Senator Elizabeth Warren’s authorized workforce has dismissed Binance founder Changpeng Zhao’s defamation risk, asserting her tweet about his responsible plea precisely displays the Division of Justice’s (DOJ) description.
This dispute arose after Warren’s October 23 social media submit following Zhao’s presidential pardon reignited debate about crypto regulation and the affect of politics in digital asset markets.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Authorized Protection Rooted in DOJ Language
The official response, issued on November 2, 2025, insists that any lawsuit would face substantial authorized challenges primarily based on public information and constitutional protections.
Warren’s attorneys referred particularly to the DOJ’s November 21, 2023, press launch of their response to Zhao. The DOJ assertion outlined the previous Binance CEO’s costs as a part of a “$4B decision” for “anti-money laundering” violations.
CZ pleaded responsible within the US District Courtroom for the Western District of Washington (Case No. CR23-179RAJ) for willfully failing to take care of an efficient anti-money laundering program, a prison offense below the Financial institution Secrecy Act.
The authorized letter highlights that Warren’s tweet is each correct and guarded below the legislation. Her assertion, that CZ “pleaded responsible to a prison cash laundering cost and was sentenced to jail,” intently mirrors the language utilized by federal prosecutors.
The DOJ described Binance’s violations as “anti-money laundering,” and the Financial institution Secrecy Act stays the important thing legislation for such offenses in america.
Authorized specialists have commented that Zhao’s argument is slender. One lawyer famous that the excellence Zhao attracts is weak.
Sponsored
Sponsored
“It was all the time the dumbest of technical arguments to counsel that failure to take care of a cash laundering program wasn’t a cash laundering cost,” mentioned Max Schatzow in a submit.
The response cites precedents involving public figures in defamation claims. Below New York Instances v. Sullivan and Masson v. New Yorker, public figures should present “precise malice” that the defendant knowingly printed false data or acted recklessly.
Warren’s assertion, grounded in official paperwork and press releases, doesn’t meet these necessities, her workforce argues.
Pardon and Political Controversy
The present dispute follows President Trump’s October 22, 2025, pardon of CZ. The authorized letter highlights lobbying efforts and reported enterprise connections between Binance and the Trump household ventures.
Warren launched Senate Decision 466 to sentence the pardon and underline the anti-money laundering violation; it was co-sponsored by 14 senators.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Zhao’s prison actions spanned from August 2017 to October 2022, allegedly prioritising Binance’s progress over compliance. The corporate admitted to working an unlicensed cash transmitting enterprise and to violating sanctions.
This resulted in one of many largest prison resolutions involving a company govt, with CZ sentenced to jail earlier than the pardon.
Warren’s reply highlights her position in monetary oversight and dedication to transparency. The authorized workforce cites broad information protection from TradFi media, every of which describes CZ’s offence in language constant along with her tweet.
The letter clarifies the excellence between civil penalties and prison costs, noting that CZ expressly admitted to prison conduct below US legislation.
The letter additionally cites the broader regulatory framework. The Financial institution Secrecy Act requires monetary companies and crypto exchanges to implement anti-money laundering applications. CZ’s failure constituted a prison violation below sections 5318(h) and 5322(b)-(e) of the BSA, in addition to different federal statutes.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Excessive Bar for Defamation Claims
A authorized supply advised Eleanor Terrett that Warren’s protection might make it very troublesome to carry a defamation case. The supply emphasised the alignment between Warren’s assertion and the DOJ’s public characterization.
As a result of her assertion depends on authorities language and courtroom information, it is going to be a problem for CZ to show falsity or malice.
Warren’s attorneys additionally referenced constitutional safeguards for speech by senators. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee and a powerful advocate for monetary oversight, Warren has each the responsibility and the authority to tell the general public about main enforcement actions. Each her tweet and her Senate decision align along with her legislative obligations.
As this standoff continues, the dispute highlights the continued pressure between leaders in crypto and authorities regulators.
Whether or not CZ strikes ahead with a lawsuit stays unclear, however each authorized and political penalties are important.
The controversy additionally highlights the connection between presidential pardons, company accountability, and the responsibility of elected officers to make sure accountability inside the business.