In a setback for plaintiffs seeking to link Binance to terrorist financing, a U.S. federal court in New York dismissed a broad claim that the exchange helped move funds for terrorist groups. The ruling comes as Binance and its founder CEO, Changpeng Zhao, have repeatedly argued that centralized crypto exchanges operate on economic incentives that make it irrational for criminals to use legitimate platforms for funding violent acts. The decision, while narrow in scope, underscores the challenges in tying crypto trading venues to specific acts of violence, even amid heightened scrutiny over sanctions and compliance practices.

Key takeaways

• The Southern District of New York judge dismissed the case at the pleading stage, citing an insufficient link between Binance’s operations and the listed attacks.
• The plaintiffs represented 535 individuals connected to 64 attacks dating from 2016 to 2024, attributed to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• Changpeng Zhao (CZ) asserted on X that centralized exchanges have “zero motive” to assist terrorists, arguing that such activity would not generate trading revenue and would likely be short-livedDeposits.
• The court’s decision narrows the path for victims pursuing anti-terrorism claims under statutes such as the US Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
• Binance has faced separate scrutiny over sanctions-related transactions and Iran-linked activity, including pushback against Senate probes and media reports that alleged extensive ties to sanctioned entities.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The ruling arrives amid a broader backdrop of intensified regulatory scrutiny of centralized exchanges, including debates over sanctions enforcement, AML/KYC standards and the role of crypto platforms in cross-border law enforcement efforts. While the decision limits one legal avenue for victims, it does not resolve ongoing questions about how large exchanges respond to illicit activity and geopolitical sanctions.

Why it matters

The SDNY’s dismissal signals that, at least in this case, plaintiffs faced a high bar in proving direct, actionable links between Binance’s services and the specific terrorist attacks cited in the complaint. The decision emphasizes the difficulty of proving causation for criminal actions that occur through a broad, permissionless ecosystem where many intermediaries and third parties could be involved. For traders and institutions watching regulatory risk, the ruling reinforces the boundary between platform responsibility and the broader ecosystem in which crypto assets circulate.

From a policy vantage point, the case highlights the tension between victims seeking redress under anti-terrorism statutes and the practical standards courts apply to show that a platform’s compliance practices materially facilitated or enabled wrongdoing. The judge’s ruling does not absolve Binance of potential wrongdoing in other contexts, but it does illustrate how courts assess linkages between a platform’s operations and the crimes alleged. In the process, it preserves the possibility that future amendments to complaints, if sufficiently grounded, could reframe liability questions under different facts or legal theories.

Beyond the courtroom, Binance’s public posture remains that it endeavors to operate within regulatory expectations while contesting allegations that rely on incomplete or mischaracterized information. The exchange has repeatedly argued that its internal controls, risk models and cooperation with authorities are designed to prevent illicit activity, and it has asserted that certain allegations—particularly those tied to sanctions evasion—are overstated or unfounded. The recent court decision, while narrow, interacts with a broader narrative about how exchanges balance rapid, global crypto trading with stringent compliance obligations.

What to watch next

• Whether plaintiffs pursue an amended complaint within the 60-day window noted by the judge, potentially re framing allegations or adding new evidence to strengthen causation links.
• Binance’s ongoing responses to regulatory inquiries, including statements addressing Senate probes and sanctions-related reporting, and how the company frames its compliance posture in light of evolving rules.
• Regulatory developments surrounding Iran-related and other sanctions-compliance matters, as policymakers weigh enforcement priorities and the role of major crypto platforms in monitoring cross-border flows.
• Subsequent court activity, including any appeals or related actions that might test different legal theories or damages frameworks under anti-terrorism statutes.

Sources & verification

• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissal order (PDF) detailing the court’s rationale for ruling at the pleading stage.
• Original court filing referenced in coverage, including the inclusion of 535 plaintiffs connected to 64 attacks (2016–2024).
• Changpeng Zhao’s X post remarking on the economics of centralized exchanges and their lack of motive to engage with terrorists.
• Binance’s response to Senate inquiries and related reporting discussed in coverage of sanctions and Iran-linked activity.

Binance court ruling and regulatory scrutiny

The decision in the SDNY case marks a notable moment in crypto litigation, illustrating how courts evaluate the relationship between a large exchange’s operations and criminal acts pursued by external actors. While the ruling narrows the path for the plaintiffs, it does not preclude other lawsuits or investigations that might pursue different factual or legal avenues. In the immediate aftermath, Binance pressed a cautious but defiant stance on the sanctions-related allegations, reiterating that a February inquiry relied on information the firm described as false and lacking credible substantiation. The exchange emphasized its commitment to compliance and cooperation with authorities while warning against conflation of isolated incidents with systemic failures.

