A Florida man who lost $80 million in Bitcoin to scammers will get another chance to pursue legal action against Binance in state court. This follows a Wednesday appeal in which a court overturned a previous dismissal.
Florida Ruling Revives Binance Lawsuit
A Bloomberg report reveals that a judge has determined that the crypto exchange can be sued locally for allegedly failing to prevent the stolen funds from being transferred. The plaintiff, Jonny Chen, says he fell victim to a 2022 scam that drained 1,000 Bitcoin from his account. He further claims that he immediately notified Binance at the time and requested that the platform freeze the assets, but alleges the company did not act quickly enough, allowing the money to disappear.
The victim had initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Florida, but the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because Binance is headquartered overseas. However, the recent appeal has now reopened the door for it to proceed.
The decision said that Binance’s digital presence and business activity in Florida, including marketing to local users and offering services through its platform, were sufficient to establish legal jurisdiction. The court wrote that Chen “will have a fresh opportunity to show he can sue Binance Holdings Inc. in state court over an alleged theft of eighty million dollars’ worth of Bitcoin.” It also said the lower tribunal had made an error when it decided it could not hear the case.
Jurisdiction Disputes in the Crypto Space
This is not the first time a crypto company has delayed or contested legal action by raising jurisdictional challenges. Several large platforms have postponed or escaped litigation by arguing that regulators lacked authority over them due to their overseas registration.
For instance, in the case of BitMEX, American investors had accused the firm of market manipulation and operating without proper licensing. However, the company countered that it was beyond U.S. reach because it was incorporated in the Seychelles and had no physical footprint in the country, which led to delays and partial dismissals in the proceedings.
KuCoin, another foreign-based operator, faced action in New York for allegedly offering unregistered securities. The company had initially disputed the case by insisting it had no major ties to the United States. Despite this, New York’s Attorney General later relied on the Martin Act to move forward despite the firm’s objections.
Bitfinex and its affiliate Tether have also dealt with multiple claims involving alleged market manipulation and transparency shortcomings, with the two initially challenging U.S. authority, citing foreign incorporation. Despite this, some litigation eventually moved forward and resulted in settlements.