The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been in the spotlight in the financial world as it has pursued various actions against the crypto industry, including Binance Crypto Exchange. The legal battle between the parties has been followed up by experts, and proceedings ami...
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been in the spotlight in the financial world as it has pursued various actions against the crypto industry, including Binance Crypto Exchange. The legal battle between the parties has been followed up by experts, and proceedings amid the case show the SEC dismissed Binance’s request to dismiss.
A new filing states this development as the regulatory entity claims the digital currency exchange firm has no real backing or support to dismiss the case. The filing presented on Wednesday confirmed this and explained the happenings behind the Commission’s decision to dismiss.
Binance’s efforts to dismiss the SEC case shut down
Earlier this summer, the United States Securities and Exchanges Commission took legal action against the top players in the crypto industry, including Binance. Binance has since defended its portion, but recent proceedings in the case show a struggle in this trial.
The regulatory entity filed to dismiss the proposal by the exchange firm, Binance, and Binance.US together with CZ, its co-founder.
The regulatory entity claims that the motion was related to distorted interpretations of both presidents and federal law. Following the start of the court act in June, the regulatory entity sued Binance for offering unregistered securities as investments to the public.
The regulatory body also sued Coinbase under the same allegations and included other alleged charges as well.
The U.S Securities and Exchange Commission had accused Binance of selling BNB tokens amid its initial coin offering (ICO) tagged as a fundraising mechanism. This isolated securities laws, as well as the sale of Binance USD (BUSD) as investment contracts.
The regulator also added that their earnings and staking programs had violated regulatory frameworks governing the transaction of digital assets.
Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, Binance and Binance.US CEO and founder, debated in a motion to dismiss the charges laid upon them by the regulatory body. The firm’s executive argued that the regulatory entity is overarching, derailing from its mandate of implementing regulatory amendments.
Sen. Lummis made similar comments based on the regulatory authority’s nature of seeking out charges to implicate the crypto industry.
Reasons rooted in this dismissal
On Wednesday, the filing issued by the regulatory entity said that the argument by Binance and elaborated that the exchange platform would “dismantle decades of foundational precedent upon which the nation’s securities laws operate.” The regulator explained that Binance had no basis in proving existing law or the case precedence.
Another proceeding was the regulatory entity pushing back the argument based on its lawsuit not being in accordance with the “Majority Questions Doctrine.” This is a ruling led by the Supreme Court that became a quick favorite of crypto firms that face litigation from financial regulators.
The regulator derided requests by the crypto exchange requesting the regulator’s suit to be thrown out based on claims that Binance hasn’t applied the law correctly. According to the regulator, Binance adopted a “tortured interpretation of the law.”
Binance had argued that the regulatory entity had misinterpreted the Securities laws and did not give cryptocurrency guidelines and applied them to cryptocurrencies they issued, concluding an overstep of the regulatory authority.
Still, the regulatory entity rebutted that Binance never complied with the securities laws and commented that it was a deliberate choice. The regulatory body commented;
Binance’s Chief Compliance Officer crudely but succinctly summed up this case when he admitted that Binance was ‘operating as an unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.’ He was right.
SEC
In a struggle to explain its services, Binance stated that the regulatory entity sought to compare crypto sales to supermarket items, which is absurd.