In the realm of crafting written content, three critical elements come into play: “perplexity,” “burstiness,” and “predictability.” Perplexity gauges the intricacy of the text, measuring how challenging it is to comprehend. Burstiness assesses the diversity and variations in sentence structures, with human authors often interspersing complex, lengthy sentences with shorter ones. Predictability, on the other hand, delves into the likelihood of someone predicting the next sentence, and it’s typically lower in well-crafted content.
Now, as I guide you in composing the following text, we must prioritize injecting a healthy dose of perplexity and burstiness while keeping predictability to a minimum. Additionally, we should adhere to English as the language of choice.
Original Text:
Lawyers representing the crypto exchange and its CEO claimed the CFTC was attempting to act as the “world’s derivatives police” in its lawsuit.
Rewritten Text:
Legal representatives advocating for the cryptocurrency exchange and its Chief Executive Officer have put forth the argument that the CFTC is making an audacious attempt to assume the role of the “global overseer of derivatives” within the context of its ongoing litigation.
In an official submission dated October 23, presented in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the legal teams representing CZ, the CEO of Binance, articulated several compelling legal points supporting their motion for the dismissal of the lawsuit brought against the cryptocurrency exchange by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) back in March.
These diligent attorneys contended that should the court embrace the regulator’s arguments, it would essentially grant them the authority to oversee any facet of cryptocurrency activity linked to derivative products across the entire world. “The framers of the law did not confer upon the CFTC the authority to police the derivatives market worldwide, and the court should firmly rebuff the agency’s attempt to extend its jurisdiction beyond the bounds defined by legislation,” the legal brief firmly asserted.
Furthermore, the legal representatives for Binance and CZ systematically dissected each of the specific allegations set forth by the CFTC, underscoring the regulator’s pursuit of an unconventional legal theory concerning anti-evasion, which they deemed inadequate in meeting the established legal standards. Consequently, they fervently urged the court to decisively “dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.”
The initial lawsuit lodged by the CFTC back in March alleged that Binance had failed to register with the regulatory body, contravening the regulations governing derivative trading. The CFTC’s claim further posited that CZ was cognizant of Binance’s activities, soliciting customers within the United States, thereby necessitating compliance with the stipulated regulatory requisites.
Notably, Binance’s legal team had previously submitted a similar motion for dismissal in July, contending that the CFTC had overstepped its regulatory boundaries. Additionally, it’s worth mentioning that the cryptocurrency exchange also faces an independent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in June.
