Alexey Pertsev is a software developer associated with Tornado Cash, an open-source privacy protocol deployed on Ethereum. He became one of the most closely watched figures in the crypto privacy debate after Dutch authorities arrested him in 2022 and a Dutch court convicted him in 2024, in proceedings that raised questions about whether developers can be held liable for how third parties use decentralized privacy software.
Overview
Pertsev has been described in public reporting as a developer, and at times a co-founder, of Tornado Cash. The protocol’s purpose is to improve transaction privacy on public blockchains by breaking the on-chain link between a deposit and a later withdrawal. It does this using cryptography, including zero-knowledge proofs, rather than through custody of user funds by a centralized intermediary.
History and Background
Public biographies have characterized Pertsev as a security-oriented engineer who worked on technical reviews and assessments of systems before Tornado Cash gained broad attention. By the time the protocol became a policy flashpoint, he was based in the Netherlands, where authorities pursued a case tied to alleged laundering activity routed through the service.
Tornado Cash emerged as on-chain transparency became both a feature and a risk. Public ledgers make transactions auditable, but they also expose wallet activity, counterparties, and balances. Privacy tools developed to mitigate those issues have, in turn, drawn scrutiny because the same properties can be used to conceal proceeds of crime.
Tornado Cash and Developer Responsibilities
Tornado Cash is often grouped with “mixers,” but its architecture is smart-contract based. CryptoSlate’s protocol overview notes that the protocol accepts deposits of ETH and select ERC-20 tokens into contracts, then enables withdrawals to new addresses, with privacy derived from pooled deposits and cryptographic proofs.
Developer involvement in such systems typically includes writing and maintaining code, addressing bugs, and coordinating upgrades or governance processes. Tornado Cash also used a governance token, TORN, which introduced a formal mechanism for community proposals and parameter changes while increasing attention on what influence, if any, early contributors retained after deployment.
Legal Proceedings and Milestones
Dutch authorities arrested Pertsev on Aug. 10, 2022, alleging that Tornado Cash facilitated money laundering by enabling the concealment of criminal financial flows. On May 14, 2024, a Dutch court convicted him of money laundering and sentenced him to 64 months in prison, a decision covered by CryptoSlate in reporting on the sentencing.
Pertsev appealed the conviction, and CryptoSlate reported on the appeal filing in coverage of the Dutch court challenge. In February 2025, a Dutch court suspended his detention conditions and permitted electronic monitoring while he prepared his appeal, as described in coverage of the electronic monitoring decision.
Policy Context and Ecosystem Support
Pertsev’s case unfolded alongside litigation and policy shifts over sanctions applied to decentralized protocols. CryptoSlate reported on a U.S. court decision overturning Treasury sanctions targeting Tornado Cash in coverage of the sanctions ruling. In March 2025, CryptoSlate reported that the U.S. removed Tornado Cash from its sanctions list, discussed in coverage of the removal decision.
Parts of the crypto ecosystem treated Pertsev’s prosecution as a bellwether for open-source development. CryptoSlate reported that the Ethereum Foundation provided legal support for Pertsev’s defense in coverage of the legal aid.
Risks and Considerations
Privacy protocols face heightened enforcement and compliance pressure. Regulators and investigators frequently associate mixers with laundering activity, and surrounding infrastructure, including interfaces, relays, and communications channels, can become focal points for legal scrutiny. For builders, this creates uncertainty over the boundary between publishing code and operating a regulated financial service subject to AML expectations.
At the same time, privacy tools can serve legitimate needs, including reducing exposure to targeted theft and limiting unwanted surveillance of wallet activity. Pertsev’s case remains a reference point in how courts and policymakers may weigh those competing concerns when assessing decentralized privacy technology.
