Lawyers representing Binance argue the SEC's Amended Complaint "pays 'lip service'" to prior court rulings, failing to accept that secondary resales of crypto assets are not securities transactions, despite the SEC's insistence that all crypto transactions, including secondary market resales, qualify as securities depending on buyers' expectations of value.
The motion criticizes the SEC for its ambiguous regulatory framework, stating, "The SEC still refuses to articulate any standard for courts, litigants, or market participants to know which crypto-asset transactions qualify as investment contracts, and which do not."
Attorneys for Zhao and Binance have expressed discontent with regulatory actions, noting that the SEC has arbitrarily classified some transactions as securities while abandoning its stance on others, specifically mentioning, "recently abandoning with no explanation its claim that transactions involving Ether... are investment contracts."
Collection
[
|
...
]