Florida Court Grants Relief to Binance.US, Suspension Overturned
A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that Florida regulators acted improperly when they blocked Binance from operating in the state. The decision effectively 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 that Florida financial regulators issued. It ruled that the regulators failed to justify its decision to block the company from doing business.
Binance.US didn’t return Cryptonews’ request for comment by press time.
Florida Suspended Binance.US Amid 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 one week after Binance founder Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to violating US anti-money laundering laws on Nov. 21, 2023.
Despite the global Binance exchange facing action from the US government, its local affiliate continued operating within the country.
“We remain fully operational and are committed to continuing to serve our customers with the same products and services as we always have,” the US affiliate said on Nov. 28.
Florida Regulator’s Process Deemed Unfair
After the emergency order, Binance.US challenged Florida’s regulators. The platform argued that the order was riddled with errors, misinterpreted local laws, and would cause significant financial harm. The firm pointed to potential losses for over 170,000 Florida accounts and the dangers forced asset liquidation would cause.
The judges unanimously sided with Binance.US in their ruling. They noted that the Florida Office of Financial Regulation failed to justify that the process for arriving at its decision was fair under the circumstances.
“A forced and untimely sale of Florida customers’ digital assets threatens financial harm because of digital asset price fluctuations,” the court wrote. “In addition, an account holder who is forced to sell a digital asset at a price higher than a cost basis would incur unplanned and extensive tax liabilities.”
The judges conclusively noted that the ESO failed to discuss alternative remedies. They also failed to explain why less harsh measures would be insufficient to address the alleged emergency.
