Trump: I do not know Binance CZ, we are all victims of the judiciary!

The Trump administration unexpectedly pardoned Binance founder CZ in October, and the news immediately stirred waves in Washington and the global Blockchain community. On November 3, Trump was asked about the motivation in an exclusive interview and replied, “I don’t know this person,” but insisted, “I was told he is a victim of justice, just like me.”

Trump's Contradictory Statement of “Not Knowing” Yet Granting a Pardon

According to a CBS interview, Trump maintained the same statement when pressed by the host: “I don't know this person at all. I think I've never met him… maybe I've seen him, but you know, often there are people who shake my hand and stuff, but I don't think I've ever met him, I don't know who he is. I was told he's a judicial victim, just like me, and like many others.”

This statement of “not knowing yet granting a pardon” has left the outside world even more confused. The presidential pardon power is one of the highest executive powers granted by the U.S. Constitution, historically used to correct judicial injustices or for humanitarian reasons. However, the gap between Trump's familiarity with the CZ case and the pardon decision has raised questions about procedural justice. If the president himself admits to not knowing the pardoned individual, then on what substantive review was this decision made?

At the same time, Trump also defended his family members, stating that he is focused on maintaining America's leading position in the cryptocurrency industry, and he mentioned that his son's late-night activities are unrelated to government policy: “My son is interested in this, and I’m glad they have such ideas, but they are running a business, not working in the government.”

Trump further emphasized that the Biden administration is “at war with crypto,” which is detrimental to the industry. This statement of “not familiar with the people, but the work must be done” makes the motivation for the pardon even more ambiguous. The White House pointed out that the pardon could “retain talent,” avoiding the outflow of funds and innovation, contrasting with the Biden administration's stance towards embracing crypto. However, the logic of linking the industry's competitiveness to individual pardons has sparked intense debate among legal experts and political commentators.

CZ Case Background and $4.3 Billion Settlement

In 2023, CZ admitted to violating the Bank Secrecy Act, resulting in a four-month prison sentence and a $50 million fine for failing to establish a comprehensive anti-money laundering mechanism. Binance also paid $4.3 billion in settlement. This is one of the largest fines against cryptocurrency companies in U.S. judicial history, highlighting the regulatory authorities' emphasis on anti-money laundering compliance in the digital asset space.

CZ's plea agreement acknowledges that Binance failed to establish an effective anti-money laundering program between 2017 and 2022, leading to the platform being used for money laundering, terrorist financing, and evasion of sanctions. The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Binance processed a significant volume of transactions from sanctioned countries, including Iran, Cuba, and Syria, and did not report suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

After the pardon, Zhao's criminal record was erased, his citizenship rights were restored, and the largest legal shadow over Binance's operations in the U.S. temporarily dissipated. However, the $4.3 billion settlement is not returned due to the pardon, which means that Binance still bears financial responsibility, only Zhao's personal legal burdens have been lifted. Some market participants expect a potential shift towards a more lenient regulatory attitude, but there are also observers warning that the pardon may set a dangerous precedent of “too big to punish.”

Key Data for the CZ Case

Sentence: Original sentence of four months, has completed the sentence.

Personal Fine: 50 million USD

Settlement Payment: 4.3 billion USD

Effect of Pardon: Criminal record expunged, civil rights restored

Warren questions “pay-for-play” triggering legal battles

The criticism has not subsided with the end of the amnesty. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned whether the incident involved “pay for play.” She cited previous investigations indicating that Binance's crypto projects related to the Trump family and Middle Eastern investments might involve a conflict of interest. Warren stated that CZ “admitted to criminal money laundering,” a statement that immediately provoked a strong backlash from Zhao's legal team.

Zhao's legal team immediately issued a letter demanding Warren retract his statements and threatened to file a lawsuit, emphasizing that Zhao's involvement pertains to regulatory violations rather than intentional money laundering. Legally, “money laundering” refers to the act of deliberately concealing the source of illegal proceeds, usually involving Section 1956 of the criminal law. Zhao's guilty plea regarding violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 USC § 5318(h)) refers to the failure to establish adequate anti-money laundering programs, which is a regulatory compliance failure rather than direct participation in money laundering activities.

Warren, on the other hand, refused to back down under the banner of freedom of speech, and both sides have entered into a legal confrontation. This public standoff highlights deeper political divides: the Democratic Party views Trump's pardon as favoritism towards the wealthy and political allies, while the Republican Party portrays it as a counter to “judicial weaponization.” Warren's questioning is not without basis; she points out the overlap in the timeline between Trump family's World Liberty Financial and Binance, as well as the significant investments from Middle Eastern investors in Trump's crypto projects. Whether these connections influenced the pardon decision is worth investigating.

Political Signals and the Shift in U.S. Crypto Regulation

Trump's pardon of CZ is a straightforward political signal: when the interests of the cryptocurrency industry are tied to national competition, judicial boundaries, financial flows, and electoral considerations will converge on the same negotiation table. How the subsequent events will unfold will be an important indicator of whether the rule of law and innovation in the United States can be balanced.

From an industry perspective, the pardon has released a clear signal of regulatory shift. The Trump administration has taken a series of pro-crypto measures: firing SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, appointing crypto-friendly individuals to regulatory positions, establishing a national Bitcoin reserve, and signing an executive order allowing retirement accounts to invest in cryptocurrencies. These policies stand in stark contrast to Biden's “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” (which restricts financing for crypto businesses through the banking system).

However, the pardon has also raised concerns about the consistency of the rule of law. If high-level anti-money laundering violations can be eliminated through a pardon, is the enforcement standard fair for small crypto businesses and individual investors? This impression of “selective justice” may undermine the credibility of regulatory agencies, making future compliance enforcement face more challenges.

From a geopolitical perspective, Trump positions the cryptocurrency industry as part of national competitiveness, implying that the United States is competing with countries like China, Singapore, and the UAE for dominance in digital finance. The pardon of CZ may be interpreted as a strategic consideration to “retain talent” and avoid Binance permanently relocating its headquarters and core operations out of the United States. However, this logic also sets a dangerous precedent: should the scale of a company and its international influence be factors in judicial considerations?