Attorneys for the newspaper argued Wednesday that Binance failed to demonstrate the legal standard of actual malice, maintaining that the exchange provided no evidence the publication knowingly printed false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. During the hearing, Journal lawyer Katherine Bolger asserted that the lawsuit stems from the company's dissatisfaction with editorial framing rather than factual errors, noting that similar reporting by other major outlets like The New York Times and Fortune suggests the information was widely corroborated.
Binance, represented by Christopher Norman Lavigne, pushed back by arguing the reports created a misleading narrative regarding the firing of compliance staff and the dismantling of internal probes into Iran-linked activity. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who questioned the specific merits of 22 statements identified by the exchange as defamatory, took the motion under submission without issuing an immediate ruling. The case follows a period of intense regulatory scrutiny for Binance, which in 2023 reached a $4.3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities over anti-money laundering and sanctions violations.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first!