That's obviously not what is meant by 'con', though. It's just composed of first gaining the trust of someone and then defrauding them. Forcing has nothing to d

That's obviously not what is meant by 'con', though. It's just composed of first gaining the trust of someone and then defrauding them. Forcing has nothing to do with it and would likely rule out the application of the term, since trust is an integral part of all cons. There has been no fraud yet proven, so it can't conclusively be called a con. On the other hand FTX can be called a con, as there was fraud. This is just running an overly unregulated exchange, which is still a crime but isn't fraud. This doesn't end the investigations though, there is an SEC probe into fraud by Binance still going on so while it currently can't be called a con, really, it's also the case that it could be in the future. Also, it can technically be said that Binance has taken commission and largely made its money from cons of other people that they simply enabled and took fees on, which wouldn't necessarily be incorrect. Whether that's illegal depends on whether there was conspiracy – you wouldn't indict BoA for wire fraud just because someone else used them to do wire fraud.