As of Thursday, in their Rule 29 response, the DOJ is still pushing this theory that Storm, by publishing TC software, provided a "valuable service" to a sanctioned entity because DPRK used the protocol. This flawed principle is limitless: if I make a hammer with no particular end user in mind and somehow that hammer ends up being used by DPRK, I provided them a "valuable service." But you don't see them going after Apple for the iPhone, Google for its tech suite, etc., even though these tech tools are used by the DPRK. That's because this is a gross distortion of the law. Back when we @fund_defi @jchervinsky wrote our amicus brief in support of @rstormsf's MTD, we reviewed over 100 sanctions cases and provided the court with a table of them - in every single case there was nexus between the sanctioned entity and the defendant, some evidence the defendant directly connected with the SDN or created a tool *for* the SDN specifically. There was no case - none - where a defendant made a tool with no particular end user in mind and was then convicted of violating sanctions because an SDN ended up with that tool in hand.

You can see the table of cases here: