US Prosecutors Move to Block DeFi Education Fund Brief in $25M Ethereum Exploit Case

Highlights:

• US prosecutors want the court to ignore a DeFi Education Fund filing in the Ethereum exploit case.
• A jury deadlock led to a mistrial, while the government is pushing for a retrial in 2026.
• The DeFi Education Fund remains active in court and policy fights over developer liability.

Interim US Attorney Jay Clayton filed a letter with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 30. He urged the court to reject an amicus brief from the DeFi Education Fund. The request came as the court reviews post-trial motions seeking acquittal or dismissal after a jury deadlock. Clayton argued the submission does not aid the court’s legal analysis. He said the court has already addressed the arguments raised in the filing.

✦ US government challenges DeFi Education Fund's brief in upcoming MEV case retrial:

The US government is contesting the relevance of an amicus brief from the DeFi Education Fund as the court prepares for a possible retrial of two brothers accused of exploiting the Ethereum…

— ZoneCrypto (@_ZoneCrypto_) December 30, 2025

The case involves Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, who face allegations tied to a $25 million Ethereum exploit. Prosecutors accuse the brothers of using automated trading strategies linked to maximal extractable value. Authorities charged them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and receiving stolen property. Clayton said the amicus brief remains detached from the trial record. Therefore, he argued it should not influence the court’s review.

Clayton also mentioned that courts tend to dismiss filings that restate arguments that have been dismissed before. He claimed that the submission does not present any new legal framework or factual material. In addition, he cautioned that its acceptance might override the more specific matters before the court. Prosecutors framed the objection as procedural, not substantive. They requested that the judge proceed without looking at the brief.

Mistrial Leaves Retrial Timing in Focus After Jury Deadlock

Judge Jessica Clarke declared a mistrial in November after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The jury could not agree on whether to convict or acquit the brothers. Consequently, this case went into a post-trial phase without a verdict. The mistrial stopped proceedings prior to the final judgment. The court next narrowed down to the defense motions.

MISTRIAL: Crypto Bros trial US v Peraire-Bueno after three weeks just ended in a mistrial, Inner City Press which live tweeted it all spoke with family members and juror afterwards, it'll all be in book (very) soon: Code Is Law Lives On? 1: https://t.co/68q2sSDFbB pic.twitter.com/xByWylHm0w

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) November 8, 2025

Prosecutors requested the court to set a retrial within a week. They suggested late February or early March 2026 as potential dates. The request indicated the desire of the government to proceed with the charges. Meanwhile, the judge commenced hearing motions of acquittal or dismissal. The decisions made would dictate the possibility of a retrial.

The possible implications are dire should the case go back to trial. Each offense is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison. The mistrial also underscored the problems that jurors encounter in their efforts to evaluate complicated blockchain activity. The challenges have taken center stage in the court review.

DeFi Education Fund Activity Extends Across Courts and Regulators

The DeFi Education Fund has remained active in other high-profile legal disputes involving blockchain development. The organization has argued that developers should not face liability for third-party misuse of software. Amanda Tuminelli, its chief legal officer, has criticized expansive interpretations of current federal laws. According to her, prosecutors have not been enforcing some of the sanctions laws on similar cases.

The group also defended Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm in his criminal case. It submitted court filings supporting Storm in his motion to dismiss charges, along with other blockchain advocacy groups. The filings contended that the development of open-source software should not trigger criminal exposure.

Outside the courtrooms, the organization has been involved directly with regulators and legislators. It participated together with Andreessen Horowitz in pressuring the Securities and Exchange Commission to create a safe harbor for blockchain applications. The proposal focused on minimizing the risk of enforcement in early development. The group also tabled comments on the Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025. The group cautioned against imposing intermediate regulations on open-source developers.