I would like to use this blog post to offer some commentary on the 104th Paragraph of the initial pleading in the widely publicized civil action against Binance

CFTC’s complaint is nothing more than a waste of court time. Firstly, the claims made in this complaint belong in a criminal court. If Zhao knowingly or negligently supported any mafia or terrorist group, he deserves the death penalty. There is no doubt about that.

The majority of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations are based on identifying red flags and suspicious patterns, rather than absolute criteria. Therefore, when examining Transactions that may be linked to criminal organizations such as mafia groups, it is legitimate to consider the counterargument of what legitimate purpose that particular amount of money could serve. This is all part of fulfilling AML duties. However, it appears that CFTC failed in a craftier manner to provide sufficient evidence to explain how these transactions were related to such a group.

Secondly, it is unclear whether the conversation in question took place during a coffee break or during the actual process of approving a transaction. However, it is unfortunately not uncommon for people to exhibit rude behavior, as it is a part of human nature. The development of civilization represents a human created layer of our societies that seeks to temper these tendencies. It is not unusual to encounter rude doctors, priests, teachers, and social workers in our daily lives. Therefore, what should we realistically expect to find behind the doors of the wealthiest FinTech companies? Should we expect their employees to be art enthusiasts or paragons of courtesy?

Finally, it is a basic rule when drafting legal pleadings to separate paragraphs by event or argument. In this case, the purpose of the 104th paragraph is to introduce us to Binance’s modus operandi, which is a reasonable point to make. However, it is unclear what CFTC’s overall argument is here. Is he suggesting that compliance officers should decline transactions based solely on an individual’s nationality, even before official sanctions have been imposed on their country? This is an extreme position to take and requires more effort, much stronger evidence and legal justification to support it.

I was sure; Russian would be a part of that discuss. Didn’t I?