As the industry navigates a landscape of looming regulatory expectations, the case underscores the importance of robust AML/CFT controls, transparent transaction monitoring, and proactive risk management—elements that policymakers argue are essential to preserving the integrity of crypto markets. It also highlights how defendants in high-profile cases must balance public diplomacy with legal strategy, especially when countering narratives that tie crypto platforms to violent acts or sanctioned networks. In this environment, market participants—ranging from retail traders to institutional buyers—will be closely watching how courts interpret platform responsibilities and how regulators adapt their guidance to evolving technologies and use cases.

What to watch next

• The 60-day window for an amended complaint, which could shift pleadings and potentially introduce new factual claims.
• Binance’s continued engagement with U.S. lawmakers and regulators as scrutiny around Iranian-linked transactions and broader sanctions compliance persists.
• Any new court actions related to similar theories of liability, including potential appeals or separate lawsuits that challenge platform practices or risk controls.

Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded $568.45 million in net inflows for the week ending March 6 and were the second consecutive week of positive flows.

Three days of strong buying from March 2-4 totaling $1.15 billion offset outflows on March 5-6 that drained $576.66 million, leaving the week with net positive flows.

Bitcoin (BTC) traded below $67,000 after dropping 2% over 24 hours, while total net assets for Bitcoin ETFs reached $87.07 billion.

March 2-4 buying wave brings $1.15 billion before reversal

March 2 and March 4 posted nearly identical inflows of $458.19 million and $461.77 million respectively, bracketing March 3’s $225.15 million in positive flows.

The three-day streak brought $1.15 billion into Bitcoin ETF products. March 5 recorded $227.83 million in outflows, followed by March 6’s larger $348.83 million in redemptions.

The two-day withdrawal period removed just under half of the prior three days’ gains but left the week with $568.45 million in net inflows.

Weekly trading volume reached $25.87 billion for the period ending March 6, up from $15.99 billion during the week ending February 27.

Total net assets climbed from $83.40 billion on February 27 to $87.07 billion on March 6.

Ethereum posts modest $23.56 million in weekly inflows

Ethereum spot ETFs recorded $23.56 million in net inflows for the week ending March 6, down sharply from the prior week’s $80.46 million.

March 4 posted the strongest single-day performance at $169.41 million before two consecutive days of heavy outflows.

March 5 saw $90.94 million in redemptions, followed by March 6’s $82.85 million in outflows.

The two-day withdrawal period nearly wiped out March 4’s gains. March 2 added $38.69 million in inflows while March 3 posted a modest $10.75 million in outflows.

Total net assets for Ethereum products reached $11.28 billion with cumulative total net inflow at $11.63 billion. Ethereum price also traded below $1,900 after the 2% daily decline.

The transactions on the XRP Ledger has been growing lately, while one analyst explained the importance of the XRP/BTC pair.

Although it was rejected at $2.40 at the beginning of the year, crashed hard in the following month, and even its rebound attempt was halted at $1.65, XRP is still primed for upcoming gains, noted a few analysts on X.

The factors that could propel an impressive rally are whales’ behavior and the growing network usage of the XRP Ledger. Additionally, the XRP/BTC trading pair has reached a pivotal moment that could determine the future price moves of Ripple’s token.

Whales Dominate

Analyst CW indicated that the transactions on the XRP Ledger have been growing lately, which they categorized as a “positive signal” in the current macro conditions. This is because investors generally abandon the market and transactions decrease during bear phases. However, a rise in this metric now is a pattern that precedes a price rally.

Transactions on the $XRP ledger are increasing.

In general, in a bear market, investors leave market and transactions decrease.

An increase in transactions is a pattern that before a rally.

The transaction count, which had been declining since December 2024, is now increasing… pic.twitter.com/g7jkYZQWA8

Advertisement

— CW (@CW8900) March 7, 2026

In another post, the analyst outlined the significance of big whales in the XRP ecosystem. They noted that these large market participants continue to dominate XRP trading, maintaining a buying trend. CW added that they continue to accumulate tokens at prices below $2.40.

This is also regarded as a bullish signal for the underlying asset, as whales typically make sizeable purchases that reduce the immediate selling pressure. Moreover, retail investors tend to follow whales.

The XRP/BTC Pair

In a post titled “The Hidden Liquidity Cycle,” analyst EGRAG CRYPTO explained that the XRP/BTC pair demonstrates when “capital rotates” from the market leader to the altcoins. Historically, “XRP explodes” when this happens.

You may also like:

After noting that the green zone (in the chart below) is where XRP had become “extremely overextended” and a likely crash against BTC is coming, and the red area is the opposite, the analyst added that Ripple’s token is currently in the accumulation phase of the current cycle.

