The federal judge presiding over the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) case against Binance and Binance.US has declined to issue a temporary restraining order freezing the assets of the U.S. trading platform, according to a recent report.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court stated that there was “absolutely no need” for such an order if both parties could come to an agreement on restrictions.
However, she did order Binance.US to provide a list of its business expenses to the court, and negotiations between the two sides are set to continue.
During the court proceedings, Judge Jackson expressed frustration with the SEC attorneys regarding their motion to freeze all of Binance’s assets until it could be proven that no one from Binance’s global platform had access to its private keys.
She demanded clarity on whether any customer funds had left the U.S., emphasizing her need to know the truth.
While the judge initially hinted at the possibility of some restrictions on Binance’s access to Binance.US assets, she ultimately decided against a full restraining order.
Both parties were urged to reconcile their proposed restrictions, and the SEC was asked to contrast its requirements with those proposed by Binance and Binance.
Inconsistencies In Binance.US Statements Highlighted By SEC Lawyer
The U.S. SEC lawyer Jennifer Farer stated that the SEC was open to allowing Binance.US to continue operating, and Binance.US representatives emphasized their desire to cover normal operating expenses.
Farer also noted that Binance.US had provided inconsistent information about its agreements and operations, raising further concerns for the SEC.
Despite the differences between the parties, Judge Jackson remained optimistic that an agreement could be reached, allowing sufficient time to examine the case’s intricacies thoroughly.
The SEC filed the lawsuit against Binance, Binance.US, and Binance founder Changpeng “C.Z.” Zhao last week, alleging unregistered securities exchange activities and commingling of funds.
During the hearing, Judge Jackson also delved into the fundamental question of whether a crypto asset should be considered a security or a commodity. She probed the SEC about distinguishing between a “crypto asset” and a “crypto asset security,” seeking clarity on their classification.
The judge further questioned the parties about other cryptocurrencies, pressing for an understanding of whether they were commodities or securities.
However, as the legal battle unfolds, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for the crypto industry as it attempts to navigate regulatory frameworks and establish clear definitions for various crypto assets.
Related Reading | Stolen Crypto Transfers Through Forbidden Russian Based Exchange