CZ’s Lawyer Says His Presidential Pardon Was Justice, Not Corruption
Attorney Teresa Goody Guillén, who represents former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, has dismissed claims that his recent presidential pardon was secured through financial influence. She argues the accusations are rooted in misconceptions about both blockchain technology and the nature of Zhao’s case.
Guillén Rejects Allegations of Political Favor Trading
In a recent appearance on the “Pomp Podcast” with Anthony Pompliano, Guillén emphasized that suggestions linking Zhao’s pardon to corruption or political donations have no factual basis. She noted that critics often point to World Liberty as a supposed conduit for influence, yet she has seen no credible evidence supporting these claims.
According to her, the narrative that Zhao somehow purchased the decision misrepresents the legal realities of the case and ignores the standard processes surrounding presidential clemency. “Media outlets keep insisting that World Liberty is connected to Trump, but nothing in the public record suggests this is true,” she stated.
Why Zhao Was Prosecuted — And Why His Lawyer Says It Was Misunderstood
Changpeng Zhao served four months in prison in 2024 after pleading guilty to failing to implement adequate anti-money-laundering controls at Binance. The plea deal required him to step down from his leadership role and accept personal responsibility for compliance failures at the exchange.
Guillén argues that many observers misunderstand both the charges and the nature of AML obligations at scale. She maintains that the violations, while serious, were not criminal acts in the sense that critics often portray them. In her view, the presidential pardon recognized these nuances rather than signaling preferential treatment.
Trump’s Position: The Actions “Were Not a Crime”
When announcing the pardon in October, President Donald Trump stated that the offenses for which Zhao was convicted did not constitute crimes deserving prison time. The remark sparked widespread debate within both political and crypto communities.
Supporters framed the pardon as a correction of an overly punitive regulatory stance toward crypto founders, while opponents accused the administration of favoring wealthy industry figures. Guillén counters that such interpretations ignore the broader context of compliance challenges and uneven enforcement within the digital asset sector.
A Larger Debate About Fairness and Crypto Enforcement
Zhao’s case has become a focal point in the wider discussion about how governments regulate global crypto exchanges. Guillén stresses that effective oversight should be proportional, consistent, and grounded in technological understanding — not shaped by political narratives.
She maintains that Zhao’s pardon fits within this framework and reflects a recognition that missteps in compliance architecture are not equivalent to malicious wrongdoing. For her, the controversy is less about corruption and more about lingering misconceptions surrounding the crypto industry.
Editorial Team — CoinBotLab