they operate binance.us and to fully say cz has zero to do with binance.us was likely impossible. thus the us went after them.
I always wonder why they would operate binance.us as it would tie them into usa taw rules.
They started binance.us as a separate thing to avoid problems such as this. Apparently that didn't work as well as they hoped.
Only Binance know why they did it but I thought Binance did it when they felt bigger risk from the trade war between two big nations.
Crypto Exchange Giant Binance to Launch US Trading Tuesday. It is in September 2019.
The
China–United States trade war began since January 2018 but was escalated more some months later. It can be one of reasons or coincidence but it is not a matter now for Binance.
the charges clearly state...
from 2017 to october 2022 CZ and binance
.com they 'conspired' to not do full KYC to identify US residences to then comply with regulations
from 2018 to may 2022 CZ and binance
.com they 'conspired' to not do full KYC to identify iranian residences to then comply with regulations
they cared more about increasing their customer base, rather than putting in restrictions that would turn people away
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.328551/gov.uscourts.wawd.328551.1.0.pdf starting from middle of page 6
17 E. THE SCHEME
18 18. Beginning no later than August 2017 and continuing until October 2022,
19 Defendant and its co-conspirators, including Zhao and Individuals 1 and 2, knowingly and
20 willfully conspired (i) to operate as an unlicensed MTB that failed to comply with
21 registration requirements under U.S. law and (ii) to violate the BSA by failing to establish,
22 implement, and maintain an effective AML program at Binance.
23 19. MSBs, including money transmitters with effective AML programs, collect
24 KYC information that allows them to, among other things, identify users who are subject
25 to U.S. sanctions programs and prevent U.S. persons from conducting prohibited
26 transactions with persons subject to U.S. sanctions. During the relevant time period, many
27 MSBs, particularly those doing business wholly or in substantial part in the United States,
1 had AML programs that used KYC and other information to identify users subject to U.S.
2 sanctions programs and prevent U.S. persons from conducting prohibited transactions with
3 persons subject to U.S. sanctions.
4 20. The purpose of the conspiracy was to allow Binance to operate as a virtual
5 currency exchange and gain market share and profit as quickly as possible. Defendant and
6 its co-conspirators accomplished this goal by attracting a substantial number of U.S. users
7 to Binance.com—particularly U.S. VIP users, who accounted for a significant percentage
8 of the overall trading volume on Binance.com. Defendant chose not to comply with U.S.
9 legal and regulatory requirements because it determined that doing so would limit its ability
10 to attract and maintain U.S. users. Defendant and its co-conspirators concealed Binance’s
11 avoidance and noncompliance with U.S. law.
12 21. Defendant’s decision to prioritize its growth over compliance with U.S. legal
13 requirements meant that it facilitated billions of dollars of cryptocurrency transactions on
14 behalf of lts customers, including users in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions such
15 as Iran, without implementing appropriate KYC procedures or conducting adequate
16 transaction monitoring. During the relevant period, Defendant knew that U.S. law
17 prohibited U.S. persons from conducting certain financial transactions with countries,
18 groups, entities, or persons sanctioned by the U.S. government. Defendant knew that it
19 serviced users from comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions and that these users were
20 prohibited from conducting transactions with U.S. persons. Defendant further l‹new that its
21 matching engine, i.e., Binance’s tool that matched customer bids and offers to execute
22 cryptocurrency trades, had been designed to execute cryptocurrency trades based on price
23 and time without regard to whether the matched customers were prohibited by law from
24 transacting with one another. Defendant also 1‹new that it did not block transactions
25 between users subject to U.S. sanctions and U.S. users and that its matching engine would
26 necessarily cause such transactions, in violation of U.S. law. During the relevant period,
27 Defendant nonetheless did not implement the necessary controls that would have prevented
1 Binance from causing U.S. users to conduct cryptocuiTency transactions with users in
2 comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions.
As a result of Defendant’s decision not to implement comprehensive controls
4 blocking illegal transactions between sanctioned users and U.S. users, Defendant willfully
5 caused transactions between U.S. users and users in comprehensively sanctioned
6 jurisdictions in violation of U.S. law. Specifically, between in or about January 2018
7 through May 2022, Defendant caused at least 1.1 million transactions in violation of IEEPA
8 between users it had reason to believe were U.S. persons and persons it had reason to
9 believe resided in Iran
