CZ's lawyer recounts the behind-the-scenes story of the "pardon"
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
CZ's lawyer recounts the behind-the-scenes story of the "pardon"
Teresa mentioned many previously undisclosed details regarding the allegations themselves as well as the reasons and procedures for the pardon.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsVideo source: The Pomp Podcast
Translation: Azuma
Editor's note: On October 22, U.S. President Trump officially signed a pardon for CZ — see "Trump Pardons Binance Founder CZ: From Prison to Full Freedom in 13 Months." However, many details surrounding the pardon remain unclear to the public.
On November 15, Teresa Goody Guillén, CZ’s personal attorney and partner at the law firm Baker Hostetler, sat down for an exclusive interview with Anthony Pompliano, founder of Morgan Creek. In her conversation with Pompliano, Teresa revealed numerous previously undisclosed details about the charges against CZ and the reasoning and process behind the pardon. CZ himself has shared and liked the interview content.
Below is the transcript of Teresa’s interview, translated by Odaily Planet Daily.
Opening
Pompliano: Hello everyone. Today we’re having a very important and serious conversation. I’ve invited Teresa Goody Guillén, CZ’s personal attorney, who was deeply involved in the process of CZ receiving the presidential pardon. I’ve seen a lot of controversy online about how CZ received the pardon—how exactly did this happen? Was it a "pay-to-play" deal? Or even corruption? So I reached out to Teresa to discuss these questions people have, both the basic facts and the sharper criticisms.
What Was the Reason for the Pardon?
Pompliano: First, please tell us—what was CZ charged with? And why was he pardoned?
Teresa: CZ was charged due to Binance’s failure to implement and maintain an anti-money laundering program and compliance system. It’s important to clarify: this was a regulatory violation—a compliance issue—but there was no actual money laundering. Binance simply failed to establish an anti-money laundering plan. Therefore, he was pardoned because he should never have been prosecuted in the first place.
President Trump stated in his pardon announcement that he does not believe CZ committed any crime or should have been prosecuted. The pardon was granted to serve justice.
CZ is the only individual ever prosecuted—and even imprisoned—for this specific type of charge or similar nature (i.e., no fraud, no victims, no criminal history). The unjust treatment he received stands in stark contrast to how anyone else in history has been treated.
Pompliano: Why was he treated unfairly?
Teresa: I believe this was part of a broader “crypto war” initiated by regulators. At the time, right after the FTX collapse, they needed to take action—they had to prosecute someone, to make an example of someone. Unfortunately, CZ became that person.
Pompliano: If I understand correctly, the company either did or failed to do certain things, so regulators targeted them. Is it common for executives to bear personal liability? On one hand, I can see the argument that CEOs should be accountable for their companies’ actions. But on the other hand (and I did a quick Google search), large banks and other financial institutions have faced similar charges, yet their executives weren’t personally implicated. What are the usual distinctions and handling practices between companies and executives?
Teresa: Exactly. Executives are never prosecuted for issues like this. Name any major financial institution—they’ve likely been accused of the same or even worse violations—but we’ve never seen a CEO charged. This has never happened before. No other executive has ever been prosecuted for these specific crimes. That’s just not how the justice system typically operates.
Inside the Pardon Process
Pompliano: We now know CZ did receive a pardon, but I still have many questions. I see lots of speculation online about what really happened behind the scenes… So how exactly was the pardon achieved? Was there some kind of "pay-to-play"? Any corruption? I hope you can walk us through the standard pardon process first, then we can address the community’s theories.
Teresa: Sure. To get a pardon, you must first submit an application with supporting reasons. Then, multiple parties review the materials and provide input. The Department of Justice, the Pardon Attorney, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, and the White House Counsel’s Office all participate.
So prior to any pardon, extensive legal reviews must occur based on the submitted application. It’s actually a relatively standardized process.
Pompliano: Once you submit the application, who receives it? Is there a dedicated pardon office? A specific person in charge? Does the application go directly to the president? Surely the president doesn’t personally sift through hundreds or thousands of applications—so who handles it?
