jakiro
Compiled by: Wu Shuo Blockchain
In this episode, Anthony Pompliano’s podcast focuses on Trump’s pardon of Binance founder CZ (Changpeng Zhao). CZ’s lawyer Teresa Goody Guillén clarified that the nature of the case was a compliance violation rather than a crime, emphasizing that the pardon was based on “judicial fairness” considerations.She systematically refuted conspiracy theories about “money transactions” or “political benefit transfer” in the media and political circles, pointing out the lack of evidence and misunderstandings of the blockchain mechanism.In addition, the program discussed the background of the United States’ suppression of the crypto industry, the rigor of the amnesty process, CZ’s own attitude, and the future situation of Binance and the U.S. crypto market.
Legal reason for CZ’s pardon: No victims of compliance violations
Anthony: Today we have a very important and serious conversation, and I’m going to be having it with Teresa Goody Guillén.She was CZ’s personal attorney and was deeply involved in the process of obtaining his pardon.There are many disputes online about why he received the amnesty, whether there was an exchange of interests, and whether there was corruption.I reached out to Teresa to ask her to chat about these issues, whether they’re simple questions or tough questions, we’re asking today.That’s my conversation with Teresa Goody Guillén.Teresa, you are here today to reveal the inside story of CZ’s pardon and answer the questions raised by many outside critics.Can you help us clarify what exactly CZ is accused of?What was the logic behind his pardon?
Teresa: What he is accused of is that Binance failed to implement and maintain anti-money laundering compliance procedures.It needs to be clarified that this is only a regulatory violation issue, a compliance matter, and does not involve any actual money laundering.It’s just that Binance failed to implement a set of anti-money laundering procedures.
He was pardoned because he should never have been prosecuted in the first place.The president also made it clear when he signed the pardon for him that he did not believe CZ had committed any crime and did not understand why he was being prosecuted.The essence of this amnesty is to achieve justice.
CZ is the only person in history to be prosecuted or even sentenced for charges of this nature—with no fraud, no victims, and no criminal record.He was treated very differently from all others in similar cases throughout history.
Selective law enforcement in the context of encryption suppression
Anthony: Why do you think CZ is treated differently?
Teresa: I think this is part of the “war on cryptocurrencies.”This was shortly after the collapse of FTX, and the entire regulatory environment was highly tense.I think that in this context, regulatory agencies need to “find someone to take action.” They must prosecute someone, or even severely punish a representative “in a flag-sacrifice manner.”Unfortunately, that target ended up being Binance and CZ.
Anthony: If I understand correctly, the regulatory agency launched an investigation because the company failed to fulfill relevant responsibilities.In this case, do business executives need to bear legal responsibility?On one hand, one might argue that CEOs should be held accountable for corporate actions; but on the other hand, I found through some simple searches that large banks or financial institutions have faced similar accusations, but their executives have generally not been held accountable.What are the implementation standards for this?What is the difference between corporate and personal liability?
Teresa: You are absolutely right.In similar cases, executives have never been prosecuted.You can name any large financial institution and chances are they have all been investigated for the same or more serious breaches, but never see the CEOs of these companies held accountable.This is something that almost never happens in the judicial system, and it has always been that way.So, prosecuting CZ in this case is an extremely unusual situation.
Detailed explanation of amnesty application process: review mechanism and standard process
Anthony: Okay, we already know what he was charged with, and we know that he did get a pardon.But there are still many questions surrounding this amnesty.I have seen many people in private discussions, speaking on social media, and the media writing many articles, all speculating on how this amnesty was promoted?Is it “paying money to buy amnesty”?Is corruption involved?Can you first help everyone understand the general process of applying for amnesty?Let’s talk about specific critical voices later.
Teresa: Of course.To apply for amnesty, you first need to fill out a formal application and state the relevant reasons and basis.This application is subject to review by multiple departments, including the Department of Justice, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, and the Office of the White House Counsel.Therefore, there will be a lot of legal scrutiny before an amnesty is granted.This is a relatively standardized process that every application goes through.
Anthony: After submitting the application, who will receive it?Is there a dedicated “amnesty office”?Or is there someone responsible for receiving it?Will these applications go directly to the president?I imagine that the president would not go through hundreds or thousands of applications by himself, right?What exactly does this process look like?
