The Golden State Killer, responsible for 13 murders, over 67 sexual assaults, and 120 burglaries across California from 1974 to 1986, evaded capture until recently. Using Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which merges forensic DNA analysis with genealogical research, we apprehended him after more than three decades of eluding authorities. Since then, law enforcement globally has resolved over a thousand cold cases via this technology. What if IGG faced severe regulation or prohibition? Countless victims and their families would be denied justice.
Promoting innovation is crucial; stifling it with ambiguous regulations can hinder growth, pushing industries underground or offshore, where malevolent actors exploit the system. As Sacramento’s District Attorney for over 25 years, my focus has been on prosecuting gang members, hate crime offenders, drug traffickers, and high-tech criminals. I have also played a role in crafting legislation, emphasizing that both prosecutors and citizens need clear legal guidance.
Federal authorities are misapplying laws meant for traditional financial intermediaries to software developers who create decentralized, peer-to-peer blockchain technology without handling users’ funds or engaging in illicit activities. This misuse of 18 U.S.C. Section 1960, intended for money-transmitting businesses under the Bank Secrecy Act, criminalizes software development instead.
The ‘regulation-by-prosecution’ tactic stymies innovation and pushes developers overseas, eroding America’s technological edge in crucial financial areas. The U.S.’s share of open-source developers dropped from 25% to 18% between 2021 and 2025 due to unclear regulations. Such practices result in the creation of unregulated infrastructures beyond American oversight.
The Department of Justice acknowledged these issues in April 2025 with a memo titled ‘Ending Regulation-by-Prosecution,’ clarifying that it would not prosecute cases involving truly decentralized software without custody over user assets. However, this guidance is not law and can change with administrations. Therefore, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act should be supported to reaffirm Section 1960’s intent: targeting unlicensed financial intermediaries, not developers of innovative technology.
While I acknowledge real criminals exploiting digital assets for money laundering and fraud, conflating tools with their misuse is unjust. Like email providers are not prosecuted for wire fraud, software developers should not face charges unless they act criminally. Section 1960 can effectively address genuine financial crimes in the digital realm without being misapplied.
As a Vietnamese refugee who embraced America’s promise of rewarding hard work and upholding law, I understand the dual nature of legal protections: safeguarding against crime while defending innovators from overreach. Leading one of Northern California’s largest District Attorney Offices, my duty is to advocate for victims and ensure justice by distinguishing between criminals and technological tools. The misuse of Section 1960 must be corrected to allow American innovation to thrive. This is the essence of justice I will continue to champion.