The filing argues that the SEC couldn’t demonstrate that users had any contractual obligations with Binance after purchasing specific cryptocurrencies, thereby challenging the essence of the Howey Test. This argument aims to dismantle the SEC’s case and potentially secure a dismissal of the lawsuit.

Binance’s Agreements with U.S. Agencies

Binance further asserts that recent agreements the company entered into with various agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and FinCEN, demonstrate its awareness of operating in the U.S. and serving U.S. customers. They argue that these agreements are unrelated to the SEC’s allegations and do not involve securities laws.

Additionally, Binance and CZ contend that the laws governing these agreements and consent decrees, such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), differ from securities laws enforced by the SEC. This strengthens the claim that the SEC overreached its jurisdiction in this case.

In a separate filing, Binance specifically addresses the application of securities laws and argues that they should not apply in this case as they are not relevant to the allegations in the agreements and consent decrees.

Ultimately, these filings represent a significant challenge to the SEC’s case. By questioning the foundation of the lawsuit and asserting the irrelevance of prior agreements, Binance and CZ aim to secure a dismissal of the case and set an important precedent for the crypto industry.

The post Binance and CZ Counter the SEC Lawsuit! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

SEC requested specific customer asset information from Binance.US, yet BAM, Binance.US’s parent company, confirmed they hadn’t provided this data yet. Consequently, the SEC asked the court to review Binance.US due to non-compliance in sharing requested documents.

The judge declined the SEC’s request for direct oversight of Binance, emphasizing collaboration between the two parties. Additionally no decision made in SEC and Binance.US lawsuit.

During the court session, the SEC sought details on customer asset storage, encompassing crypto wallets and BAM’s general ledger, which oversees financial statements and emergency recovery policies.

In response, BAM committed to providing the general ledger on a mutually agreed-upon date. Furthermore, the SEC sought information about Ceffu, the entity they claimed was the “newly branded Binance entity” overseeing customer assets.

Finally, the regulatory body and BAM reached an agreement to conduct a hearing on December 12th and submit a joint status report by December 10th.

You might like: South Korea Leads in Digital Asset Ownership

SEC Lawsuit Against Binance US: Unregistered Securities and Legal Maneuvers

The SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.US, Binance, and CEO Changpeng Zhao, initiated in June, focuses on allegations of conducting unregistered securities operations and various irregularities, including wash sales. In response to these legal proceedings, Binance.US sought a protective order against the SEC in August. Notably, during this period, the SEC received partially concealed documents totaling 117 pages under docket no. 102.

These concealed documents include crucial internal Binance.US materials, correspondences, and submissions to the SEC court. Speculation links these records to an ongoing U.S. Justice Department investigation into Binance. Of particular importance is the memorandum addressing Binance.US’ adherence to the SEC’s information collection efforts, officially filed on September 14.

Furthermore, it’s vital to highlight that Faruqui’s ordered list did not cover the complete set of sealed documents. On September 11, BAM, the parent company of Binance.US, submitted a proposed order, along with the SEC’s opposing document and eight exhibits, all under seal and not referenced in the earlier order.

You can share your opinions in the comments about the topic. Also, follow us on Telegram, Twitter, and YouTube for more content like this.

The post No Decision Made in SEC and Binance.US Lawsuit! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

You might like: Google Cloud Is Running a Validator on Celo Network

Binance has previously received warnings and even faced lawsuits from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other legal authorities in the United States, similar to Coinbase. Now, officials from the U.S. Department of Justice are evaluating fraud allegations against the cryptocurrency exchange Binance. However, according to close sources, there are concerns about the potential cost it may impose on consumers.

Prosecutors are considering options such as imposing a fine or a decision not to pursue charges against Binance. The final decision regarding the exchange is not yet clear.

The news will continue to be updated with relevant information. Stay tuned for further updates!

You can share your opinions in the comment section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter, Telegram, and YouTube for more updates.

The post Breaking News | Binance Faces Fraud Allegations! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and cryptocurrency exchange Binance have issued their official response in relation to the involvement of “Eeon,” a party that sought to intervene on behalf of customers in the ongoing case. Both the SEC and Binance have expressed their opposition to Eeon’s request to intervene, stating that it fails to meet the required legal criteria for intervention and consent.

According to the Court for the District of Columbia, both Binance, the defendant, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the plaintiff, opposed Eeon’s bid to intervene in the legal dispute.

The SEC argues that Eeon has a track record of frequently acting as their own representatives in legal proceedings, but their assertions have consistently failed in federal courts. The SEC has advised the court to dismiss Eeon’s application for various reasons.

Screenshot of SEC’s response to the intervention petition. Source: Court Listener.

Initially, the Exchange Act forbade private parties from intervening, rendering Eeon’s appeal impermissible. The SEC claims Eeon’s involvement won’t impact the case as their allegations match those of the defendants. Lastly, Eeon’s petition does not fulfill the essential prerequisites for intervention. Moreover, Eeon’s counterclaims, seeking remedies against both the SEC and Binance, display inherent contradictions.

Binance presented three reasons for rejecting Eeon’s plea. Firstly, the absence of the SEC’s approval; secondly, Eeon’s inability to establish its legitimacy as an involved party; and thirdly, the failure to meet the essential legal prerequisites for intervention. Moreover, Eeon’s counter-allegation was deemed imprecise and unrelated to the ongoing lawsuit.

Screenshot of the Binance’s reply to the intervention request. Reference: Court Listener.

Consequently, the plaintiff (SEC) and defendants (Binance and CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao) stand united against Eeon’s intervention in the SEC’s lawsuit.

You might like: What Are Cryptocurrency ETFs?

Meanwhile, Binance has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit the US CFTC initiated. They claim the CFTC lacks jurisdiction over the global crypto exchange and its CEO, CZ. Extended court deadlines for responses from both parties may prolong the dismissal process into next year.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section. Stay updated on instant news by following us on Twitter, Telegram, and YouTube.

The post SEC and Binance are Uniting Against Eeon’s Lawsuit Intervention. appeared first on Coin Engineer.