Binance Requests Dismissal of SEC Lawsuit
Table of contents
In their argument, they claimed the SEC's allegations lacked merit, asserting that the SEC, after remaining passive for years, is now attempting to exert authority over the crypto industry without congressional authorization. The defendants contested the SEC's failure to convincingly label tokens like BNB, BNB vault, or simple earn as securities. They also argued that the SEC's claim regarding the BNB offering is time-barred, and their arguments improperly extend securities laws beyond national boundaries.
Binance and SEC Clash: Jurisdiction, Product Classification Disputes
Binance specifically pointed out the SEC's failure to establish personal jurisdiction against Changpeng Zhao and asserted a lack of fair notice, calling for a dismissal. Meanwhile, Binance.US refuted the SEC's failure to categorize any of its products as securities and emphasized the absence of fraud claims against its customers and equity investors.
The SEC retaliated against Binance.US's motion to dismiss, rebuffing claims of Howey Test violations and rejecting accusations of overreach in regulating the crypto industry. The SEC defended its longstanding investor protection role under existing securities laws. Additionally, Binance criticized the SEC's procedural approach, deeming it improper and impermissible for attempting to introduce findings from a $4.3 billion guilty plea and settlement agreement with the DOJ into this lawsuit.
