See More

SEC vs. Binance: Regulator Caught Lying and Misleading the Public

3 mins
Updated by Ali M.
Join our Trading Community on Telegram

In Brief

  • Binance accuses the Securities and Exchange Commission of misleading the public in an ongoing legal dispute, seeking court intervention.
  • The SEC claimed it secured "emergency relief" to protect Binance.US customer assets, which Binance refutes with courtroom statements.
  • Binance stresses the need for clear, truthful communication, as this case could set a precedent for regulatory actions in the crypto market.
  • promo

SEC vs. Binance: In an unprecedented turn of events, accusations of dishonesty and misleading the public have surfaced against the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Binance and its associated companies took the drastic step of requesting court intervention on June 21.

The crypto industry giant aims to stymie the SEC’s proclivity for making controversial statements that it alleges are severely misleading and potentially damaging.

Binance Asks Court to Make SEC Comply With Rules of Conduct

The recent motion stems from the SEC and Binance agreement on a consent order delineating how Binance.US could utilize its funds. In what Binance viewed as a stark violation of this agreement, the SEC issued a press release that sparked widespread concern in the crypto exchange.

In the press release, the SEC claimed to have secured “emergency relief” to protect the assets of Binance.US customers. It portrayed an image of Binance and its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, as being in control of customer assets. Therefore, suggesting they could misuse these assets.

“Given that Changpeng Zhao and Binance have control of the platforms’ customers’ assets and have been able to commingle customer assets or divert customer assets as they please, as we have alleged, these prohibitions are essential to protecting investor assets,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Binance refuted the claims since these were contradicted by the SEC’s statements to the court that it had no evidence. The company affirmed that the SEC’s portrayal of the situation is not only disappointing but disturbingly misleading.

“At a minimum, the SEC’s statement contravenes the principle that the SEC so frequently cites — it omits material facts necessary to ensure the statements being made are not false and misleading,” reads the filing.

In the courtroom, the SEC’s representation had difficulty corroborating their statements. When questioned about the potential for asset diversion from BAM Trading Services and BAM Management US Holdings, the SEC was forced to admit that no such transgressions had occurred.

COURT: “Well, if you’re saying we need to shut down and impose this regime on the US companies because we’re concerned about the dissipation of assets from the US companies, I want to know, where have you made a showing that it is money from the US companies that is moving out?” 

SEC: “It hasn’t happened yet, Your Honor.”

COURT: “I want to know, are [BAM] assets going offshore?… [A]re you saying it’s happening or it’s not? And it’s kind of stunning to me that I’ve now asked this question to each of [the SEC attorneys] five times.”

SEC: “So currently the assets are not going offshore… [W]e’re not seeing any flows of money outside of the United States.”

Furthermore, Binance asserts that the SEC’s claims of having “secured emergency relief” is misleading. The company states that weeks of negotiation produced this relief, and the defendants consented to it. There is, they stress, no evidence to suggest that BAM customer assets are in jeopardy.

The crux of the issue lies in the alleged misinformation propagated by the SEC’s press release. The BAM companies argue that these statements can have a material impact on the case. Therefore, calling for the court to issue an order compelling the SEC to adhere to established rules of conduct.

SEC vs. Binance: The Beginning of a Long Journey

The case of SEC vs. Binance underscores the volatility and dynamism inherent in the cryptocurrency industry. With one of the largest crypto platforms under scrutiny, the case’s outcome could set a precedent for future interactions between regulatory bodies and crypto enterprises.

As such, all parties involved must not underestimate the necessity for truthful, clear, and transparent communication.

In the face of serious allegations of misconduct and dishonesty, the SEC now finds itself under the spotlight. It remains unclear whether accountability for its statements will fall on the SEC. Still, the integrity of regulatory bodies is as critical as the institutions they oversee.

As the saga between Binance and the SEC continues, the wider implications for the crypto market will undoubtedly be profound.

Top crypto platforms in the US | March 2024

Trusted

Disclaimer

All the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Frame-1934.png
Bary Rahma
Bary Rahman, a talented journalist, graduated from New York University with a degree in Journalism. Skilled in SEO, she has worked with CNN, showcasing her investigative skills and storytelling abilities. In addition to her journalistic accomplishments, Bary has contributed her expertise as a content writer for Binance, crafting insightful articles on the dynamic crypto industry. Her unique fusion of journalism and SEO makes her a versatile and highly respected figure in the industry.
READ FULL BIO
Sponsored
Sponsored