Cloud Hosting

Binance submitted two key filings on Dec. 12 in an ongoing case previously launched by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Binances first filing moves to dismiss the case that the SEC launched against its companies and its former CEO Changpeng Zhao in June.

The filing asserts that the SEC has not plausibly alleged that various Binance tokens and services are securities or investment contracts.

It also asserts that the SECs specific claims around Binances BNB token are time-barred, meaning that offerings of the asset occurred outside of the U.S. or the SECs charges are untimely. Furthermore, the filing alleges that claims around certain Binance.com transactions, including BNB Vault and Simple Earn, aim to apply securities law outside of the U.S. in a non-permissible way.

Binances filing additionally asserts that the SECs failure to provide fair notice about its securities claims compels the dismissal of the lawsuit.

Finally, the filing asserts that complaints against Zhao should be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction. According to defense lawyers, Zhaos role in controlling Binance is not solely sufficient for jurisdiction, and the SEC has failed to allege that Zhao had contact with U.S. users in a way that is relevant to the case.

Binance and Zhao arranged plea deals with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several other U.S. government agencies during the week of Nov. 20. Though those plea deals are separate from the ongoing SEC case, the securities regulator asked courts to consider both plea deals on Dec. 8.

Binance contested this in another filing on Dec. 12, which reads:

In addition to being procedurally improper and impermissible, the SEC Notice fails to demonstrate the relevance of the resolutions with the Department of Justice and FinCEN to any of the SECs defective claims against [Binance Holdings Limited] and Mr. Zhao.

Binances filing added that the SEC had not amended its complaint, asserting that the agencys judicial notice is not an alternative to the amendment.

Numerous other objections are also detailed in the text. According to the filing, plea deals from Binance and Zhao only show that the involved parties violated the Bank Secrecy Act but do not demonstrate that Binance and Zhao received fair notice from the SEC regarding two other securities and exchange acts.

The filing also maintained a lack of jurisdiction defenses that apply to Binances companies and Zhao himself. Specifically, it said that no admission in the plea agreements indicates that relevant transactions occurred, or irrevocable liability attached, in the United States. Regarding Zhao, the filing said that personal jurisdiction has a different meaning in criminal and civil cases implying that jurisdiction exists in the DOJ case, not the SEC case.

Binance concluded by stating that the SECs notice should be disregarded. It once again pressed for the case to be dismissed entirely.

Originally posted here:

Binance says that DOJ settlement lacks relevance in SEC case as it moves for dismissal - CryptoSlate