Teresa: There are many ways to submit an amnesty, depending on which method the applicant submits.Some are submitted through specialized pardon lawyers, others are submitted through the Ministry of Justice website, or other channels, all with the purpose of letting reviewers receive it.I know that different people have submitted applications in different ways.But it is my understanding that the President himself does not initially receive these applications directly.
Anthony: Got it.I want to dig a little deeper. After the application is submitted, will there be relevant personnel to evaluate it and make recommendations to the president?For example, will they say that amnesty should be considered in this case, or directly recommend amnesty?In other words, is this a decision made by the president alone, or is there a process with recommendations from staff, executive agencies or the Department of Justice?
Teresa: I’m not sure exactly how it works inside the White House, but there are certain hoops that have to go through.For example, the White House Counsel’s Office needs to sign, and the pardon lawyer also needs to sign.Of course, the final decision rests with the president, who also needs to sign the document.Therefore, this is a process that is coordinated and completed by multiple parties.However, I did not participate in those meetings and was not present at those discussions, so I have no more specific information to share.
Dismantling the “Benefit Exchange Behind Amnesty” conspiracy theory
Anthony: If some of the critics of amnesty were here right now, they might ask some key questions.For example, between CZ, Binance, World Liberty Financial and Trump, the outside world feels that the information is confusing. Some people may think that there is some kind of “paying for amnesty” behavior.If we look at these accusations from a more radical perspective, can you elaborate on how you responded to these doubts?I think everyone has heard these sounds and there is no need for me to repeat them.How do you think people should view the relationship between business deals and amnesty?
Teresa: Yes, these claims are essentially a collection of misrepresentations, misunderstandings and assumptions.If you are willing to look at it in good faith, it may be a misunderstanding; but many times, these are actually false statements, and they are repeatedly spread and eventually superimposed into a seemingly “credible” public opinion.I think when you read these accusations, try to think: Do these claims have any basis in fact?Has it been verified?You will find that many times, one media report quotes another media report without any substantive evidence, just “a person familiar with the matter said” – which often means that the source is not reliable.
For example, some media have been claiming that World Liberty is Trump’s company, but I have not seen any solid evidence to support this.I checked the official website, and it only states an “emeritus status.” I have also seen some reports that one of Trump’s entities may hold a small stake, but these are far from saying “this company belongs to Trump.”However, many people regard this assumption as fact, and then deduce the so-called “interest exchange” chain on this basis.
For another example, some people say that the stablecoin USD1 issued by World Liberty is deployed on the Binance chain, so they infer that there is a special relationship between Binance and World Liberty.But this is completely a misunderstanding of the logic of blockchain operation.The blockchain is public and anyone can issue tokens on it. Just because you post information on Craigslist, it does not mean that you have any personal connection with the former CEO of Craigslist.This inference has no logical basis.
In addition, some people mentioned that transactions between Binance and MGX were conducted through USD1, saying that this was CZ sending money to Trump in this way.This also shows that they have no understanding of the mechanism and business logic of stablecoins.It’s like saying you buy something from me and pay in Swiss francs, and then conclude that I’m investing in Swiss francs or even bribing Swiss politicians.This statement is completely illogical and as ridiculous as the current accusations against CZ.
I think people who know the industry know that these accusations are ridiculous, so they won’t bother to refute them.But people who don’t understand the industry will spread these claims repeatedly, and over time, these rumors will snowball and get bigger and bigger.That’s what we’re seeing now.
Other exchange executives have also been pardoned: CZ is not a special case
Anthony: I feel you are a very good lawyer.I used to want to be a lawyer, but I wasn’t smart enough.But I want to “challenge” you here — — Is USD1 also on other chains, not just deployed on Binance Chain?
Teresa: You are actually very smart, yes, USD1 is indeed deployed on other chains.This is actually another key point, and other exchanges also hold it.If you really want to infer that Binance has a special relationship with a specific political figure just because it’s on Binance Chain, shouldn’t you also say that other exchanges holding this stablecoin are also involved?But in fact, everyone did not accuse other platforms in this way, but only targeted Binance. This is unfair.
