The legal dispute between Binance and The Wall Street Journal has intensified as the newspaper moves to have the cryptocurrency exchange’s defamation lawsuit dismissed in a New York federal court. Central to the conflict are articles published by the Journal that linked Iranian sanctions concerns to the departure of key compliance staff at Binance.
ETH
SOL
BSC
ROBINHOOD
USDT
AAPLJournal’s defense against defamation claims
Attorneys for the Journal argued before Judge Paul Engelmayer on Wednesday that Binance has not met the legal threshold for defamation, specifically the requirement to demonstrate that journalists acted with “actual malice.” The lawyers underscored that Binance’s rebuttals and denials were documented both before and after the stories’ publication, but maintained that such denials do not establish grounds for a defamation case under federal law.
Katherine Bolger, counsel for the Journal, maintained that Binance’s main objection concerns how information was framed, rather than factual inaccuracies. She stated that editorial decisions regarding the presentation of sourced facts are not, in themselves, actionable for defamation.
The Journal referenced similar coverage by The New York Times and Fortune, which documented allegations by former investigators regarding potential transactions involving Iranian-sanctioned entities. Journal representatives asserted that consistent reporting by other reputable outlets undermines the notion that its journalists knowingly published falsehoods.
The lawyers argued that documenting Binance’s denials does not equate to malice, and editorial choices on presentation cannot alone justify a defamation claim.
Binance rejects implications around compliance actions
Binance has denied that it terminated compliance staff as a response to scrutiny over Iranian-related transactions. The exchange insists that its investigations into Iran-linked activity continued after the departure of those employees and that staff changes were not tied to compliance probes.
Representing Binance, Christopher Norman Lavigne challenged the narrative that the exchange shuttered its compliance efforts or intentionally obstructed law enforcement. He claimed that these portrayals are inaccurate and could damage Binance’s reputation by presenting a misleading account of its operations.
The exchange also argued that readers might incorrectly infer, from the Journal’s coverage, that leadership retaliated against compliance staff who were investigating questionable activities. Binance’s legal team is pursuing a defamation-by-implication strategy, aiming to demonstrate how certain characterizations could generate misleading impressions of the company’s intent.
Binance’s attorneys asserted that the coverage could mislead the public into thinking investigators faced retaliation, a point central to their case for defamation by implication.
Judge reviews challenged statements and regulatory context
Judge Engelmayer is reviewing 22 specific statements across three Wall Street Journal articles identified by Binance as potentially defamatory. During the hearing, he pressed Binance’s lawyers to clarify exactly how these statements crossed the line into defamation, and queried why similar reports in other major publications have not prompted legal action.
This case plays out against the backdrop of heightened regulatory oversight for Binance. In 2023, the platform ended a significant dispute with US regulators, agreeing to enhanced monitoring of its compliance and anti-money laundering controls. Changpeng Zhao, who previously served as chief executive, also pleaded guilty to failures in maintaining sufficient compliance procedures.
Recently, attention turned to Zhao’s connections with former US President Donald Trump, after Trump granted Zhao clemency in October 2025 following a four-month sentence. This has fueled political interest in Binance’s past operations and its links to other ventures linked to Trump’s associates. As the legal proceedings continue, Judge Engelmayer has not indicated when he will rule on whether to dismiss the lawsuit.
Amid regulatory and legal scrutiny, traditional market dynamics are being disrupted by a growing trend on Wall Street: institutions and investors are moving toward Web3-based platforms. Through services like 1stepSwap, investors can now hold tokenized shares of leading US companies, as well as gold and silver, directly in their digital wallets—without brokers. By tokenizing real-world assets and instantly comparing market prices, these platforms offer a streamlined alternative to conventional intermediaries.
