Based on a state appeals court’s ruling on Wednesday Florida regulators behaved inappropriately by blocking Binance. As a result of this ruling Binance can now carry on with operations in Florida.
The First District Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous ruling on May 22. They overturned the Florida financial regulator’s emergency suspension order. The court determined that the regulators’ attempt to defend prohibiting Binance from conducting business was insufficient.
At press time, Binance.US has not responded to Cryptonews’ request for comment.
Florida Halts Binance.US over AML Concerns
Florida launched legal action against Bnance.US in November, issuing an emergency directive.
Following Binance founder Changpeng Zhao’s guilty plea for breaking US anti-money laundering rules. They suspended their money transmitter license. This action took place on November 21, 2023, one week following Zhao’s plea.
The United States authorities took action against the worldwide exchange Binance. Its local affiliate, nonetheless, carried on with business inside the country.
US affiliate said on November 28
“We remain fully operational and are committed to continuing to serve our customers with the same products and services as we always have.”
Florida Regulator’s Procedure Found to be Unjust
After the emergency decree, Binance.US challenged Florida’s authorities. They argued that the order was erroneous and misconstructed local legislation. The company highlighted the risks associated with forced asset liquidation and the possible losses for more than 170,000 Florida accounts.
The court’s decision in favor of Binance.US was unanimous. The Florida Office of Financial Regulation, they noted, failed to provide evidence for an impartial decision-making process.
The court penned
“A forced and untimely sale of Florida customers’ digital assets threatens financial harm because of digital asset price fluctuations.”
“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 judge made it clear in their ruling that there was no consideration of other remedies in the Emergency Suspension Order (ESO). The reason why less drastic actions wouldn’t be adequate to deal with the purported emergency was also not explained.
