close
close
hsuses

Florida court grants Binance.US relief, suspension lifted

Theo

Shalini Nagarajan

Last update:

May 23, 2024 1:16 am EDT
| 1 min reading time

A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that Florida regulators acted improperly when they banned Binance from operating in the state. The decision means Binance can now resume operations there.

In a unanimous decision on May 22, the First District Court of Appeals threw out the emergency suspension order issued by Florida financial regulators. It ruled that regulators could not justify their decision to bar the company from doing business.

Binance.US did not respond to Cryptonews’ request for comment by press time.

Florida suspended Binance.US due to anti-money laundering concerns


Florida cracked down on Binance.US in November, using an emergency order to suspend its money transmitter license. This action came a week after Binance founder Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws on November 21, 2023.

Although the global Binance exchange faced action from the US government, its local subsidiary continued to operate in the country.

“We remain fully operational and are committed to continuing to serve our customers with the same products and services as before,” the U.S. subsidiary said on November 28.

Florida regulator’s process deemed unfair


Following the emergency order, Binance.US challenged Florida regulators. The platform argued that the order was riddled with errors, misinterpreted local laws, and would cause significant financial harm. The company pointed to potential losses for over 170,000 accounts in Florida and the dangers that a forced liquidation of assets would pose.

The judges unanimously sided with Binance.US in their ruling. They found that the Florida Office of Financial Regulation had not substantiated that the decision-making process was fair under the circumstances.

“A forced and premature sale of Florida customers’ digital assets threatens financial harm due to volatility in digital asset prices,” the court wrote. “In addition, an account holder forced to sell a digital asset at a price above cost would incur unplanned and extensive tax liabilities.”

The judges concluded that the ESO had failed to discuss alternative remedies and had not explained why less stringent measures would not be sufficient to deal with the alleged emergency.

Related Posts