Airdrop Army

Lawyers for Binance, the crypto powerhouse, along with ex-CEO Changpeng Zhao, fired back at the SEC this Monday. They filed a motion aiming to dismantle the SEC’s fresh wave of claims against the exchange, taking a jab at the regulator’s persistent stance that most crypto assets equate to “securities.”

In its latest document, the legal team didn’t hold back. “The SEC gives a nod to the Court’s ruling that crypto assets aren’t inherently securities,” it began, “but chooses to sidestep the obvious implications.” Binance’s legal team is fed up, arguing that the SEC’s amended complaint lacks any “coherent legal basis” and fails to shed light on why it insists every crypto asset transaction should count as a securities deal.

Judge’s June Ruling Adds Fuel to the Fire

The legal drama traces back to a U.S. judge’s June 29 ruling, where Binance took a partial win. The Court had tossed out claims on Binance’s BUSD and Simple Earn offerings, stating they didn’t count as investment contracts. But the judge upheld many of the SEC’s other charges, leaving Binance in a precarious spot. Undeterred, the SEC’s revised complaint attempts to breathe life into some of the very claims the Court had thrown out, igniting another clash.

Binance’s lawyers argue that the SEC is digging in its heels with no clear rules on what defines an investment contract in the crypto world. They note, “the agency’s refusal to clarify its criteria puts the whole industry in murky waters.”

SEC’s Crypto Focus Sparks More Legal Jabs

Another pointed critique in Binance’s filing? The SEC’s erratic enforcement, as they allege. “The SEC keeps picking winners and losers at whim,” they added, accusing the agency of mysteriously pulling its case on Ethereum’s classification as a security, while doubling down on others.

Back in June 2023, the SEC came after Binance, Binance.US, and Zhao with allegations of operating unregistered exchanges and broker-dealers. Binance’s Monday filing took aim at the SEC’s “legal theories,” asserting they lack solid footing. “The issue lies not with the facts,” they wrote, “but with the SEC’s approach to the law itself.”