Anthony: Are there any other crypto exchange CEOs who received amnesty during the Trump administration?
Teresa: Yes, I remember Arthur Hayes was pardoned, he was the former CEO of BitMEX.My impression is that the BitMEX company itself has also received relevant treatment.In fact, since the founding of the United States and even dating back to England, we have always had an amnesty mechanism for people and companies.Not only criminal cases, but also civil cases, involving individuals or entities.This kind of thing has been around for a long time, but in recent years, amnesty has focused more on criminal cases and individuals.In addition, Ross Ulbricht was pardoned in the Silk Road case.
Anthony: So in fact, there are many people who have received amnesty. This is not a special case of CZ, right?
Teresa: Absolutely correct.CZ is not alone in receiving amnesty.
Anthony: Then if we go back to the critics’ perspective, they may still say that it is “filled with smoke” and “where there is smoke, there is often fire.”They will ask: Does Trump actually have a hidden Bitcoin wallet, and CZ or Binance secretly transferred the money to him?Are there any deals that haven’t been made public yet but might come to light in the future?What do you think of this more conspiracy theory approach?
Teresa: I know CZ well and I can say with certainty that such a thing would never happen.This is not his style at all.Although I don’t know the president personally, and of course I would like to know him, from what I know about him, I can’t imagine him doing such a thing.
Refuting “secret Bitcoin wallet” and other accusations
Anthony: I don’t know if he has a Bitcoin wallet, but if he does, I would be quite surprised.
Teresa: You know, now all transactions can be tracked.If there really was such a “secret transaction”, it would have been discovered long ago.We’ve certainly seen this type of information in some credible and verifiable reports.This is also the charm of blockchain technology – it has extremely high transparency.So I can say unequivocally that nothing like that happened.
Anthony: Got it.So when we look at these external criticisms, most of them are actually trying to force some kind of “indirect benefits” or “hidden transactions” into the amnesty process.But through this conversation, I learned that pardons are not the decision of the president alone. There are many people involved in the approval process.And, even if what they say is happening, like paying with USD1, the problem is that these types of transactions also happen on other chains, are used by other people, and are not unique to Binance at all.So these people just picked one out of a bunch of normal cases and tried to make up a story.
Teresa:Yes, you can also think the other way around – If Binance said “USD1 is not allowed to be issued on our chain, and USD1 is not allowed to be used to purchase equity,” then how could such a restriction be reasonable for a crypto trading platform?So flipping this logic around makes it even more obvious how ridiculous these accusations are.
Anthony: I have known CZ for many years and have always found him to be a calm, steady and kind person.It’s really not easy to go through these things.I interviewed him earlier this year and he mentioned that he came from a small village with no electricity or running water and later became one of the richest people in the world.After going through such a big turn of events, I can’t imagine how he managed to survive.How did he face these challenges?I feel that in this storm of public opinion and politics, it is easy for everyone to overlook his side as a human being – he has a family and he also has emotions.He also served time in prison, and the whole process must have been quite ups and downs.
Teresa: Yes, this is what I particularly admire about him.As his lawyer, I sometimes have more emotional ups and downs than he does.But he is always very calm, calm and able to face everything calmly.I am an optimist, but his optimism is far beyond ordinary people and he can always see the positive side of things.I really admire him, and I can’t think of anyone else who could handle it all the way he did – so calmly, gratefully, and persistently.
What you just said is very good. Sometimes I feel really angry when I see him being misunderstood and attacked by false reports, because I know those contents are completely wrong.And everyone seems to have forgotten that he is a real person, a person with a family.So we should always remember that no matter who you are attacking, blaming, or preventing them from fighting for their rights, there is a person behind it, a person with a family and emotions, and they should not have to bear this.
Elizabeth Warren’s social media battle with CZ
Anthony: I originally hoped that you could reveal some information, such as a time when CZ lost control and got angry or something.He’s good-looking, rich, and always seems to have everything under control.
