Senator Warren’s lawyer rejected Binance founder defamation threat and the lawyer asserted her post about his money laundering guilty plea was accurate.
A lawyer for US Senator Elizabeth Warren has aggressively countered allegations. She faced charges of defaming Binance’s founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ). Furthermore, this followed a post on social media about a presidential clemency. The lawyer, Ben Stafford, strongly said that the claim of defamation has no grounds for being raised.
At first, Zhao’s lawyer Teresa Goody Guillen, threatened to sue. The lawyer sent Warren a cease-and-desist letter, asking them to remove a post on X from October 23 immediately. Additionally, the post described the corruption of President Donald Trump’s pardon of Zhao. Therefore, the statement, according to Goody Guillen, ruined the reputation of Zhao.
Related Reading: Crypto News Today: CZ Confirms Plans to File Defamation Lawsuit Against Senator Warren | Live Bitcoin News
Specifically, Zhao pleaded guilty in the US District Court Western Washington. Thus, he acknowledged having deliberately failed to run an effective AML program. Furthermore, this is a felony under the Bank Secrecy Act. The legal argument will be based on the exact wording of the criminal offence.
Additionally, Stafford’s letter, which was obtained by Punchbowl News, denied the threat in absolute terms. In addition, he pointed out the accuracy of Warren’s initial tweet. Thus, the law Zhao is convicted of violating is clearly an anti-money laundering law. The lawyer said the tweet is both factual and shielded by law.
Further, Zhao’s attorneys argued that Warren had misrepresented the nature of the plea severely. More specifically, they argued that Warren had written that Zhao pleaded guilty to criminal money laundering. Therefore, they stated that this directly indicated that he was directly involved in laundering money. However, Goody Guillen said this distinction is very important to his public figure.
However, Stafford pointed out that Warren’s statement was very similar to the language. Thus, it was employed by federal prosecutors themselves. Thus, her public comments are completely vindicated by the record of the court. Further, his firm actions demonstrate a consistent effort to control the narrative.
In addition, Stafford argued that Zhao only wanted to scare a public official. As a result, this effort was attempted through aggressive legal threats. Hence, he charged Zhao of attempting to control the narrative around his criminal case. Therefore, this stops him from accepting complete legal responsibility.
Ultimately, Stafford made it clear Warren’s office will not be silenced. Additionally, they are not afraid to face threats of legal action from the major players in the crypto industry. As a result, this very public give-and-take reflects a polarization of politics. This exists as a tension between the decentralized finance sector and lawmakers in the United States.
Also, the controversy highlights the constant struggle for language ownership, and specifically, this control shows how crimes in the crypto space are understood. Therefore, the whole disagreement is on the legal distinction. This is the difference between being negligent in the prevention of money laundering and direct involvement.
Lastly, the Senator’s counsel showed resistance to the defamation threat. So, the rejection only once again confirms Warren’s refusal to modify her statement. Further, this can be considered a further public position. The approach is strict liability in the case of large crypto exchanges.
Read more on Live Bitcoin News
