By lutch 
Binance, the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchange, has officially responded to allegations linking it with funding terrorism by asserting that there is no “special relationship” with Hamas. This defense comes as part of Binance’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by families affected by the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The legal proceedings took place in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 30, 2025.
In their argument, Binance’s legal team, representing both the exchange and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, emphasized that cryptocurrencies are not inherently dangerous and that the exchange had no unique or preferential dealings with Hamas. The lawsuit, initiated in January 2024, accused Binance of providing “substantial assistance” to Hamas by facilitating transactions that allegedly supported the group’s activities, including the attack in question.
“Binance Denies ‘Special Relationship’ with Hamas,” the lawyers stated, arguing that the best the plaintiffs could assert was that Hamas, like other terrorist organizations, used cryptocurrencies for funding operations, which is not sufficient grounds for legal action. They further highlighted that there is no evidence to suggest Binance had any direct or special relationship with the group, thus challenging the basis of the lawsuit.
The case has garnered significant attention, not just for its implications for Binance but for the broader crypto industry. It touches on the complex issues of cryptocurrency regulation, its use by non-state actors, and the responsibilities of crypto exchanges in preventing illicit activities. Binance’s defense is also built on the assertion that Zhao’s previous guilty plea for anti-money laundering violations should not implicate the company in this specific lawsuit, as those issues were separate and have been addressed through a hefty settlement with US authorities.
Posts on X reflect a divided community, with some supporting Binance’s stance, arguing for the necessity of distinguishing between the use of a platform and the platform’s culpability. Others remain skeptical, pointing out that the sheer volume of transactions on Binance could make oversight challenging, potentially allowing for misuse without direct complicity.
This lawsuit could set a precedent for how cryptocurrency exchanges are held accountable for transactions linked to terrorism. If successful, Binance’s motion to dismiss might influence future legal strategies concerning crypto platforms and their roles in global finance. However, the dismissal of such a case would likely require more than just the absence of a ‘special relationship’; it would need to convincingly demonstrate that Binance had adequate measures in place to prevent its use for illicit purposes. https://x.com/Lutcheann