Fostering Innovation, Not Hindering It, Should Be the Government's Priority

The sudden stop of the Golden State Killer's crimes in California, which included 13 murders, 67 sexual assaults, and 120 burglaries, remained a mystery for over 30 years until the case was cracked using Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). This innovative technology, combining forensic DNA analysis and genealogical research, led to the prosecution of the killer. Since then, law enforcement worldwide has solved over a thousand cold cases using IGG. However, overregulation or a ban on such technology would deny justice to countless victims and their families. It is crucial to promote innovation rather than punish it. In the cryptocurrency sector, unclear rules and enforcement practices create confusion, stifling growth and driving industries underground or offshore, where 'bad actors' can exploit the law and target the vulnerable. As the District Attorney of Sacramento, with over 25 years of experience in holding people accountable for their crimes, it is essential to distinguish between genuine criminals and industries caught in the crosshairs of laws never intended for them. The federal prosecutors' use of 18 U.S.C. Section 1960 against software developers who have never touched customers' funds, operated a traditional business, or had criminal intent is an overreach. This statute was designed to target money-transmitting businesses that handle other people's money and skirt licensing requirements, not to criminalize software writing. The 'regulation-by-prosecution' approach to crypto development fails to provide clarity and chills open-source innovation, pushing U.S. developers offshore and eroding American technological leadership. The U.S. share of open-source developers decreased from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025 due to a lack of clear rules. Chasing developers overseas means they build infrastructure beyond U.S. oversight and law enforcement reach. This is not a win for public safety but a self-inflicted wound. The recent memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice, 'Ending Regulation-by-Prosecution,' makes it clear that the DOJ will not enforce pure regulatory violations under Section 1960. However, this is not a statute, and prosecutorial guidance can change. The American innovation community and the public deserve clarity written into law, which is why the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act deserves support. It restores the original intent of Section 1960: protecting the public from unlicensed financial intermediaries. Genuine criminals using digital assets for money laundering and fraud should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law, but the distinction between the tool and the criminal must be maintained. Section 1960 remains a powerful instrument against genuine money-transmitting criminals in the digital asset space. The law should target custodial exchanges, centralized mixers, and platforms that flout FinCEN registration, not software developers who write peer-to-peer protocols and never hold someone else's money. As a child refugee from Vietnam who came to America with the belief that hard work and respect for the rule of law are rewarded, it is essential to get this distinction right. The rule of law protects communities from crime and innovators from overreach. As the head of the second-largest District Attorney's Office in Northern California, with nearly 500 employees prosecuting nearly 30,000 cases a year, it is a basic obligation of the Federal Government to fix the application of Section 1960, target actual criminals, and let American innovation thrive.