Skip to main content

Binance could face punishment in Brazil for allegedly failing to respond to an order to stop selling crypto derivatives.

O Globo reported that the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Federal Police have launched an investigation into the exchange over “alleged financial crimes.”

The media outlet stated that the probe had been launched after a tip-off from the markets regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM).

The CVM reportedly told the Attorney General of the State of São Paulo that the exchange may have continued to offer cryptocurrency derivatives to Brazilian customers even after the state had issued it with a “stop order.”

The media outlet quoted Binance as stating that it “does not comment on ongoing investigations.”

But the exchange also “reiterated that it does not offer derivatives in Brazil.”

The CVM issued a stop order to the exchange back in 2020.

In early 2021, the exchange announced that it would cease offering crypto derivatives in Brazil.

But the CVM has presented a range of documents to the Federal Police to support its claim.

These reportedly include screenshots of chats with Binance support staff.

In one of these chats, the media outlet stated, a staff member told a Brazilian user that they could still access derivatives offerings by changing the language on the app or website.

Binance in Hot Water in Brazil?

Binance added that it “remains in permanent contact” with the authorities who oversee “the crypto and blockchain sphere in Brazil and elsewhere in the world.”

The Federal Public Ministry reportedly confirmed to the media outlet that an investigation into Binance was ongoing.

But the ministry refused to provide more details about case, claiming the probe was ongoing.

The Federal Police, meanwhile, said it “does not comment on ongoing investigations.”

A 2022 CVM report noted that in August 2021, Binance “announced that it had stopped offering derivatives to Brazilian customers.”

The report also found that the Binance Brazil website had “removed mention of this type of financial asset.”

CURATED FROM: