Bank AI

Binance Holdings Limited (BHL) and its <a href="https://news.todayq.com/cz-breaks-silence-says-enjoying-life-after-binance-exit/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">former CEO, Changpeng Zhao</a> (CZ) filed a response to the recent “Notice of Supplemental Authority” submitted by the US <a href="https://news.todayq.com/sec-faces-criticism-as-judge-rebukes-misconduct-in-crypto-case/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Securities and Exchange Commission</a> (SEC). The response submitted to the court directly challenges the SEC’s notice on procedural and substantive grounds. This highlights what the respondents view as critical flaws in the commission’s approach. Binance finds flaws in the Watchdog’s complaint 
According to the fillings, Binance indicated that the SEC’s Notice was procedurally improper and impermissible. It argued that it served as an attempt to introduce new factual information and arguments without presenting any new legal authority. 
The response suggests that the SEC Notice is an impermissible supplemental brief that fails to identify any new “authority.” The respondents cite legal precedent, including a similar case (Cobell v. Norton), where a notice of supplemental authority was struck down for attempting to introduce additional evidence. 
However, the response contends that judicial notice is not an alternative avenue for amending the complaint. It went on to cite the case of In re Omnicare. The commission’s reference to Contant v. Bank of America Corp. is also challenged. Binance, here argues that the cited case involved resolutions discussed in the operative complaint. This is unlike the current situation where the SEC has not amended its complaint. Defendants urges to disregard commission’s notice 
As we dig in, the response filed by Binance challenges the substance of the SEC’s Notice. The focus has been on two key aspects, fair notice and extraterritoriality. 
The defendants dispute that the commission attempts to use resolutions related to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) as evidence against their fair-notice argument. It argued that the plea agreements with the Department of Justice outlined violations of the BSA. It does not address whether there was fair notice of the SEC’s theory regarding crypto assets as securities. 
Through the latest filing, Binance and CZ had urged the court to disregard the SEC’s Notice. They asserted that it is procedurally flawed,&nbsp; while in any event, it does not undermine any of their arguments for dismissal. 
Get Crypto Trading Signals from Real Crypto Analysts. Join our Waiting List at todayq.com

Binance, CZ hits back at US SEC’s Notice, cites procedural flaws

Todayq News

Other articles published on Dec 13, 2023

Controversial Altcoin Reddit Announces Telegram Integration, Price Rises!

Worldcoin announces integration with multiple platforms

NuggetRush Emerges as a Dominant Force, Poised to Surpass Celestia and PEPE

A Beginner’s Guide to Metaverse and How It May Change the World

Dubai Grants a VARA License to Bahraini Crypto Exchange CoinMENA!

Has ChatGPT Lost its Mojo? Users Report “Lazy” Responses

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!