SEC v. Binance Court Filing, retrieved on June 5, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 1 of 69. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”), for its Complaint against Defendants Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”), BAM Trading Services Inc. (“BAM Trading”), BAM Management US Holdings Inc. (“BAM Management”), and Changpeng Zhao (“Zhao”), alleges as follows: SUMMARY 1. This case arises from Defendants’ blatant disregard of the federal securities laws and the investor and market protections these laws provide. In so doing, Defendants have enriched themselves by billions of U.S. dollars while placing investors’ assets at significant risk. 2. Defendants have unlawfully solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade crypto asset securities through unregistered trading platforms available online at Binance.com (“Binance.com Platform”) and Binance.US (“Binance.US Platform”) (collectively, “Binance Platforms”). Defendants have engaged in multiple unregistered offers and sales of crypto asset securities and other investment schemes. And Defendants BAM Trading and BAM Management defrauded equity, retail, and institutional investors about purported surveillance and controls over manipulative trading on the Binance.US Platform, which were in fact virtually non-existent. 3. First, Binance and BAM Trading, under Zhao’s leadership and control, have unlawfully offered three essential securities market functions—exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency—on the Binance Platforms without registering with the SEC. Acutely aware that U.S. law requires registration for these functions, Defendants nevertheless chose not to register, so they could evade the critical regulatory oversight designed to protect investors and markets. 4. Second, Binance and BAM Trading have unlawfully engaged in unregistered offers and sales of crypto asset securities, including Binance’s own crypto assets called “BNB” and “BUSD,” as well as Binance’s profit-generating programs called “BNB Vault” and “Simple Earn,” and a so-called “staking” investment scheme available on the Binance.US Platform. In so doing, they have deprived investors of material information, including the risks and trends that affect the enterprise and an investment in these securities. 5. Third, BAM Trading and BAM Management have made misrepresentations to investors about controls they claimed to have implemented on the Binance.US Platform, while raising approximately $200 million from private investors in BAM Management and attracting billions of dollars in trading volume from investors (including retail and institutional investors) seeking to transact on the Binance.US Platform. 6. Starting in or around 2018, determined to escape the registration requirements of the federal securities laws, Defendants—under Zhao’s control—designed and implemented a multi-step plan to surreptitiously evade U.S. laws. As Binance’s Chief Compliance Officer (“Binance CCO”) admitted, “we do not want [Binance].com to be regulated ever.” 7. As one part of this plan to evade United States regulatory oversight over Zhao, Binance, and the Binance.com Platform, Zhao and Binance created BAM Management and BAM Trading in the United States and claimed publicly that these entities independently controlled the operation of the Binance.US Platform. Behind the scenes, however, Zhao and Binance were intimately involved in directing BAM Trading’s U.S. business operations and providing and maintaining the crypto asset services of the Binance.US Platform. BAM Trading employees referred to Zhao’s and Binance’s control of BAM Trading’s operations as “shackles” that often prevented BAM Trading employees from understanding and freely conducting the business of running and operating the Binance.US Platform—so much so that, by November 2020, BAM Trading’s then-CEO told Binance’s CFO that her “entire team feels like [it had] been duped into being a puppet.” 8. As a second part of Zhao’s and Binance’s plan to shield themselves from U.S. regulation, they consistently claimed to the public that the Binance.com Platform did not serve U.S. persons, while simultaneously concealing their efforts to ensure that the most valuable U.S. customers continued trading on the platform. When the Binance.US Platform launched in 2019, Binance announced that it was implementing controls to block U.S. customers from the Binance.com Platform. In reality, Binance did the opposite. Zhao directed Binance to assist certain high-value U.S. customers in circumventing those controls and to do so surreptitiously because—as Zhao himself acknowledged—Binance did not want to “be held accountable” for these actions. As the Binance CCO explained, “[o]n the surface we cannot be seen to have US users[,] but in reality, we should get them through other creative means.” Indeed, Zhao’s stated “goal” was “to reduce the losses to ourselves, and at the same time to make the U.S. regulatory authorities not trouble us.” 9. Defendants’ purposeful efforts to evade U.S. regulatory oversight while simultaneously providing securities-related services to U.S. customers put the safety of billions of dollars of U.S. investor capital at risk and at Binance’s and Zhao’s mercy. Lacking regulatory oversight, Defendants were free to and did transfer investors’ crypto and fiat assets as Defendants pleased, at times commingling and diverting them in ways that properly registered brokers, dealers, exchanges, and clearing agencies would not have been able to do. For example, through accounts owned and controlled by Zhao and Binance, billions of U.S. dollars of customer funds from both Binance Platforms were commingled in an account held by a Zhaocontrolled entity (called Merit Peak Limited), which funds were subsequently transferred to a third party apparently in connection with the purchase and sale of crypto assets. 10. Moreover, Defendants understood the importance to crypto asset investors of implementing trading surveillance and controls over crypto trading platforms. Zhao himself stated in 2019 that “CREDIBILITY is the most important asset for any exchange! If an exchange fakes their volumes, would you trust them with your funds?” 11. Defendants BAM Trading and BAM Management touted the surveillance and controls supposedly in place to prevent manipulative trading on the Binance.US Platform. 12. But Defendants failed to implement on the Binance.US Platform the trade surveillance or manipulative trading controls BAM Trading and BAM Management touted to investors. Thus, Defendants failed to satisfy basic requirements of registered exchanges—to have rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and the capacity to carry out that purpose. The supposed controls were virtually non-existent, and those that did exist did not monitor for or protect against “wash trading” or self-dealing, which was occurring on the Binance.US Platform. Most notably, from at least September 2019 until June 2022, Sigma Chain AG (“Sigma Chain”), a trading firm owned and controlled by Zhao, engaged in wash trading that artificially inflated the trading volume of crypto asset securities on the Binance.US Platform. 13. Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) in part to provide for the regulation of the offer and sale of securities and the national securities markets through registration and attendant disclosure, recordkeeping, inspection, and conflict-of-interest mitigation requirements. Binance and BAM Trading—both under Zhao’s control—have engaged and continue to engage in unregistered offers and sales of crypto asset securities, effecting unregistered crypto asset securities transactions on the Binance Platforms, combining core securities market functions while purposefully evading registration, and operating while impaired by obvious conflicts of interest. In doing so, they have dodged the disclosure and other requirements that Congress and the SEC have constructed over the course of decades to protect our capital markets and investors and thereby have violated—and continue to violate—the law. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:23-cv-01599 retrieved on September 5, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. docdroid.net

SEC Accuses Binance of Violating Federal Security Laws

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Comprehensive List of Every Single Violation Terraform Labs and Do Kwon Committed

101 Stories To Learn About Binance

5 Crypto Exchanges Reviewed (Plus a Winner!)

7 Reasons Why Crypto Project Founders Should Jump Aboard the IEO Ship Before it’s Too Late!

A path towards crypto’s inevitable centralization.

A pivotal year for Blockchain Companies, Cryptocurrencies & STOs | STOs poised to grow in 2019

A Comprehensive List of Every Single Violation Terraform Labs and Do Kwon Committed

101 Stories To Learn About Binance

5 Crypto Exchanges Reviewed (Plus a Winner!)

7 Reasons Why Crypto Project Founders Should Jump Aboard the IEO Ship Before it’s Too Late!

A path towards crypto’s inevitable centralization.

A pivotal year for Blockchain Companies, Cryptocurrencies & STOs | STOs poised to grow in 2019

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps