was never intended to criminalize software writing.
Yet, this is exactly what has happened. Federal prosecutors have expanded the scope of Section 1960 to developers of non-custodial, peer-to-peer blockchain technology. These people built open source tools to automate transactions between willing parties, but they never held a dollar of user funds, never had any real “customers,” and never had any ability to intercept or redirect assets. Neither the developers nor the software itself control other people’s funds or move funds on their behalf. Charging traditional financial intermediaries under the regulations established for them is a mistake because it is misguided. As prosecutors, justice requires that we charge people for their actual conduct under the laws designed to cover those conduct.
The “regulate by prosecution” approach to cryptocurrency development has failed miserably. This approach stymies open source innovation and pushes many U.S. developers overseas. This unfairly criminalizes some people and undermines America’s technological leadership in financial innovation. Due to the lack of clear rules for software development, the share of open source developers in the United States will decline from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025. Every developer we pursue overseas is now building infrastructure that is beyond the reach of U.S. regulation and, when things go wrong, beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
This is not a victory for public safety; That’s self-harm.
The good news is that some of this is starting to change. In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a document titled “Ending
Prosecute Regulation,” making it clear that the Department of Justice will not enforce purely regulatory violations under Section 1960. After the memo was released, the Department of Justice announced that it would not approve new Section 1960 charges “if there is evidence that the software is truly decentralized and only automates peer-to-peer transactions, and the third party has no custody and control of user assets.” “That’s what the law has always required.
But neither memos nor speeches are regulations. Prosecutor guidance may change as the administration and U.S. attorneys change. The American innovation community and the public deserve clarity enshrined in law. That’s why the Innovation to Promote Blockchain Development Act now before Congress deserves strong support. It restores the original purpose of Section 1960: to protect the public from unlicensed financial intermediaries.
I’m not naive about bad actors—criminals do exist who use digital assets to launder money and defraud victims. I have sued them. I support strong law enforcement action against these criminals in accordance with applicable laws. The answer here is to not give up the distinction between the tool and the criminals using it. We do not charge email providers a wire fraud fee. We identify the real bad guys, build cases and provide evidence for prosecution.
Section 1960 remains a powerful tool against true money transfer criminals in the digital asset space. Custody exchanges that knowingly process the proceeds of crime, centralized mixers designed to conceal illicit funds, platforms that flout FinCEN registration when holding customer assets—these are legitimate targets, and the law will target them. It doesn’t need to extend to the software developers in their Sacramento apartments who write peer-to-peer protocols and have never held anyone else’s dime.
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 is a two-way street. It protects communities from violent crime but also protects innovators from overreach.
I manage an office of nearly 500 employees and prosecute nearly 30,000 cases each year. As head of the second-largest district attorney’s office in Northern California, I have stood in courtrooms for 25 years and am sworn to represent the victims, the vulnerable and the voiceless. I think getting that distinction right should be a fundamental obligation of our federal government. Section 1960 is a good law, but it has been misused by those involved in developing truly decentralized financial technology. Fix apps, target real criminals, and give American innovation a break. This is what justice demands, and this is what I will continue to fight for.
