Binance.US Challenges SEC’s Demands, Calling Them ‘Unreasonable’

Binance.US has taken a strong stance in a legal dispute with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States (SEC), calling several of the SEC’s demands “unreasonable” and “unduly burdensome.”

Pushback Against SEC’s Demands

Legal counsel for BAM Trading Services, the owner of Binance.US, submitted documents in opposition to the SEC’s petition to compel on September 12. This most recent exchange in the ongoing legal issue was sparked by the SEC’s request for further information from Binance.US.

The SEC’s interrogatories and production requirements, according to the defendants from BAM Trading Services, were “overly broad, unduly burdensome,” and went “beyond the scope of the consent order.” The defendants from BAM Trading Services claimed that these requests were excessive. In particular, they considered the SEC’s demand for clarification and the depositions of BAM CEO Brian Shroder and CFO Jasmine Lee to be “unreasonable.”

Shroder and Lee were not actively involved in the day-to-day activities involving the custody and transfer of customer funds at Binance.US, according to the legal team for BAM Trading Services. They stressed that other witnesses, such as Erik Kellogg, the chief information security officer at BAM, would be able to offer additional pertinent information about the business’s practices.

According to BAM’s attorneys, “The burden imposed by these depositions far outweighs their potential benefit, and the discovery sought is disproportionate to the needs contemplated by the consent order.”

Challenging Allegations

The SEC’s accusations were disputed by BAM Trading Services, which said that the agency lacked solid proof to back up its assertions that customer assets had been stolen. They described the allegations made by the SEC as “misleading and mistaken.”

The legal team also drew attention to a substantial discrepancy between the SEC’s expansive strategy and the original restricted accelerated discovery agreed upon in the consent agreement. Given the limitations outlined in the consent agreement, they claimed that the SEC’s strategy was “overbroad and abusive”.

BAM Trading Services’ answer came after a recent event in which the SEC and Binance both consented to a protective motion. This motion provided that parties must submit sensitive material under seal, limiting access to a small group of people including the court, counsel, plaintiffs, and defendants.

The Bitcoin sector continues to closely monitor this legal dispute as it progresses, with players keeping a close eye on new developments and results.