- The SEC alleges Binance of violating the federal securities law as it relies upon Ceffu.
- With the help of Ceffu, Binance allegedly moved company assets overseas.
- The filing also accuses Binance of submitting inadequate information for the previous lawsuit.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently alleged Binance of violating federal securities law by transporting assets overseas. According to a court filing on Thursday, Binance’s reliance upon its custody partner Ceffu, allegedly violates the SEC’s norm that required restrictions on the platform’s foreign trade.
Earlier this year, the SEC charged Binance for the illegal intervention of Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao in the operations of Binance US, alleging that the company and Zhao misled customers. In addition, the regulators had also imposed restrictions on the movement of company assets abroad.
In a previous filing submitted by the US-affiliated Binance US, previously known as BAM Trading, the platform pointed out that they have produced “verified accounting” to prove that all customer funds are safe. In addition, the platform also argued that BAM Trading has clarified the SEC’s queries by presenting 5000 pages of documentary discovery.
The platform added: And, as required by the Consent Order, BAM confirmed in writing that it would maintain custody and control of its customers’ assets during the pendency of this case; would not transfer any assets to Defendants Binance Holdings Limited (“BHL”), Changpeng Zhao, or their affiliates; and that it would maintain exclusive control over all Private and Administrative Keys related to its customer assets through personnel in the United States.”
In the recent filing, the SEC asserted that by using Ceffu, the wallet custody software provided by Binance’s international arm, the company is resuming its international trade. The allegations included the violation of the securities law through the platform’s staking and brokerage services.
The regulators also shed light on the inadequate information provided by BAM Trading. As per the accusations, though the platform submitted almost 220 documents, most of them consisted of “unintelligible screenshots and documents without dates or signatures”. The statement read, “The limited discovery BAM has provided to date raises questions about whether defendants are in violation of the consent order”.