The Ethereum MEV case creates legal tension: prosecutors reject support from the DeFi industry

The litigation surrounding Anton and James Peraire-Bueno continues to generate debate after the first trial collapsed just over a month ago. The brothers face charges for exploiting a technical vulnerability in Ethereum that resulted in losses of $25 million. What began as a specific blockchain security case has evolved into a broader conflict between regulators and advocates of the DeFi ecosystem.

The Prosecutor’s Position in His DEF

Jay Clayton, a U.S. prosecutor, has questioned the relevance of the arguments presented by the DeFi Education Fund before Judge Jessica Clarke. The DeFi sector advocacy organization submitted a legal document on December 19 with the intention of influencing the outcome of the new process. However, Clayton argues that these arguments have already been considered and rejected previously, which should exclude them from the current judicial debate.

The DeFi Education Fund, in its sectoral defense strategy, argues that such criminal prosecutions create an environment of legal uncertainty that could drive U.S. software developers to other more favorable jurisdictions. This warning reflects a deeper concern: that adverse judicial decisions in MEV cases could reshape the geography of blockchain development.

Implications for the Entire Industry

The annulment of the verdict in November left the path open for a retrial. The federal government requested to resume the process between late February and early March 2026, giving the legal system time to prepare its strategy. Meanwhile, the crypto community remains attentive to every procedural move, aware that this litigation could set a precedent on how technical exploits are legally classified on public blockchains.

Clayton’s refusal to admit new arguments from the DeFi Education Fund suggests that the prosecution maintains an inflexible position regarding the criminal responsibility of the accused, regardless of the ecosystem’s justifications.