Government pushes back against industry advocacy
US prosecutors have formally opposed the introduction of an amicus brief from the DeFi Education Fund as the court considers a potential retrial for two brothers accused of exploiting the Ethereum blockchain for $25 million. In a Tuesday filing, interim US Attorney Jay Clayton submitted a letter to Judge Jessica Clarke requesting that the brief not be accepted while the court reviews a motion to dismiss the case against Anton and James Peraire-Bueno.
Clayton argued that the brief “merely recites legal arguments already rejected by this Court” and seems detached from the actual trial record. This comes after Clarke declared a mistrial in November when jurors couldn’t reach a verdict on whether to convict or acquit the brothers. The government wants a retrial scheduled for late February or early March 2026.
The defense’s perspective
The DeFi Education Fund’s proposed brief, filed on December 19, supported the motion to acquit or dismiss the indictment. They argued the case has “broader implications” for the entire industry. Their position is that prosecutions like this one create ambiguity and fear among software developers, potentially chilling participation in decentralized finance and driving participants to other jurisdictions.
“The DOJ should not get ahead of prospective lawmaking by bringing indictments based on ill-fitting interpretations of existing law,” the DEF stated in their brief. They believe such actions stifle growth by sowing confusion about the governing rules. I think there’s some truth to that perspective, though perhaps the government sees it differently.
Industry reactions and legal stakes
With the brothers’ future uncertain, the crypto industry continues to watch how this case might affect MEV-related activities. Crypto advocacy group Coin Center also filed an amicus brief during the criminal trial, arguing against the government’s theory of the case. Prosecutors similarly requested that brief not be accepted.
The Peraire-Bueno brothers initially faced charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to receive stolen property. If retried on the same charges and found guilty, they could potentially face up to 20 years in prison for each count.
What’s interesting here is how this case sits at the intersection of emerging technology and established legal frameworks. The government seems determined to pursue this, while industry advocates argue the legal theories don’t quite fit the technological reality. It’s a messy situation, honestly.
I wonder if part of the government’s opposition to these amicus briefs stems from wanting to keep the legal arguments focused on the specific facts of this case rather than broader industry implications. But then again, maybe they’re concerned about setting precedents that could limit future prosecutions in similar cases.
The timing matters too. With a potential retrial not scheduled until 2026, there’s plenty of time for legal maneuvering on both sides. The industry will likely continue watching closely, as the outcome could influence how MEV activities are treated legally moving forward.
