[HN Gopher] US Seeks More Than $4B from Binance to End Criminal ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       US Seeks More Than $4B from Binance to End Criminal Case
        
       Author : crypt1d
       Score  : 88 points
       Date   : 2023-11-20 17:52 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
        
       | zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
       | Why would they even negotiate with the United States? It's like
       | if I ran an online business from the US who happened to have
       | customers in Indonesia and I was breaking Indonesian laws. As
       | long as I never planned on going to Indonesia, why would I care?
       | 
       | Fun fact: many years ago I did run an online business and I did
       | break laws in other countries that I never plan to go to. I never
       | broke US law.
        
         | tw04 wrote:
         | You think he's safe living in Canada if he's found guilty for
         | massive fraud in the US? Or you think China, who has also been
         | cracking down on finance in their own country, is going to
         | protect this nobody whose platform actively works against their
         | financial controls?
        
           | zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
           | I mentioned he's Canadian because he's not American. He
           | doesn't live in Canada though and I think it's been a while
           | since he has.
        
           | Scoundreller wrote:
           | > whose platform actively works against their financial
           | controls
           | 
           | Depends on who is going against their financial controls.
           | Obviously if you're the right person, going around them is
           | permitted. Just don't be the wrong person going around them!
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | You may want to transit the airspace of the US or one of their
         | allies in the future.
        
           | zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
           | That is a good point.
        
           | hiatus wrote:
           | I know Belarus has ordered at least one plane out of the sky
           | for an arrest, but has the US?
        
             | notyourwork wrote:
             | Has it? Who knows? Could it, yes. That is the point OP was
             | making.
        
             | robin_reala wrote:
             | Of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_ground
             | ing_incident
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | From what I'm reading, nobody ordered a plane out of the
               | sky, but several countries (suddenly) excluded a plane
               | from their sky.
               | 
               | Of course, if you're flying over a landlocked country,
               | and every neighbour blocks you from their airspace, you
               | don't have many options. (Not that this quite happened,
               | but looked to be going in that trajectory).
        
               | joshuaissac wrote:
               | > nobody ordered a plane out of the sky, but several
               | countries (suddenly) excluded a plane from their sky
               | 
               | Suddenly withdrawing permission for a plane to fly
               | through your sky, after it has already taken off and does
               | not have enough fuel to take an alternative route, has
               | the same effect as ordering it out of the sky.
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | Who said they didn't have enough fuel for an alternative
               | route? Their intended destination was Bolivia from
               | Moscow. Can't do that without a refuel ~midway. The next
               | day they did a refuel in Canary Islands (Spain).
        
               | oskarkk wrote:
               | Not exactly - in the Belarus case the plane was in the
               | Belarusian airspace and had to land in Belarus (and then
               | two passengers were arrested). If Belarus had revoked
               | permission before the plane entered its airspace, and it
               | had to land in Ukraine or Poland due to insufficient
               | fuel, nothing would have happened to those passengers.
        
           | LikesPwsh wrote:
           | Dollar-denominated bank accounts are a bigger factor for
           | binance.
        
         | simonebrunozzi wrote:
         | USD is their biggest market.
        
         | acdha wrote:
         | How many countries and financial institutions will do business
         | with someone the US government has put on a watchlist? Now
         | consider that block chains are designed to make it easy for
         | governments to control so even if I'm some guy in Nigeria my
         | calculations for any transaction have to include a discount
         | rate for the reduced number of people who will accept a
         | transaction linked back to a sanctioned organization. Imagine
         | how different the 1920s would have been if every bank, hotel,
         | restaurant, etc. in Miami knew that the dollars you were paying
         | came from a Cuban casino and were subject to criminal charges.
        
       | rich_sasha wrote:
       | https://archive.is/PPs7i/again?url=https://www.bloomberg.com...
        
       | rich_sasha wrote:
       | I know this is how the US operates, still it's weird to trade
       | cash for criminal allegations. Especially when Binance has been
       | so vilified.
       | 
       | I'm not defending Binance, rather, it feels like the SEC rhetoric
       | went past the point where a fine is appropriate.
       | 
       | Unless they are only proposing it so they can't be accused of not
       | giving them the same treatment that everyone else gets.
        
