CZ Fights Back: Binance CEO Moves to Dismiss $1.76B FTX Clawback—Claims US Court Has No Jurisdiction
Binance's Changpeng Zhao strikes first—filing to toss a $1.76 billion FTX clawback lawsuit in what could become crypto's messiest courtroom brawl yet.
Jurisdiction Jujitsu
CZ’s legal team argues US courts lack authority over the dispute, setting up a jurisdictional showdown that could redefine how crypto giants handle cross-border legal fires.
Clawback Chaos
The suit—one of FTX’s most aggressive recovery attempts—targets funds allegedly transferred before the exchange’s collapse. Now Binance calls it a ‘global overreach’ by US trustees who’ve ‘discovered a sudden passion for creditor recovery’ (after rubber-stamping FTX’s books for years).
Next move? Either a precedent-setting ruling…or another million-dollar delay in crypto’s favorite sport: lawsuit limbo.
Binance deal, foreign ties, and the jurisdiction wall
This case traces back to a July 2021 share buyback deal between FTX and Binance. In November 2024, the FTX trust sued Binance, CZ, and several others over that deal, accusing them of benefiting from transfers that should’ve never happened.
According to the trust, Binance and its execs got funds from selling about 20% of FTX’s global unit and 18.4% of its U.S. arm. The money for that transaction came from Alameda Ltd, which is based in the British Virgin Islands.
CZ doesn’t deny the deal happened. What he’s arguing is that the whole thing was offshore — and that matters. Binance’s legal entities are incorporated in Ireland, the Cayman Islands, and BVI, so the money moved in and out of jurisdictions where U.S. laws don’t reach. His motion states that this entire thing is “extraterritorial”, which means Delaware law doesn’t apply.
“The trust and FTX Digital Markets nonsensically blame Zhao and Binance for Bankman-Fried’s pervasive malfeasance,” the filing said. And CZ added that he was only a “nominal counterparty” in the transaction — meaning he wasn’t even the main party behind the deal.
Two former Binance executives named in the same suit, Samuel Wenjun Lim and Dinghua Xiao, also asked the court in July to cut them from the lawsuit. They too are calling it a stretch.
The filing also points out that Binance and FTX were only “briefly business partners.” According to CZ, Binance once held a 20% stake in FTX, but things ended quickly after some “personal grievances.” That equity was swapped for crypto, and they walked away.
On top of that, CZ’s lawyers say the entire lawsuit is flawed because serving U.S. counsel on a foreign defendant is not valid under bankruptcy law. The motion says that automatically kills the complaint. It also points out that U.S. bankruptcy laws don’t definitively cover foreign transfers, especially when the transaction is related to securities contracts that fall under SAFE harbor protections.
“The constructive fraud claims also don’t meet legal requirements under safe harbor provisions,” the motion added. Under federal law, safe harbor allows “qualifying transactions” involving securities to be shielded from clawbacks.
Now both sides are coming into court with major criminal baggage. CZ already served four months in prison for violating U.S. anti-money-laundering laws. Meanwhile, Sam Bankman-Fried is doing 25 years for fraud, conspiracy, and five other charges. That context makes this fight even messier.
Cryptopolitan Academy: Want to grow your money in 2025? Learn how to do it with DeFi in our upcoming webclass. Save Your Spot