I’m actually quite jealous. I originally expected you to find out some of his shortcomings.By the way, I saw a piece of news on the Internet before, and I read it twice before confirming that it was not AI synthesis or some kind of P-picture: Elizabeth Warren came out and made a bunch of remarks, slamming CZ and this amnesty incident.Of course, it is common for the two parties to attack each other, but then I saw it seemed that it was you or CZ who responded, saying that her statement was not accurate.Then Warren called back again, and the situation became very dramatic, turning into a “soap opera” of back-and-forth.Can you help us restore the whole story?Is it common for politicians to take the initiative and express their opinions publicly?What on earth did she say?
Teresa: She posted on social media that CZ was convicted of something when in fact he was not convicted at all.She also said that he obtained a pardon through what he called a “bought pardon,” implying that he did something improper during the application process, which further imposed non-existent criminal liability on him, which is inaccurate.
You can’t just make these kinds of accusations against a person, claiming he’s guilty of something, especially without any factual basis.No matter who you are, this behavior is irresponsible.Of course, there are some exemptions that apply to government officials or people in specific positions, but these exemptions do not apply in all cases.
I actually hope that everyone can pay more attention to this issue.The speech immunity now enjoyed by some politicians was not what America’s founding fathers intended.If you read early constitutional documents like the Speech or Debate Clause, you’ll see the true concerns of the Founders.They worry that politicians’ comments can have a huge impact on ordinary people’s lives, reputations and even livelihoods, but they are not legally responsible for it.Joseph Story makes this very clear in his Commentary on the Constitution of the United States.I think the incident we’re discussing today goes to the heart of their initial concerns.
The “Pendulum” of Crypto Regulation and Future Hopes
Anthony: Looking back on the entire incident, I think it is essentially related to the politicized regulation of cryptocurrency.The consolidation and suppression we have seen in the past few years is clearly a product of the political context.The current new government has taken a completely different path.Many investors, market participants, and even some politicians are now excited about the resurgence of crypto innovation in the United States.But this political trend looks a bit like a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other.Do you think this back and forth will continue?Should the industry still expect a lot of volatility going forward?Or is it that once the policy enters a trend-chasing state, it will be difficult to go back and severely suppress the industry?
Teresa: I certainly hope that the pendulum will not continue to swing back and forth violently like this.I think now that the United States is finally reactivating some of its innovation momentum, this is a very critical moment.For example, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has made it clear that he wants all of our markets to be on-chain.And once the financial market is really put on the chain, it will be difficult to withdraw it.
This is a revolutionary technology, and we should not try to avoid or suppress it, but embrace it.It can bring huge efficiency gains and scale advantages.I think the current environment provides a valuable opportunity for people to better understand blockchain technology, and not just in financial services, but in other scenarios as well.Once society truly accepts this technology, it will be difficult to go back to the old technology system.
CZ does not return to Binance, and the United States misses the dividends of the crypto market
Anthony: So what changes have taken place in Binance now?After CZ reaches a settlement and receives amnesty, will he return to Binance?Has Binance made adjustments to its business?How much do you know about this?What is the current situation at Binance?
Teresa: He currently has no plans to return to Binance.Moreover, Binance is still subject to multiple restrictions from five U.S. regulatory agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).You know, most companies may only be targeted by one or two agencies, but Binance is supervised by five departments at the same time, although no fraud or other major violations have been found.
Now Binance remains in a “surveillance state,” with the Treasury Department assigning a monitor through FinCEN to ensure Binance complies with U.S. law even though they have been “deported” and do not have any U.S. customers.It stands to reason that such companies should no longer be required to comply with U.S. regulations, but they are still subject to continued supervision.
Of course, everyone is happy that CZ can clear his name, but this whole process has been deeply harmful to him personally and to Binance.And I think the real victim here is actually the United States.Because Binance still cannot operate in the United States, the world’s largest crypto exchange is not here, and we lose the liquidity advantage it brings.
This means several problems: first, in order to become the largest market in the world, you need deep enough liquidity; second, users want to have options and be able to participate in different types of tokens and projects; third, new projects also want to be launched on the largest platform, and that platform is not in the United States.This has led to many projects choosing to launch overseas just to be listed on Binance.
In addition, the lack of competitors like Binance also weakens the global competitiveness of domestic platforms in the United States.Ultimately, this is a loss for the entire crypto ecosystem in the United States.
