A US federal judge has tossed a high-profile lawsuit accusing Binance of enabling terrorism financing, concluding the plaintiffs didn’t clear the legal bar required to hold the crypto exchange liable under US anti-terror laws. What happened - On March 6, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Binance’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by hundreds of victims and relatives tied to 64 terrorist attacks between 2016 and 2024. - Plaintiffs alleged Binance allowed accounts linked to terrorist organizations and intermediaries to operate on the platform, and that the exchange’s services enabled those actors to move funds — a claim framed under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Why the case was dismissed - The court found the complaint failed to plausibly show that Binance “knowingly” provided the kind of substantial assistance that would trigger aiding-and-abetting liability under US anti-terror statutes. - Much of the plaintiffs’ case leaned on claims that certain wallets associated with sanctioned groups had used Binance. But the complaint did not demonstrate Binance was aware of those links at the time the transactions occurred. - Judge Vargas also concluded the filings didn’t tie specific cryptocurrency transactions on Binance directly to the 64 attacks cited. The court characterized the allegations as generalized assertions about terrorists’ use of digital assets rather than concrete, attack-specific connections. Next steps - The dismissal is not final on the merits: the judge gave plaintiffs 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified gaps. If they can allege stronger, more concrete facts showing Binance’s knowledge and substantial assistance, the case could move forward. Why it matters - The ruling underscores the high evidentiary standard required to hold intermediaries liable for third-party wrongdoing under US anti-terror laws — particularly the need to show both knowledge and a substantial role in facilitating attacks. - For exchanges, the decision highlights that allegations linking wallets to illicit actors are not automatically sufficient for liability without proof the platform knew and materially assisted those actors. The outcome will be watched closely by the crypto industry and regulators as similar legal tests and compliance questions continue to surface. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

#BTC