Report obtained access to a lawsuit filed by a Brazilian Bitcoin P2P, which accuses financial market companies of operating a secret censorship scheme against it.
Man holding bitcoin with sad face and houses in the background, one with the Brazilian flag painted on the wall
Still in the initial phase and without the proper response from Brazilian banks and Binance, called upon in a lawsuit filed by a P2P Bitcoin trader in Brazil, the customer accuses that the institutions are blocking their accounts.
In the process, the Brazilian P2P resident of Olímpia, in the interior of São Paulo, asked for urgency to unblock his accounts in the institutions.
He took legal action in São Paulo, asking that the action be applied against several banks and only against Binance among cryptocurrency brokers.
The list of 10 companies sued is made up of Pic Pay Card, Next Digital Technology and Services S.A., Banco Inter S.A., Mercado Pago Payment Institution Ltda., Banco Bradesco S.A., Banco Santander (Brazil) S.A., Nu Pagamentos S.A. (Nubank), Banco do Brasil S.A., Banco BTG Pactual S.A., B Fintech Technology Services Ltda. (Binance).
What does the Brazilian bitcoin trader say in court?
In a lawsuit filed in the Court of Justice of São Paulo, in the amount of R$40,200.00, the investor whose identity was preserved in the report, presented that there is a possible censorship against him among financial institutions in Brazil.
Requesting urgent unblocking of his accounts, he stated that he has been suffering possible persecution since January 2024.
“In this case, the plaintiff claims that he is an investor and trader of digital assets (cryptoassets or cryptocurrencies); however, since January 19, 2024, he has been experiencing difficulties in carrying out banking transactions (transfer operations are canceled and/or reversed), due to a fraud alert issued and shared internally and indiscriminately among financial institutions and brokers,” says his defense in the process.
The P2P bitcoin trader’s defense also claims that other users who try to trade with him within Binance receive an alert. “In addition, other users of the “Binance” brokerage and platform are alerted to the possibility of fraud when interacting with his user profile. The plaintiff assumes that due to an internal procedure between financial institutions, this alert was issued and shared without prior verification of the origin of the information; blocking the plaintiff from carrying out transactions without due justification,” the defense continues.
Finally, the lawyers representing the Brazilian bitcoin seller also requested urgency to “remove all alarms that indicate fraud in the author’s user profile and for the financial institutions (defendants) to unblock the bank accounts.”
What did the judge say when denying the request for urgency?
When denying the request for urgent relief from the Brazilian bitcoin trader against Binance and other banks, the judge explained his view on the case.
According to judge Alexandre Cesar Ribeiro, “the plaintiff did not demonstrate any attempt to resolve the issue out of court (obtaining clarifications and/or copies of the fraud alert documents) to better present the facts in court.”
Furthermore, he pointed out that it is up to banks to observe regulatory and compliance guidelines. “However, financial institutions are responsible for observing various regulatory guidelines and compliance rules; justifying, at their discretion, any refusal to provide the service, based on an assessment of the financial and regulatory risks involved (as a rule). Whether the actions of these institutions are fair or unfair (legal or illegal) is a matter of merit to be assessed after the adversarial proceedings have been instituted,” concluded the judge when denying urgency.
Judge Alexandre Cesar Ribeiro said he could not agree to a bitcoin trader's request because compliance belongs to the banks/Livecoins investigation on September 24, 2024.
When analyzing the case, the judge denied the request for urgency and gave 15 days for all defendants to present their defenses in the case, under penalty of default in the process. In the decision, the judge also declared that the parties can enter into agreements, including out-of-court agreements, to end the dispute.
If the companies mentioned in the process wish to comment, the editorial space is available to receive comments on the case.
