Key Highlights:
- Binance and former CEO Changpeng Zhao argue that the SEC’s charges of illegal securities trading lack legal grounds.
- The judge previously found that BUSD, Simple Earn, and BNB secondary sales don’t meet the definition of investment contracts.
Yello ParadiseSquad! In a new twist in the legal chess match between Binance and the SEC, the crypto giant filed a motion to dismiss the SEC’s amended complaint, calling the case “legally incoherent.” With the ink barely dry on this filing, the crypto community is bracing for impact, could this be the lifeline Binance needs?
The Battle of Legal Definitions
According to Binance’s legal team, the SEC’s case hinges on an all-too-familiar strategy: assuming that anything remotely “crypto” is automatically a security. Citing a recent ruling, the filing reminded the court that the judge had previously deemed Binance’s BUSD, Simple Earn, and BNB secondary sales as not investment contracts. Yet, in true SEC fashion, they’re still hammering away at these “securities” claims.
SEC’s Ever-Shifting Standards?
Binance’s motion to dismiss points out the SEC’s oddball approach, especially its mysterious decision to let go of Ether as an “investment contract” without so much as a farewell explanation. The filing puts it bluntly: “The SEC’s standards seem less like legal rules and more like arbitrary coin tosses.” As Binance notes, the SEC’s legal theories are trying to do the heavy lifting, while the facts, well, they’re just not there.
Legal Whack-a-Mole with the SEC
This latest filing isn’t just about Binance. It could set a precedent for the crypto world’s ongoing regulatory battle with the SEC, a showdown that’s become something of a high-stakes game of legal Whack-a-Mole.