         | pavlov wrote:
         | It seems like the deal would be more like probation where
         | Binance would remain monitored after paying the fine:
         | 
         |  _" If Binance and the DOJ agree on a deferred-prosecution-
         | agreement, the Justice Department would file a criminal
         | complaint against the company. The US would not go forward with
         | a prosecution as long as the company meets prescribed
         | conditions, which usually include paying a substantial penalty
         | and agreeing to a detailed statement of facts outlining its
         | wrongdoing. A process would be set up to monitor the company's
         | compliance."_
         | 
         | Also there might be personal criminal charges against CZ:
         | 
         |  _" Negotiations between the Justice Department and Binance
         | include the possibility that its founder Changpeng Zhao would
         | face criminal charges in the US under an agreement to resolve
         | the probe into alleged money laundering, bank fraud and
         | sanctions violations, according to people familiar with the
         | discussions._
         | 
         |  _" Zhao, also known as "CZ," is residing in the United Arab
         | Emirates, which doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US,
         | but that doesn't prevent him from coming voluntarily."_
         | 
         | LOL at the "coming voluntarily" part though...
        
           | inhumantsar wrote:
           | Residing in the UAE also wouldn't prevent extraordinary
           | rendition should it come to that...
        
             | CrzyLngPwd wrote:
             | Just say kidnapping. It's not like it's North America's
             | first time.
        
             | arcticbull wrote:
             | No need to go that far. The lack of an extradition treaty
             | doesn't preclude extradition. Instead of having a
             | formalized process in place it would have to be done case
             | by case. This is a common misconception about extradition
             | treaties in general.
        
               | Scoundreller wrote:
               | And sometimes you're safe despite the existence of an
               | extradition treaty. France has a bunch of extradition
               | treaties but they'll only let them be used against non-
               | citizens.
        
               | ender341341 wrote:
               | A lot of countries will only really extradite non-
               | citizens, especially the more powerful they are.
        
           | fredgrott wrote:
           | it's oh UEA you want protection of your oil tanker traffic
           | from Iran missile hits, guess what let's trade....
        
         | robocat wrote:
         | Feels like extortion.
         | 
         | The Mafia's bigger brother.
        
         | dragonwriter wrote:
         | > I know this is how the US operates, still it's weird to trade
         | cash for criminal allegations.
         | 
         | I would imagine that the US is not unique in either (1) making
         | corporations liable for crime, or (2) having the principal
         | sanction against the corporation itself for any crime be either
         | monetary or a combination of monetary sanction and injunction
         | or similar behavioral controls.
        
           | echelon wrote:
           | You can't imprison or kill [1] a company.
           | 
           | You can impose civil or criminal penalties on the directors,
           | but the shareholders are also (perhaps rightly) punished when
           | you impose fines.
           | 
           | A government can also seize a company's assets and
           | redistribute them to recover costs, but in doing so you often
           | dismantle the value.
           | 
           | [1] (At least not in the same way you can impose capital
           | punishment on a human.)
        
         | advisedwang wrote:
         | Lets say this goes to trial and Binance is convicted. What will
         | the sentence be? A fine. Allowing them to pay now without the
         | trial basically is like a plea deal (or pleading guilty for a
         | reduced sentence). Presumably this is less than the DoJ thinks
         | the fine+court costs would be if they went to trial.
        
         | TacticalCoder wrote:
         | > I know this is how the US operates, still it's weird to trade
         | cash for criminal allegations.
         | 
         | It's not just the US. Spain is accusing Shakira of financial
         | fraud (spending more than 183 days over a year from 2012 to
         | 2014 in Spain --for she had a spanish lover--, without paying
         | her taxes in Spain) and she had to pay something like 16
         | millions plus six months in jail but they recently settled on
         | an additional 8 millions or something and no jail time.
         | 
         | I mean: it's not exactly the same but they still traded cash
         | for part of the sentence.
         | 
         | P.S: Spain is also apparently now going after her for year
         | 2018.
        
