• The U.S. SEC and Binance.US have recently reached an agreement on how to secure customer deposits, which has been approved by a court of law.
• Experts have expressed conflicting views on who the agreement favors: some consider it a win for Binance, while others believe it gives regulators significant oversight that could lead to fresh charges against them.
• The order requires Binance.US to maintain full control over customer funds, keep up with anti-money laundering regulations, and provide periodic reports to the SEC regarding compliance and internal risk assessments.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved to freeze assets belonging to its U.S.-based affiliate Binance.US as part of a sweeping enforcement action against the world’s largest crypto exchange, Binance. This was due to allegations that Binance had been mishandling customer funds, which raised concerns about the safety of U.S.-based customers‘ deposits.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson urged both parties (the SEC and Binance) to reach a compromise during a June 13 hearing, agreeing with Binance’s lawyers that a full asset freeze would force the business to shut down completely. Over the weekend, this compromise was approved by Judge Jackson which experts disagree on whether or not this outcome is favorable for Binance or not despite it being very close to what they offered initially at court proceedings..
Pro-crypto securities lawyer James “MetaLawMan” Murphy asserted that this consent order was indeed in favor of Binance as Judge Jackson did not conclude that there was sufficient evidence provided by the SEC for their case’s merits yet as well as implying it being just a consent decree rather than a temporary restraining order–this distinction is important according to Murphy regarding said agreement implications between both parties involved in this case.. However Former SEC Office of Internet Enforcement Chief John Reed Stark argued differently saying that it was almost like an SEC/Judicial receivership making very difficult for anyone in favor of such an outcome from either side involved in this dispute without certainty if either were right or wrong based on interpretation found within said consent order given out by judicial authority..
What Does This Consent Order Require?
The agreement requires that: 1)Binance must maintain full control over customer funds; 2)keep up with anti-money laundering regulations; 3)provide periodic reports to the SEC regarding compliance and internal risk assessments; 4)comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 5)refrain from further violations of federal securities laws; 6)pay $8 million in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest; 7)submit regular reports to the Commission concerning its operations; 8and pay $14 million penalty imposed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in December 2020 .
In conclusion, experts are divided over whether or not this recent settlement between US SEC & Binanace is beneficial for either party involved despite one side believing so more than another due to lack of definitive evidence towards such claims without certainty regarding any interpretations made based on agreements set out by judicial authorities overseeing such cases.. What is certain though are requirements set out within such agreements which entail maintaining control over customers fund & keeping up with AML regulations amongst other things set forth but only time will tell if these are fully complied with or further violations occur leading into possible severe consequences depending on severity found..