• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has requested an emergency injunction against Binance.US, which would freeze the assets of the American arm of the company.
• During pretrial proceedings on June 15, SEC lawyers struggled to justify their request for a near-total financial freeze order due to lack of evidence.
• Judge Amy Berman Jackson was visibly annoyed at the SEC’s “pre-crime” litigation strategy, which appears to be aimed at eradicating cryptocurrency in the United States.
SEC Requests Freeze Order Despite ‘No Evidence’
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has requested an emergency injunction against Binance.US, which would freeze the assets of the American arm of the company. During pretrial proceedings on June 15, SEC lawyers struggled to justify their request for a near-total financial freeze order due to lack of evidence – much to Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s visible annoyance with what she perceived as a “pre-crime” litigation strategy by the SEC that is seemingly aimed at eradicating cryptocurrency in the United States.
Data Shows Market Share Drop
Data from crypto analytics firm Kaiko shows that since regulatory pressure from the SEC began, Binance US’ market share has dropped to 1%. This indicates that investors are beginning to feel hesitant about investing in cryptocurrency exchanges based in America due to fear over SEC actions such as these freezing orders – raising questions over whether such tactics are justified or effective given this potential chilling effect on investor confidence.
Judge Expresses Annoyance
During last week’s hearings regarding this case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson seemed particularly annoyed by these tactics employed by the SEC: “I don’t think anyone disputes that there have been no allegations…that any funds have gone offshore,” she said during proceedings, before asking why a “freeze order” was even necessary if there was “no evidence” that customer funds had been moved out of U.S.-based accounts into foreign ones – which is what such an order would ostensibly be meant to prevent happening in future should it become necessary later down the line during trial proceedings.
Increasing Signs Of Displeasure
These transcripts add to increasing signs of displeasure with these tactics from other branches of government – suggesting that far from being universally accepted or supported, they may actually be actively resisted and protested by those outside of regulatory bodies as well as within them – creating a tense situation between regulators and industry stakeholders alike who may not agree with each other’s perspective or approach towards regulating cryptocurrencies within America’s borders .
Overall, this hearing highlights just how difficult it is for regulators like the SEC to regulate a technology like cryptocurrency given its decentralized nature and ability for users sometimes maliciously skirt around laws through technical means – while also demonstrating how much more work needs done on both sides before trust can be achieved between regulators and industry stakeholders when it comes towards regulation so as not inhibit innovation nor risk user protection through incompetence or malice respectively .