CZ released on $175M bond, could return to Dubai
Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao will pay a $175 million release bond and agree to return to the United States 14 days before his Feb. 23, 2024 sentencing — possibly allowing him to return to Dubai.
In a Nov. 21 bond document filed in a Seattle federal court, Zhao agreed to share with the court where he would reside and that a warrant could be issued for his arrest if he fails to show up for his court date.
Failure to appear in court carries a $250,000 fine and a maximum of 10 years in jail.
The U.S. is expected to review Zhao’s bail order. If a judge denies review of the order, it will become effective on Nov. 27 at 5 pm Washington time. If the judge grants a review before that date, Zhao must stay in the U.S. until a decision is made.
No extradition agreement exists between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates. However, the two countries made a bilateral agreement to enhance law enforcement cooperation on Feb. 24.
Related: Court unseals indictments against Binance and CZ, detailing expected guilty pleas
Zhao has been based in Dubai for several years. Despite his presence there, Binance still has no official global headquarters.
The bail agreement follows a $4.3 billion settlement between the cryptocurrency exchange and the U.S which saw Zhao depart as Binance’s CEO after pleading guilty to various Anti-Money Laundering violations.
Magazine: US enforcement agencies are turning up the heat on crypto-related crime
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.
Politics
Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024