Roger Ver’s Legal Battle to Test DOJ’s New Crypto Policy Changes

The U.S. Department of Justice’s recent decision to abandon its “regulation by prosecution” approach marks a significant shift in how the government handles digital asset cases. A memorandum issued in April 2025 by Deputy Attorney General Blanche outlines a new policy: the DOJ will no longer pursue criminal charges based on licensing ambiguities or technical regulatory violations unless there is clear evidence of intent to commit fraud or cause harm. This change in direction, moving away from the enforcement-heavy tactics of the previous administration, invites a fresh examination of the legal proceedings against Roger Ver, a prominent figure in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency world.

Roger Ver, often referred to as “Bitcoin Jesus,” was a key player in the early days of crypto. His financial support helped launch major industry players like Blockchain.com, Kraken, Ripple, BitPay, and Bitcoin.com, fostering the growth of a now-global crypto ecosystem. Ver’s advocacy for cryptocurrency as a means of achieving financial independence laid critical groundwork for its widespread adoption. However, his legal troubles stem from a 2014 expatriation process, during which he navigated the complex “exit tax” imposed on certain U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship. At the time, the IRS provided no clear guidance on how to assess tax obligations for Bitcoin holdings. Ver, relying on a team of lawyers, tax professionals, and former federal prosecutors, sought to comply with what he understood to be his legal obligations.

Despite these efforts, prosecutors allege that Ver underreported the value of his assets, particularly his Bitcoin holdings, during the expatriation process. They point to various communications and filings as evidence of misconduct, though Ver’s defense team argues that these are misinterpreted and that he acted in good faith based on professional advice. Critics of the case note that the IRS typically addressed similar issues with other Bitcoin holders through civil measures, such as requests for amended tax returns. In contrast, Ver faced aggressive tactics, including subpoenas targeting his legal counsel and an international extradition effort, despite his cooperation and attempts to settle any owed taxes.

A Test of New DOJ Principles

The DOJ’s updated policy explicitly deprioritizes cases like Ver’s, which hinge on complex valuation disputes, evolving digital asset classifications, and ambiguous post-exit accounting rules. The department’s internal guidance now emphasizes that such matters should not lead to criminal charges without evidence of willful fraud or deceit. Notably, prosecutors have yet to establish a definitive, uncontested amount of unpaid tax in Ver’s case. His filings and communications show consistent efforts to seek clarity from advisors in an environment where Bitcoin’s regulatory treatment was far from settled.

The Ver case appears to be a holdover from a more confrontational era of cryptocurrency enforcement, one the DOJ is now signaling a desire to move beyond. As the legal process unfolds, this case offers the department an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to its new principles of legal clarity, proportionality, and restraint in pursuing technical violations. Reassessing the case would not suggest favoritism but rather adherence to the DOJ’s own stated goals of fostering innovation and fairness in the digital asset sector.

The outcome of Ver’s case could set a precedent for how the DOJ applies its modernized approach to cryptocurrency enforcement. By prioritizing procedural fairness over punitive measures, the department has a chance to align its actions with its updated policy framework, signaling a more constructive path forward for both regulators and the crypto industry.