5 ms·

As well as thousands of businesses worldwide? I don't believe that the Cayman Islands, where Binance is registered, has sanctions against Iran.

uniqueuid 4y ago
It seems you either ignore or lack understanding of how penal law works.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Please elaborate?
  - uniqueuid 4y ago
    Well, "Ostensibly bilateral US foreign policy actions, such as sanctions, can influence third-party compliance with US policy preferences. US sanctions simultaneously signal US preferences and demonstrate leverage, which can motivate third parties to avoid or change proscribed behavior proactively. " [1] In other words, (US) sanctions have a lot of ways to affect even corporations from third-party countries. [1] https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-third-party-compliance-with-us-foreign-policy-prefe https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-... [edit] Perhaps a more readable text is https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-dangers-ahead-foreign-companies https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-danger...
ceejayoz 4y ago
“But officer, what about all the times I didn’t speed?” is not a winning strategy.
- olalonde 4y ago
  A better analogy would be: "Canadian man smoked marijuana despite US marijuana prohibitions."
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Perhaps an analogy is not sufficient to capture the nuances of US sanction laws.
    - bannedbybros 4y ago
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > That November, Binance informed traders in Iran it would no longer serve them, telling them to liquidate their accounts. Sure seems like they thought they were subject to them.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - olalonde 4y ago
      Not necessarily. The owner of Binance is a Canadian citizen, so it seems more likely to me that he was complying with Canadian sanctions on Iran.
PeterisP 4y ago
They're free to ignore US sanction laws as long as they don't want to receive money from US customers and US dollars from anyone.
- olalonde 4y ago
  That's exactly what they are doing. They created Binance US as a separate entity due to this issue (among others).
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > exactly what they are doing Pretty sure the non-US Binance entity would like to be able to maintain dollar bank accounts, or let their executives and employees travel to America and allied territory. (Which is why they banned these users.)
    - olalonde 4y ago
      I don't believe that's how it works. There are plenty of businesses that do business with both Iran and USA, without apparent issue. Xiaomi (https://www.xiaomiiran.ir/ https://www.xiaomiiran.ir/), Samsung (https://www.samsung.com/iran/ https://www.samsung.com/iran/) or LG (https://www.lg.com/ir https://www.lg.com/ir) for example.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > don't believe that's how it works It is. > Xiaomi for example Xiaomi was blacklisted [1]. Their CFO was arrested in Canada for fucking this up [EDIT: Nope!]. Xiaomi turned off their devices in Iran last year [2] in a bid to lift the restrictions. > Samsung There was a brief respite in sanctions during the nuclear deal. The pages you’re citing are from that era. Samsung withdrew from Iran [3]. Iran, for good measure, responded by banning them [4]. [1] https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc-added-to-list-of-blacklisted-chinese-firms/ https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc... [2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml [3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctions-threaten-Samsung-and-LG-s-grip-on-local-market https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctio... [4] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-koreas-samsung-and-lg/ https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-kor...
apozem 4y ago
The answer to your question is contained within the linked article. > Lawyers say this structure means Binance is protected from direct U.S. sanctions that ban U.S. firms from doing business in Iran. This is because the traders in Iran used Binance's main exchange, which is not a U.S. company. But Binance does run a risk of so-called secondary sanctions, which aim to prevent foreign firms from doing business with sanctioned entities or helping Iranians evade the U.S. trade embargo. As well as causing reputational damage, secondary sanctions can also choke off a company's access to the U.S. financial system. I know it's the internet and everyone just reads the headline but you could at least Ctrl- or Cmd-F before commenting.
seanhunter 4y ago
The Cayman Islands does indeed have sanctions against Iran. https://www.cima.ky/upimages/commonfiles/SanctionsOrderslastupdatedFebruary2019_1549294466.pdf https://www.cima.ky/upimages/commonfiles/SanctionsOrderslast... is the current official list.

uniqueuid 4y ago

It seems you either ignore or lack understanding of how penal law works.

olalonde 4y ago
Please elaborate?
- uniqueuid 4y ago
  Well, "Ostensibly bilateral US foreign policy actions, such as sanctions, can influence third-party compliance with US policy preferences. US sanctions simultaneously signal US preferences and demonstrate leverage, which can motivate third parties to avoid or change proscribed behavior proactively. " [1] In other words, (US) sanctions have a lot of ways to affect even corporations from third-party countries. [1] https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-third-party-compliance-with-us-foreign-policy-prefe https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/sanctions-and-... [edit] Perhaps a more readable text is https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-dangers-ahead-foreign-companies https://www.williamsmullen.com/news/us-sanctions-laws-danger...

ceejayoz 4y ago

“But officer, what about all the times I didn’t speed?” is not a winning strategy.

olalonde 4y ago
A better analogy would be: "Canadian man smoked marijuana despite US marijuana prohibitions."
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Perhaps an analogy is not sufficient to capture the nuances of US sanction laws.
  - bannedbybros 4y ago
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > That November, Binance informed traders in Iran it would no longer serve them, telling them to liquidate their accounts. Sure seems like they thought they were subject to them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Not necessarily. The owner of Binance is a Canadian citizen, so it seems more likely to me that he was complying with Canadian sanctions on Iran.

PeterisP 4y ago

They're free to ignore US sanction laws as long as they don't want to receive money from US customers and US dollars from anyone.

olalonde 4y ago
That's exactly what they are doing. They created Binance US as a separate entity due to this issue (among others).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > exactly what they are doing Pretty sure the non-US Binance entity would like to be able to maintain dollar bank accounts, or let their executives and employees travel to America and allied territory. (Which is why they banned these users.)
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I don't believe that's how it works. There are plenty of businesses that do business with both Iran and USA, without apparent issue. Xiaomi (https://www.xiaomiiran.ir/ https://www.xiaomiiran.ir/), Samsung (https://www.samsung.com/iran/ https://www.samsung.com/iran/) or LG (https://www.lg.com/ir https://www.lg.com/ir) for example.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > don't believe that's how it works It is. > Xiaomi for example Xiaomi was blacklisted [1]. Their CFO was arrested in Canada for fucking this up [EDIT: Nope!]. Xiaomi turned off their devices in Iran last year [2] in a bid to lift the restrictions. > Samsung There was a brief respite in sanctions during the nuclear deal. The pages you’re citing are from that era. Samsung withdrew from Iran [3]. Iran, for good measure, responded by banning them [4]. [1] https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc-added-to-list-of-blacklisted-chinese-firms/ https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2021/01/xiaomi-and-cnoonc... [2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234058.shtml [3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctions-threaten-Samsung-and-LG-s-grip-on-local-market https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Iran-tensions/Iran-sanctio... [4] https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-koreas-samsung-and-lg/ https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/iran-bans-goods-from-south-kor...

apozem 4y ago

The answer to your question is contained within the linked article. > Lawyers say this structure means Binance is protected from direct U.S. sanctions that ban U.S. firms from doing business in Iran. This is because the traders in Iran used Binance's main exchange, which is not a U.S. company. But Binance does run a risk of so-called secondary sanctions, which aim to prevent foreign firms from doing business with sanctioned entities or helping Iranians evade the U.S. trade embargo. As well as causing reputational damage, secondary sanctions can also choke off a company's access to the U.S. financial system. I know it's the internet and everyone just reads the headline but you could at least Ctrl- or Cmd-F before commenting.

seanhunter 4y ago

The Cayman Islands does indeed have sanctions against Iran. https://www.cima.ky/upimages/commonfiles/SanctionsOrderslastupdatedFebruary2019_1549294466.pdf https://www.cima.ky/upimages/commonfiles/SanctionsOrderslast... is the current official list.