A representative named Eeon, claiming to speak on behalf of Binance customers, has made an attempt to enter an ongoing securities case involving the exchange company. Eeon, along with the affected customers, filed a document stating that they should be recognized as the relevant parties in this matter. They argue that the court order issued on June 17, 2023, identified them as “Customers” and emphasized that they are not just ordinary customers but also stakeholders, investors, and owners of their cryptocurrency held by Binance and its subsidiaries. Eeon and the customers feel that their interests were not taken into consideration.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges against Binance on June 5. Eeon’s statements refer to a consent order issued on June 17, in which the SEC sought to restrict Binance U.S.-related funds. Although Binance and the SEC later reached a compromise, Eeon intends to challenge the outcome.
Eeon specifically objects to Binance and its subsidiaries’ control over user cryptocurrency keys and the blocking of user withdrawals. This objection likely stems from Binance.US’ decision to disable U.S. dollar withdrawals around June 13. Eeon’s main goal, as expressed in their motion to intervene, is to have Binance.US reopen normal withdrawal functions until the SEC can prove that it is necessary to do otherwise. The group does not want all assets to be liquidated, as this could potentially disrupt the cryptocurrency market.
However, in a second filing and counterclaim, Eeon goes further and requests a penalty to be imposed on both Binance and the SEC. Eeon asks for the two parties to pay an amount equal to 20% of the daily value of the withheld funds, compounded per day, or a total of $1,000 per day per customer.
In this second document, Eeon accuses Binance and related parties of theft and fraud while acknowledging that the firm blocked withdrawals and denied users access to their property under the court’s order. Eeon also argues that the SEC cannot properly represent customers because it has accused customers of wrongdoing, creating an apparent conflict of interest.
It is unclear whether Eeon’s filings hold legal merit. Eeon claims to have 30 years of experience in dealing with courts, but there is limited information available about the individual behind the name. Eeon is only identifiable as a legal entity in Nevada.
The filings also reveal a lack of professionalism, with the author using excessive exclamation marks and unusual formatting. Furthermore, the author admits to using an AI to convert the text into plain language. In addition, the author employs aggressive language when referring to both Binance and the SEC, even going as far as labeling them “predator sociopaths.”
Despite these developments, Binance.US withdrawals remain disabled, and the company’s website states that there is no estimated time for resumption. The outcome of further court proceedings may shed light on the likelihood of withdrawals being enabled again, regardless of the quality of the recent filings.
The Uncertain Legal Merit and Professionalism of Eeon’s Filings
Eeon’s attempt to intervene in the ongoing securities case against Binance raises questions about the legal validity of their claims. While Eeon asserts that they have been identified as stakeholders, investors, and owners by the court, the lack of information about the individual behind the name raises doubts about their credibility.
Furthermore, the filings themselves exhibit a surprising lack of professionalism. The excessive use of exclamation marks, unusual formatting, and admission of using an AI to simplify the language undermine the overall credibility of the documents. The author’s aggressive language and derogatory remarks towards Binance and the SEC also detract from the seriousness of the matter.
It remains to be seen whether Eeon’s arguments will hold weight in the court proceedings. The disabled withdrawals on Binance.US add to the uncertainty surrounding the case. As the situation unfolds, it will become clearer whether Eeon’s claims and demands will have any impact on the outcome of the securities case.