---

A federal judge in Alabama dismissed all terrorism-related claims against Binance on March 12, 2026, marking the exchange's second courtroom victory in five days under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The ruling follows a larger dismissal in New York on March 7, and while both decisions represent significant procedural wins for one of the world's largest crypto exchanges, plaintiffs in both cases retain the right to refile.

The Alabama court issued a 19-page ruling characterizing the plaintiffs' complaint as a "shotgun pleading," a legal term for a filing that fails to provide a clear, individuated statement of claims and instead lumps multiple defendants together without distinguishing their specific conduct or liability. Plaintiffs have until April 10, 2026 to submit an amended complaint. If they do not, the case closes entirely.

The earlier New York ruling, handed down by a judge in the Southern District of New York, ran to 62 pages and addressed a far larger set of claims: 535 individual plaintiffs citing 64 separate terrorist attacks. That court found that plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated that Binance assisted, associated with, participated in, or conspired with terrorist organizations. Those plaintiffs received 60 days to amend their complaint.

Both lawsuits allege that Binance knowingly processed cryptocurrency transactions for Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps over a period of several years before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Plaintiffs claimed the exchange handled more than $1 billion in transactions linked to these groups, including over $50 million that allegedly moved through the platform in the period following October 7. Under U.S. terrorism law, successful plaintiffs can seek treble damages, meaning three times the actual harm suffered.

Binance General Counsel Eleanor Hughes said of the Alabama ruling: "This decision reinforces our unwavering commitment to protecting Binance and our community from unsubstantiated and bad-faith lawsuits," adding that "courts have now examined these claims on two separate occasions and found them to be without merit." It is worth noting, however, that neither court ruled on the factual substance of the allegations. Both dismissed on procedural grounds, meaning the question of whether Binance actually facilitated terrorist financing has not been adjudicated.

Background: A Company Still Carrying Legal Weight

These dismissals land against a complicated institutional backdrop. In November 2023, Binance paid $4.3 billion to resolve U.S. Department of Justice charges related to violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and failures in its anti-money-laundering controls. The settlement comprised a $2.5 billion forfeiture and a $1.8 billion criminal fine. Founder Changpeng Zhao, widely known as CZ, pleaded guilty, paid a personal fine of $50 million, stepped down as CEO, and served four months in prison. President Donald Trump pardoned CZ on October 23, 2025, enabling his return to a leadership role at Binance. The pardon drew criticism from 28 House Democrats and prompted the DOJ to open a separate inquiry into Iran-linked crypto flows through the platform. It also came amid reporting that the Trump family's own crypto venture had undisclosed commercial ties to Binance, which further fueled scrutiny of the decision.

Regional Stakes: Africa and South Asia

For users and regulators outside the United States, the significance of these rulings is indirect but real. In Nigeria, Binance is separately facing a civil lawsuit filed in February 2025 demanding $79.5 billion in compensation for alleged economic harm, plus $2 billion in claimed unpaid taxes. That case proceeds under Nigerian law and is not affected by the U.S. decisions. However, two rapid dismissals by U.S. federal courts carry reputational weight that other African regulators are likely to notice as they assess how to treat the exchange. In Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, and Côte d'Ivoire, Binance functions as a primary platform for remittances, peer-to-peer trading, and inflation hedging.

The Nigeria context carries additional weight from a separate episode that underscored the operational risks Binance faces on the continent. Tigran Gambaryan, then the exchange's Head of Financial Crime Compliance, was detained in Nigeria for eight months in 2024. The detention was followed by allegations of a $150 million crypto bribe demand by Nigerian lawmakers and reports that approximately $50 million was extracted from the Biden administration in connection with the episode. Gambaryan resigned from Binance in June 2025. The case remains a reference point for regulators across the region assessing how to engage the exchange.

In South Asia, the legal developments intersect directly with a fast-moving regulatory moment. Pakistan signed the Virtual Assets Act 2026 into law on March 7, making its crypto regulator, the Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, a permanent federal institution. Binance had already received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from that body in December 2025 and is now in formal registration. CZ has stated publicly that Pakistan could "emerge as a global crypto hub by 2030," a claim that reflects the ambitions now embedded in the country's new regulatory framework. South Asia recorded roughly $300 billion in crypto transaction volume in the first seven months of 2025, an 80 percent increase year-on-year according to TRM Labs data.

The regional picture remains uneven. India ranks first in South Asian crypto adoption but operates under a 30 percent capital gains tax and a 1 percent tax deducted at source regime that has driven significant activity into grey-market channels, with Binance still operating in a constrained environment there. Bangladesh ranks 13th globally in crypto adoption according to Chainalysis 2025 data, a striking figure given that all such activity in the country is technically underground under an outright ban. Both examples illustrate a broader pattern in which regulatory frameworks have failed to keep pace with actual usage, and in that environment, courtroom credibility in U.S. jurisdictions matters to regulators weighing the terms on which they engage global exchanges.

What Comes Next

The ATA cases are not finished. Plaintiffs in both jurisdictions have time to refile with more precisely targeted allegations, and the legal question of whether crypto exchanges can be held liable under U.S. terrorism law for transactions processed on their platforms remains unresolved. The Alabama and New York decisions are procedural thresholds, not final verdicts. For other exchanges that have faced similar or related claims, including Coinbase and Kraken, which have faced ATA-adjacent suits, the outcomes signal that courts will demand specific, individuated evidence rather than broad narratives to sustain these suits through initial review.

---

Sources: PR Newswire, The Block, Bloomberg, CNBC, Nigeria Communications Week, East African Business Times, BlockEden.xyz, TRM Labs, Fintech News Africa