The Binance Pardon: When Corporate Interests Trump National Security and Justice for Terrorism Victims
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: A Complex Web of Allegations and Political Intervention
The recent lawsuit filed by families of October 7th attack victims against Binance reveals a disturbing pattern of alleged criminal negligence and political favoritism that demands urgent public scrutiny. According to court documents, Binance knowingly facilitated hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions for designated terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The platform allegedly served as a critical financial pipeline for these groups, even while publicly acknowledging the terrorist use of its services.
This legal action comes just one month after President Donald Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (commonly known as CZ), who had pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program. The pardon occurred despite Zhao’s four-month jail sentence and Binance’s agreement to pay over $4.3 billion in penalties—one of the largest corporate settlements in U.S. history. The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network had previously documented that Binance failed to file required Suspicious Activity Reports regarding “significant sums being transmitted to and from entities officially designated as terrorist organizations.”
Context: A Pattern of Regulatory Evasion
The lawsuit alleges that Binance was designed from its inception as “a criminal enterprise to facilitate money laundering on a global scale.” Court documents claim the company intentionally manipulated transaction reporting “to avoid attracting scrutiny” from U.S. regulators and law enforcement. This systematic evasion occurred despite Binance’s legal obligation to flag suspicious activities involving terrorist organizations.
What makes these allegations particularly alarming is their timing and scale. The complaint states that “years before October 7, Binance knew that Hamas… and other terrorist organizations were all transacting regularly on its platform and nevertheless actively assisted their use of the platform.” Even more troubling, the lawsuit claims this practice “continues to this day,” with Binance facilitating over $50 million in transactions for terrorist groups since the October 7 attacks.
The Presidential Pardon: Justice Undermined
The presidential pardon granted to CZ represents one of the most concerning aspects of this case. The White House justified the pardon by declaring Zhao a casualty of the Biden administration’s “war on cryptocurrency.” However, this characterization fundamentally misrepresents the nature of Zhao’s crimes. This wasn’t about cryptocurrency regulation—it was about failing to prevent terrorist financing and money laundering, offenses that strike at the heart of national security.
President Trump’s subsequent denial of knowing anything about CZ while simultaneously suggesting the pardon would help the crypto industry flourish reveals a dangerous disconnect. When a president admits limited understanding of an industry while intervening in justice matters involving that industry, it raises serious questions about the motivations behind such executive actions. The fact that Trump’s family has significant financial ties to the cryptocurrency industry, including connections to Binance through World Liberty Financial, only deepens these concerns.
The Human Cost: Victims Seeking Justice
Behind the legal arguments and political maneuvering lie real human tragedies. The plaintiffs in this case are U.S. nationals and their family members who lost loved ones in the October 7 attacks. They’re not seeking abstract justice—they’re seeking accountability for alleged corporate complicity in financing the terrorism that claimed their family members’ lives. Their pursuit of “treble damages” under laws allowing victims of international terrorism to recover three times their sustained damages represents a legitimate attempt to hold powerful entities accountable.
What makes their quest particularly poignant is that they’re confronting not just a corporation, but a system that appears to value corporate interests over victims’ rights. The timing of the presidential pardon, coming so soon after Zhao’s sentencing, sends a disturbing message about whose interests our justice system prioritizes.
Systemic Implications: Democracy Under Threat
This case represents more than just a legal dispute—it strikes at fundamental principles of democratic governance and the rule of law. When corporations can allegedly facilitate terrorist financing with minimal consequences, and when executives can receive presidential pardons despite admitting to crimes that enabled such activities, we face a crisis of accountability.
The alleged pattern of behavior described in the lawsuit—knowingly facilitating terrorist transactions while actively evading regulatory scrutiny—represents exactly the type of corporate misconduct that strong democracies must prevent. The subsequent pardon suggests that powerful interests can circumvent accountability mechanisms designed to protect national security and victims’ rights.
The Rule of Law: A Foundation Under Attack
At its core, this case tests whether our legal system can withstand pressures from corporate influence and political favoritism. The rule of law depends on consistent application of justice, regardless of wealth, power, or political connections. When a corporate executive receives a pardon for crimes related to terrorist financing while victims seek justice through the courts, it creates a dangerous perception of two-tiered justice.
This isn’t merely about cryptocurrency regulation or even about a single company’s alleged misconduct. It’s about whether our institutions can maintain their integrity when confronted with powerful interests. The foundation of any free society is the principle that no one is above the law—not corporations, not wealthy executives, and certainly not those who allegedly enable terrorism.
Moving Forward: Restoring Accountability
This case demands more than legal resolution—it requires systemic examination of how we regulate financial technologies, how we hold corporations accountable for national security violations, and how we ensure that presidential powers aren’t used to undermine justice. The victims’ lawsuit represents an important step toward accountability, but it cannot be the only response.
Congress must examine whether current regulations adequately address the national security risks posed by cryptocurrency platforms. Regulatory agencies need resources and authority to effectively monitor transactions that could fund terrorism. Most importantly, we must reaffirm that national security and victims’ rights cannot be sacrificed for corporate convenience or political expediency.
The families pursuing this lawsuit demonstrate extraordinary courage in seeking accountability against powerful interests. Their pursuit of justice serves as a reminder that in a democracy, ordinary citizens can challenge even the most powerful entities when fundamental principles are at stake. Their case represents not just a legal claim, but a defense of the values that underpin our free society—accountability, transparency, and the unwavering principle that enabling terrorism can never be treated as mere regulatory non-compliance.