Teresa: There are various ways pardon applications can be processed, depending on how they're submitted—through a dedicated pardon attorney, via the DOJ website, or other channels—before being reviewed by officials.
Different individuals submit applications in different ways, but the president does not personally receive these applications—at least not as far as I know.
Pompliano: So after submission, someone reviews it and advises the president on whether to consider the pardon. Is this purely the president’s unilateral decision? Or is there a process involving recommendations from staff, administrators, the DOJ, etc.?
Teresa: I’m not certain about the internal White House procedures, but certainly, several people must sign off—such as the White House Counsel’s Office and the Pardon Attorney. Of course, the final decision rests with the president, who must personally sign it.
So it’s a collaborative effort, though I wasn’t involved in those specific discussions, so I can’t provide further details.
Was the Pardon a "Pay-to-Play" Deal?
Pompliano: There’s a lot of speculation around CZ, Binance, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), and Trump—I don’t need to repeat all the rumors; you’ve surely seen them… So how would you respond to claims of a "pay-to-play" pardon? How should people understand the relationship between business transactions and the pardon process?
Teresa: Well… this is largely a pile-up of false statements. When you look at these speculations, have you seen any verified information? You might see media citing other media, which cite another report, but none of it is grounded in fact—just unnamed sources claiming to be “close to someone,” which often leads back to unreliable origins.
For example, the media constantly refers to World Liberty as Trump’s company, but I’ve never seen any evidence for that. I saw Trump listed as an “honorary member” on their website, and reports mentioning that certain Trump-related entities hold minority stakes, but I’ve seen no proof that it’s actually Trump’s company.
Some people treat rumors as facts and build assumptions on top of them, but reality is often different. The “pay-to-play” theory is built on such flawed premises, and it makes no logical sense. For instance, USD1, WLFI’s stablecoin, is issued on BSC—an open, permissionless act. Just like listing a product on an e-commerce platform doesn’t mean you have a special relationship with the platform owner. That’s exactly the case here. The assumption is baseless, yet people draw conclusions from it—this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how business or blockchain works.
Then there’s the claim that MGX invested in Binance using USD1, proving a connection between Binance and WLFI, and thus implying bribery to the president. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how stablecoins and business models work. It’s like saying if I buy wheat from you and you pay in Swiss francs, then I’m investing in Swiss francs and therefore bribing Swiss politicians. It makes zero sense—and it’s identical to the current allegations.
So these speculations are fundamentally based on misunderstandings. Many people who understand how absurd these claims are don’t pay much attention, but those unfamiliar with the basics keep repeating them, allowing the myths to spread. That’s exactly what we’re seeing now.
Pompliano: I know you’re an excellent lawyer. I always wanted to be one—though I’m not smart enough—but let me try to "test" you a bit. Is USD1 only issued on BSC, or also on other blockchains?
Teresa: You’re smart. Yes, USD1 is indeed available on other chains too. That’s another key point—other exchanges also hold USD1, but no one accuses them of bribing the president. Only Binance is targeted by these rumors.
Pompliano: Have any other crypto exchange CEOs received pardons from the Trump administration?
Teresa: I believe Arthur Hayes, CEO of BitMEX, also received a pardon. By the way, the pardon mechanism has existed since the founding of the United States—even earlier, going back to British times—for both civil and criminal cases involving individuals and entities. Pardons aren’t new; they’ve just recently drawn more attention in the context of criminal cases and personal matters. Oh, and Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road also received a pardon.
Pompliano: Let me play devil’s advocate—some might say “there’s no smoke without fire.” Could there have been some payment method, like Trump having a secret Bitcoin wallet that CZ or Binance sent funds to? Is that possible, or is it pure conspiracy theory?
Teresa: I know CZ, so I can say this absolutely didn’t happen. He’s not that kind of person. I don’t know the president personally—I’d love to meet him—but I don’t think that’s something he would do. I don’t even know if he has a Bitcoin wallet; if he did, that would surprise me.
If such a thing had occurred, we would’ve seen reporting on it—verified and credible reporting. That’s one of the beautiful things about distributed ledger technology: transparency. Since there’s no evidence, it simply didn’t happen.
