A Florida appeals court has reopened a state-level lawsuit against Binance after overturning a previous dismissal that found the court lacked jurisdiction. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that Binance Holdings Inc. may have sufficient ties to Florida to face trial there, breathing new life into an $80 million claim connected to a 2018 bitcoin theft.
According to Bloomberg, the plaintiff in the case, identified as Michael Osterer, alleges that hackers stole about 1,000 BTC, worth approximately $80 million at the time, and transferred the assets through Binance accounts before the exchange could freeze the funds. The appellate court’s decision enables the case to proceed before a lower state court, reviving a long-running dispute over accountability and cross-border crypto enforcement.
The origins of the dispute
Osterer first filed the case in mid-2023 after claiming that Binance’s systems enabled thieves to move stolen coins without hindrance. He alleges the exchange was negligent, breached its contract, and failed to enact measures that could have stopped the laundering of stolen property.
The original Florida trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Binance’s offshore structure and absence of a physical headquarters in the state placed it outside the court’s jurisdiction. However, the new appellate ruling found otherwise.
The appeals panel determined that Binance’s connections to U.S. infrastructure, such as hosting through Amazon Web Services, and its U.S.-facing affiliates represented meaningful contact with Florida. Those connections, the court said, justify allowing the case to move forward.
Jurisdiction and global accountability
The core issue in the revived lawsuit centers on jurisdiction, whether a U.S. state court can compel an offshore exchange to defend itself locally. The Florida court’s reasoning challenges a long-standing assumption in the crypto industry that exchanges without domestic headquarters can avoid lawsuits in user jurisdictions.
The judges also said California law could apply to the case, further complicating the legal process but strengthening the argument that Binance cannot automatically escape jurisdiction based on its offshore incorporation.
For plaintiffs like Osterer, the decision opens a potential pathway for recovering funds from foreign platforms that handle U.S. users’ assets.
Similar lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny
This case joins a growing list of lawsuits brought against Binance in the United States. In another ruling earlier this year, a U.S. District Judge transferred a separate money-laundering case to the Southern District of Florida after finding similar allegations in an existing suit there.
That case involved three crypto investors who said their assets were stolen and sent to Binance accounts by hackers seeking to launder the proceeds. Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled that both lawsuits represented the same class of victims and that consolidating them would prevent duplication.
In addition to private lawsuits, Binance previously pleaded guilty to federal charges of money laundering and sanctions violations, agreeing to pay more than $4 billion in penalties to U.S. authorities. The settlement required the company to strengthen its compliance program and submit to independent oversight.
However, subsequent reports have alleged that hundreds of millions of dollars linked to high-risk entities continued to flow into Binance accounts during the monitoring period.
CZ’s legal outcome and links to terrorism allegations
Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao faced criminal charges in the United States for violating U.S. financial laws and the Bank Secrecy Act. Zhao stepped down as CEO and received a custodial sentence, but Trump later pardoned him in October. His pardon concluded a high-profile chapter in Binance’s legal challenges following years of regulatory pressure.
Meanwhile, separate lawsuits have accused Binance of failing to detect and block transfers allegedly connected to Hamas and Hezbollah, groups designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. In one such case, plaintiffs claim that more than $1 billion flowed through Binance accounts tied to those networks. The complaint, filed by victims of terrorist attacks and their families, alleges that $50 million was transferred after the October 7 attacks in Israel, previously reported by HodlFM.
Binance has denied wrongdoing in these matters and maintains that it cooperates with global enforcement agencies to prevent terrorist financing and other illicit activities on its platform.
Binance’s next steps and wider implications
Following the Florida appellate ruling, Binance can either proceed to trial or attempt an appeal. The company may also seek to compel arbitration, an action it has previously used in similar disputes.
The case now returns to the trial court, where Osterer will again argue that Binance should be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, and aiding in the laundering of stolen assets.
The decision could influence how courts treat lawsuits involving offshore crypto exchanges, especially when plaintiffs claim that stolen assets were routed through U.S.-connected platforms.
If successful, the case could push exchanges to strengthen asset-recovery protocols and improve transparency for affected users. It could also encourage regulators to clarify the standards for cross-jurisdictional accountability in digital asset transactions.
A turning point for user protection
The latest ruling signals a broader shift in how U.S. courts approach disputes involving global crypto firms. Exchanges that operate internationally but serve American users may soon face heightened scrutiny in state-level courts.
Osterer’s revived lawsuit underscores that users now have a clearer avenue to challenge alleged negligence, even when the exchange is based offshore. As this $80 million case returns to trial, its outcome may shape how future victims of crypto hacks pursue restitution and how exchanges manage compliance in an increasingly regulated environment.
Oleksii Shumak
Disclaimer: All materials on this site are for informational purposes only. None of the material should be interpreted as investment advice. Please note that despite the nature of much of the material created and hosted on this website, HODL FM is not a financial reference resource, and the opinions of authors and other contributors are their own and should not be taken as financial advice. If you require advice. HODL FM strongly recommends contacting a qualified industry professional.