         | bilbo0s wrote:
         | I'd be much more concerned about what this offer indicates
         | regarding the new goodies that the shadow side of the US
         | government has leveraged out of Binance.
         | 
         | In the long run, I'd wager the US government will be getting
         | information and services worth a good deal more than
         | USD4Billion out of Binance and ancillary organizations.
         | 
         | Still, if you can make as much money as Binance has allegedly
         | been making, and sure, sell out a few of your customers, but
         | now you can keep all that money free and clear legally? That's
         | a pretty good trade assuming you're not some privacy nut or
         | anything.
         | 
         | As a bonus, the shadow side of the US government will probably
         | be pretty keen on protecting you from any of your less savory
         | customers. Just so they can keep the whole thing rolling as
         | long as possible.
         | 
         | This could be a good outcome for Binance.
        
       | monero-xmr wrote:
       | $80 billion in profit and a $4 billion fine! American justice at
       | its finest.
        
         | gruez wrote:
         | Did they really make $80 billion from the alleged wrongdoings?
         | Or is that just their total profit?
        
           | TrapLord_Rhodo wrote:
           | The $80B in profit is a random number the OP through out.
           | 
           | Most likely the exchange is making between $2-$4B in profit a
           | year (With bull markets around $12-$14B a year). However,
           | with such a small team and the team being paid is bUSD, i
           | suspect most of their revenue is pure profit.
           | 
           | Also, Binance executives are tied to Tether ($87B market cap)
           | with around $8-12B in profit per year, and BNB ($39B market
           | cap) $600-$800M per year, makes it one of the most profitable
           | companies in the world.
           | 
           | So although $80B came from no where (And the real number is
           | closer to around $20B a year with a market cap of $110B, $4B
           | is nothing for them.)
        
         | chollida1 wrote:
         | Can you explain how you came to that number?
        
       | costco wrote:
       | Wow, I was expecting about half that. I think this would be the
       | second largest DPA ever. BNP Paribas paid $9 billion, Airbus paid
       | $3.9 billion, Wells Fargo $3 billion, ...
       | 
       | I wonder if the SEC/CFTC stuff will be resolved too. That's the
       | deal BitMEX got but this case is way more substantial than just
       | not registering as a money transmitter.
        
         | dmix wrote:
         | Maybe it's an opening bid that could be negotiated down to 50%.
         | Half kidding.
        
       | ecommerceguy wrote:
       | 4 billion and continue being an inflation sink (dollar
       | destruction) and the deal with the US gov lets the scam continue.
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _the deal with the US gov lets the scam continue_
         | 
         | Outside America. Which, like, seems fine.
        
           | wmf wrote:
           | It's not really though. US people log in to Binance through
           | VPNs and get scammed.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _US people log in to Binance through VPNs and get
             | scammed_
             | 
             | Literally the entire point of this case. DoJ seems to want
             | CZ, personally, and for Binance to promise to root out
             | Americans using it through a VPN. If they comply, the
             | company can continue operating in others' markets while
             | using the U.S. financial system.
        
       | purpleblue wrote:
       | Ahhh, so I guess this really was just a shakedown after all, like
       | some banana republic despot. Color me stupid for thinking that
       | the US cared about law and order and not about making money
       | through the justice system.
        
       | CrzyLngPwd wrote:
       | So, in the USA, you can do wrongs and then buy your way out of
       | it, such that doing wrong and the resulting fines are just a cost
       | of doing business however you see fit?
        
         | shrimp_emoji wrote:
         | Sounds like freedom to me :D
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _you can do wrongs and then buy your way out of it_
         | 
         | Did you miss the part where they're still wanting to criminally
         | charge Zhao?
        
         | 0xDEADFED5 wrote:
         | I don't know why you're being downvoted, because the answer is
         | mostly yes.
        
         | Yizahi wrote:
         | After a certain threshold, financial crime is rebranded as
         | "lobbying" and is rewarded instead of punished.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-11-20 23:01 UTC)