How CZ Handled the Situation Personally
Pompliano: I’ve known CZ for many years. I’ve always seen him as extremely calm, composed, and rational. Earlier this year, I interviewed him—he talked about growing up in a village without electricity or running water, yet becoming one of the richest people in the world. I can’t imagine how difficult that journey must have been. How did he manage all of this emotionally? This is actually a crucial yet often overlooked aspect—beyond the legal, political, factual, and rumor-driven layers, CZ is a human being, with a family and emotions. How did he cope?
Teresa: This is another truly impressive aspect of CZ. As his lawyer, I experienced more emotional ups and downs than he did—because he remained so calm and composed throughout. I consider myself an optimist, but his level of optimism is extraordinary. He consistently sees the positive side of things, and I deeply admire that. I don’t know anyone else who could handle such pressure with the same calmness and composure. And he remains profoundly grateful for everything he has.
I’m glad you brought up CZ’s personal side, because sometimes when I see people attacking him—reading reports that are completely fabricated—it makes me genuinely angry. I think it’s vital to recognize the humanity in every person. When you attack or defame someone, or try to block their pardon, remember: this is someone with a family. You shouldn’t treat people that way.
Politicians Fueling the Narrative: Regulatory Whiplash
Pompliano: I recall Elizabeth Warren (Democrat Senator) made strong criticisms about CZ. I remember at the time, someone—either you or CZ—responded saying her statements were inaccurate. Then she replied again, and it escalated into something almost like a soap opera… Can you walk us through that? Is it normal for politicians to engage and respond publicly like this? What really happened?
Teresa: First, Warren claimed on social media that CZ had been convicted, but he wasn’t. Then she alleged that CZ engaged in improper conduct during the pardon request process—effectively adding criminal blame onto him. Those claims were also inaccurate.
No matter who you are, you can’t falsely accuse someone of committing crimes or multiple unproven offenses without any basis. Government officials may enjoy certain immunities in some cases, but those immunities should be limited. I hope we pay more attention to this, because these immunities aren’t what our Founding Fathers intended. It’s a serious problem—especially when politicians’ words can profoundly impact people’s lives and livelihoods. The limits on immunity are especially important in such cases.
Pompliano: It feels like a political issue. Regarding crypto regulation, we’ve seen crackdowns over the past few years, but now the new administration is taking a completely different stance. It’s like a pendulum swinging. Do you think this back-and-forth will continue? Should people in the industry expect such volatility, or do you think once favorable policies are in place, reversing course will become much harder?
Teresa: Yes, I hope the pendulum stops swinging like this.
I believe we now have the opportunity to drive innovation in the U.S. and make it more sustainable. For example, SEC Chair Paul Atkins wants all markets to move on-chain. Once they’re on-chain, it’ll be very hard to pull them back off.
We shouldn’t resist or try to stop revolutionary technologies—we should embrace them. This applies not just to financial services, but to every use case. Once progress is made in this direction, it’s nearly impossible to revert to older technologies.
Could CZ Return to Binance?
Pompliano: After CZ’s pardon, what changes have occurred at Binance? Will he return? Is Binance making any business adjustments? I’m not sure how much you know, but what’s the current situation at Binance?
Teresa: He won’t be returning to Binance now. Binance is still under restrictions from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Treasury (FinCEN), and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). It’s insane—most companies face scrutiny from one or two agencies, but Binance is dealing with five, despite there being no fraud, no victims, and no criminal record.
Binance remains under oversight. The Treasury, through FinCEN, has appointed a monitor to ensure compliance with U.S. laws—even though Binance is excluded from the U.S. market and has no American customers, so it technically doesn’t need to comply with U.S. laws at all.
I’m glad the charges against CZ are mostly cleared up now, but the damage to both Binance and CZ has already been done. But I believe the biggest victim is actually the United States. Binance still can’t re-enter the U.S. market, meaning we’re missing liquidity from the world’s largest crypto exchange. To be the biggest market, you need the most liquidity. Users want more platform choices, projects want to list on the biggest exchanges—but now that exchange isn’t in the U.S., so some projects choose to launch outside the U.S. just to get listed on Binance.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Odaily
