Binance Counters SEC’s Deposition Request, Deeming it ‘Excessive

Binance.US has taken a firm stance against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) request for depositions from the exchange’s executives and further discovery.

In a redacted response, Binance.US has termed the SEC’s motion “unduly burdensome” and “freewheeling,” highlighting the absence of evidence supporting allegations that customer funds were wrongfully diverted.

Binance.US emphasized that despite the extensive discovery process already conducted during the expedited discovery period, the SEC has failed to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate its allegations of investor assets being diverted.

The exchange firmly stated that all available evidence, including documents, declarations, and sworn deposition testimony, supports Binance.US’s position that it has full custody and control of its digital assets.

In June, the SEC made allegations against Binance CEO Changpeng ‘CZ’ Zhao and Guangying ‘Helina’ Chen, accusing them of channeling customer funds through intermediary companies.

These allegations were based on testimony and evidence from an SEC accountant. Binance and CZ publicly denied these claims at the time.

BAM’s response includes a statement affirming that CZ does not hold custody or control over the private keys for customer assets on the exchange. This further supports the exchange’s position regarding its handling of digital assets.

The SEC had initially sought an asset freeze on Binance.US; however, this request was denied by a U.S. judge. Instead, the judge ordered both parties to engage in negotiations regarding continued operations.

Binance.US has raised concerns about the scope of the SEC’s requests, particularly pertaining to documents related to the exchange’s custody software and wallet solutions.

BAM questioned the relevance of depositions of the exchange’s CEO and CFO within the context of the Consent Order.

In the response, the exchange argued that the burden imposed by these depositions outweighs their potential benefits and that the scope of the discovery sought is disproportionate to the requirements outlined in the Consent Order.