Court Orders Binance and SEC to Pursue Resolution That Avoids Asset Freeze
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf-8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1080" height="718" />)
The ongoing battle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance has taken a new turn. According to a report by Coindesk, a federal judge overseeing the case against the crypto exchange and the regulator has declined a temporary restraining order freezing the assets of the U.S. trading platform.
The decision means that Binance's American arm can continue operations while talks with the regulator on new restrictions proceed. Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court has explained that if the two sides can agree on limits, there will be "absolutely no need" to continue with the restraining order.
Binance and SEC Ordered to Meet and Confer
The Judge has given Binance-US a timeline for submitting its business expenses to the Court and ordered both sides to keep negotiating over the matter. A status update will be due by the close of business on Thursday, according to the report.
The packed Washington courtroom witnessed the Judge slamming SEC attorneys' motion to freeze all of Binance's assets until it could prove that there was no access to private keys by anyone from Binance's global platform, including founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ).
The order would allow the SEC and Binance to resolve their differences without taking severe measures such as asset freezes.
Binance Disputes SEC Claims
The Judge's most recent order follows a request by the SEC for the Court to freeze Binance-US assets, with the aim of safeguarding consumer funds - including repatriation of investments that are currently held overseas. The request was made in response to the agency's lawsuit against CZ, Binance Holdings Ltd., and Binance.US, alleging that they breached U.S. securities laws and overstepped their access to customer funds.
The crypto exchanges, in their response, disputed the SEC's claims. They stated that the agency had not provided sufficient proof to demonstrate that any securities were listed by the exchanges and questioned the validity of an urgent motion in the absence of supporting evidence.
57 comments