#XRP / #BTC – The Hidden Liquidity Cycle 🔄:

This chart is extremely important. 🧵1/13

Because #XRP/#BTC tells us whether #XRP will outperform #BTC, not just whether #XRP rises in #USD.

And when you zoom out… A powerful liquidity cycle begins to appear.

Advertisement

Let’s break it down. pic.twitter.com/LygPphS5pX

— EGRAG CRYPTO (@egragcrypto) March 7, 2026

If it breaks above the silver line, currently positioned at around 0.00003600 SAT, its rally is expected to begin. XRP/BTC is trading around 0.00002000 SAT as of press time.

EGRAG explained, though, that the XRP/BTC liquidity pair tends to move in long 7-8-year cycles, so this anticipated rally could take a while before it reignites as it did in late 2024.

The crypto crash has unfolded under Donald Trump as the president and Paul Atkins as the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Crypto crash has happened under Donald Trump 

Bitcoin (BTC) has already erased all the gains made during the Trump presidency and is now trading at its lowest level since October 2024. Altcoins have done worse, with some notable names like Shiba Inu and Cardano hovering near their lowest levels in 2022.

The ongoing crypto crash is ironic as the industry has some major tailwinds. President Trump is the most friendly president for the industry, while Paul Atkins has embraced a different approach than Gary Gensler. 

For example, Gary Gensler ended the lawsuits against top companies like Coinbase, Uniswap, and Ripple. He also embraced a more friendly approach, including not launching any lawsuits.

Washington has also enacted some friendly regulations. It passed the GENIUS Act last year, and is now working on the CLARITY Act that will separate SEC and CFTC duties.

There are a few reasons behind the crypto market crash under Trump. Analysts cite the launch of the Official Trump meme coin as a major risk in the industry as it drained vast liquidity. The meme coin initially jumped to $50 and then plunged to below $5.

At the same time, geopolitical risks have remained elevated under Trump. It started with his global tariffs to the current war in Iran that has pushed crude oil prices to the highest level in years.

His tariffs disrupted the falling inflation and pushed the Federal Reserve to be more cautious in its monetary policy. This trend may continue in the foreseeable future as inflation is expected to rise now that the crude oil and natural gas prices have jumped by over 50% this year amid the war in Iran.

Deleveraging after the huge liquidation event in October 

Crypto prices have also crashed amid his ongoing deleveraging among investors, especially after the major liquidation event that happened on October 10 last year when over 1.6 million traders were wiped out. 

Over $20 billion was lost on that day. Since then, the futures open interest has tumbled to below $100 billion, while the weighted funding rate has largely moved sideways. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index has remained in the red in the past few months.

The crypto crash also happened because of the gridlock in Washington about the CLARITY Act, which has stalled in the past few months. This gridlock started when Coinbase withdrew its support, citing the view that the bill made it almost impossible for crypto companies to pay stablecoin rewards. 

Banks and credit unions have argued that allowing these companies to offer rewards will drain funds from their institutions, which will affect the broader economy.

Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said centralized crypto exchanges have “zero motive” to assist terrorists after a US court dismissed a lawsuit accusing the exchange of facilitating terrorist financing.

In a post on X, Zhao argued that the economics of crypto trading make such activity illogical for exchanges. “There are absolutely zero (0) motive for any CEX to have anything to do with terrorists,” Zhao wrote, adding that such actors are unlikely to generate trading revenue and may only deposit funds briefly before withdrawing them.

The comments followed a ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that dismissed claims brought by hundreds of victims and relatives of victims of terrorist attacks. The lawsuit alleged that Binance, Zhao and Binance.US operator BAM Trading Services helped terrorist groups move funds through cryptocurrency transactions.

According to the court filing, the plaintiffs represented 535 individuals linked to victims of 64 attacks carried out between 2016 and 2024. The incidents were attributed to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Related: Binance slams US Senate probe over Iran as based on defamatory reports

Victims seek damages from Binance

The plaintiffs argued that the attackers or affiliated organizations benefited from transactions conducted on the Binance exchange. They sought damages under the US Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allows victims to pursue claims against entities accused of assisting terrorist acts.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed the case after finding that the complaint failed to establish a sufficient connection between Binance’s operations and the attacks themselves. While the filing described alleged compliance failures and illicit activity on the platform, the court said the plaintiffs did not plausibly link the exchange’s conduct to the specific attacks that caused their injuries.

The decision effectively ended the case at the pleading stage. The judge also said that “any amended complaint shall be due within 60 days.”

Related: Binance CEO accuses WSJ of defamation over Iran sanctions report

Binance denies Iran transaction claims

The recent win for Binance comes at a time when the exchange is under growing scrutiny over transactions tied to sanctioned entities. On Friday, the exchange pushed back against allegations raised by a group of 11 US senators, rejecting claims that it facilitated transactions tied to Iranian entities.