Cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its founder, Changpeng Zhao, have challenged a move by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC's request for judicial notice of unsealed documents relating to Binance and Zhao, including their plea agreements, was labeled by Binance as both "procedurally improper" and irrelevant to the SEC's claims.
In response to the SEC's attempt to present these documents as factual evidence without formal presentation, Binance's legal team argued that the move was an "impermissible supplemental brief" that brought forth no new authoritative information. They contended that the SEC's initiative to link Binance's settlement agreements with other regulatory bodies to their case was unfounded and misguided.
Binance's filing emphasized that different regulatory bodies have distinct statutory frameworks, and the SEC's efforts to blur these distinctions were invalid. The exchange highlighted that its plea agreements, which acknowledged serving millions of customers in the U.S. and maintaining significant connections to the country, pertained to different regulatory contexts unrelated to the SEC's jurisdiction.
Last month, Binance concluded its lengthy legal scrutiny by the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This settlement included a considerable fine of $4.3 billion, marking the end of investigations into the exchange's operations.
Binance's stance points to a broader narrative in the crypto industry, where regulatory overlap and ambiguity often create complex legal challenges. The exchange's argument suggests a call for clearer regulatory demarcations, especially in the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrency.
