US prosecutors move toward possible late-2026 retrial in Tornado Cash case while other crypto-adjacent prosecutions proceed

US federal prosecutors have submitted a proposed schedule that could set up a retrial for Roman Storm, a co-founder and developer tied to the privacy-focused protocol Tornado Cash. Storm was convicted in 2025 on one of three charges connected to illegal money transmitting, while a jury deadlocked on two remaining counts—keeping open the possibility of further proceedings later this year and into 2026.

Separate developments are also advancing in other high-profile crypto-linked criminal matters, including a court-managed timeline for Alex Mashinsky’s bid to overturn his Celsius sentence and a trial schedule set for a US soldier charged over alleged insider trading involving a Polymarket event contract. Together, the cases underscore how US courts are continuing to address criminal exposure across different parts of the digital-asset ecosystem, from protocol developers to executives and market participants.

Key takeaways

US prosecutors proposed a schedule that could place a Tornado Cash co-founder’s retrial in late 2026, contingent on the outcome of a Rule 29 acquittal motion.
In Alex Mashinsky’s Celsius-related case, the SDNY judge set prosecutors’ response deadlines tied to Mashinsky’s pro se motion to vacate his 12-year sentence.
A federal judge set December 2026 for jury selection in the SDNY Polymarket insider trading case involving US soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke.
Across the three matters, US proceedings highlight ongoing enforcement focus on alleged misuse of blockchain-related activity and the evidentiary questions courts face.

Proposed schedule in Tornado Cash case points to late-2026 retrial window

According to court filings submitted by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), prosecutors proposed a timeline for the potential retrial of Roman Storm beginning later this year, with a key marker being a final pretrial conference on Oct. 20. The filing indicates that the tentative trial start could fall in late October or November 2026, depending on subsequent court rulings.

The schedule is expressly subject to the court’s decision on a Rule 29 motion filed by Storm seeking acquittal on the remaining charges. Rule 29 motions—filed after a jury verdict—can test the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions on counts where the prosecution seeks to sustain results after trial. As a result, the retrial timeline is not fixed and could change if the court grants acquittal on one or more counts.

Storm’s initial trial resulted in a conviction on one of three charges tied to illegal money transmitting in 2025, while the jury deadlocked on two other charges. If the retrial is scheduled to proceed, Storm may face those two remaining counts, which the reporting describes as conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate sanctions.

This case continues to draw heightened attention within the crypto industry because it intersects with recurring compliance and legal-risk questions: how prosecutors and courts treat the criminal accountability of developers whose work may be used in ways authorities allege are unlawful. For institutions, the practical implication is that legal exposure may not be limited to traditional financial intermediaries; it can extend to individuals and entities associated with software, infrastructure, or network utilities, depending on how facts are framed and how intent or knowledge is argued.

From a regulatory monitoring standpoint, the Storm matter also reflects the broader posture of US enforcement in crypto—particularly where conduct is alleged to involve sanctions violations and financial-facilitation theories. Even though the eventual retrial schedule is procedural, the underlying charges are likely to remain a focal point for compliance teams assessing how sanctions screening, transaction monitoring, and governance controls are expected to operate across decentralized or developer-adjacent roles.

SDNY sets response timing in Alex Mashinsky sentence-vacatur motion

In a separate SDNY proceeding, the court set a timeline for the government to respond to pro se motion practice by Alex Mashinsky, the former CEO of Celsius. Judge John Koeltl granted a motion establishing that prosecutors must respond by mid-August to Mashinsky’s request to vacate his 12-year sentence.

The decision followed Mashinsky’s filing seeking to vacate a May 2025 sentence. That sentence resulted in Mashinsky reporting to federal prison after the court imposed the term of incarceration.

Mashinsky was indicted in 2023 alongside Roni Cohen-Pavon. Prosecutors brought charges related to alleged fraud and market manipulation. The Celsius network collapsed in 2022 amid broader turmoil in crypto markets, following conditions that also contributed to the failures of other major platforms, including exchanges such as FTX and Voyager Digital. Celsius ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2022, which provides background context for how the case unfolded in parallel with the collapse of the platform.

As described in the case record referenced in coverage, the criminal case included a forfeiture order of $48 million for the former CEO. Cohen-Pavon, Mashinsky’s co-defendant, received a sentence that included time served, along with orders to pay more than $1 million and a $40,000 fine.

For compliance and legal teams, sentence-vacatur motions are not merely procedural housekeeping: they can affect how institutions interpret risk windows for similar defendants, influence appeals strategy, and shape how courts evaluate sentencing factors and alleged legal errors. While the motion does not itself alter the underlying facts, the court’s timetable and ultimate ruling can signal how strictly the judiciary will scrutinize sentencing methodology and the standards governing post-conviction relief.

Polymarket insider trading case set for December 2026 trial proceedings

In another SDNY matter, Judge Margaret Garnett set a future trial timetable for Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier charged in connection with alleged insider trading tied to a Polymarket event contract. Van Dyke was arrested in April after prosecutors alleged he profited from more than $400,000 related to the removal of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro.

According to an SDNY filing dated June 10, the court ordered pretrial motions culminating in jury selection scheduled for Dec. 7, with the overall trial date set for December 2026. The allegations described in the filing include claims that Van Dyke used nonpublic information to trade on the platform around the time when US forces entered his residence in Caracas and later extradited him to the United States for prosecution.

The case carries potential downstream effects for the broader prediction markets sector. In the US, lawmakers and regulators have raised questions about the handling of information in markets where contracts can be correlated with real-world events. Reporting referenced ongoing scrutiny by US lawmakers calling for restrictions intended to prevent elected officials from trading on events involving classified or nonpublic information. Even where Van Dyke’s case turns on specific alleged conduct and evidentiary issues, it can heighten compliance expectations around information controls, trading oversight, and the detection of potentially unlawful information flows.

Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges. As such, the schedule indicates where litigation may concentrate in the coming years—particularly around admissibility of evidence, the boundaries of “nonpublic information” in the context of an event-market, and any intent-based elements prosecutors must establish at trial.

Closing perspective

With a possible late-2026 retrial in the Tornado Cash matter, post-conviction motion deadlines in the Celsius case, and a December 2026 trial runway in the Polymarket insider trading prosecution, these proceedings are set to remain active through multiple court cycles. For institutions, the key watch items are how the courts resolve contested legal standards—such as Rule 29 acquittal requests, sentence-vacatur review, and evidentiary sufficiency around nonpublic information—as each outcome may influence how future compliance frameworks address developer, executive, and market-participant risk.