A London High Court claim filed by almost 1,700 British investors seeks roughly $200 million from Binance and founder Changpeng Zhao, alleging the exchange knowingly sold unauthorized leveraged products to retail customers in breach of UK financial law.
It's one thing to serve four months in a US federal prison, receive a presidential pardon, and publish a memoir about protecting users. It's another to face a fresh £150 million lawsuit in London's High Court while doing it. That is precisely the position Changpeng Zhao finds himself in this week, as almost 1,700 British retail investors filed a claim against Binance Holdings and CZ personally, alleging the world's largest crypto exchange sold them complex leveraged products it had no business selling them.
The claimants allege Binance entities began selling these derivative products to UK retail customers from late 2019, in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act. The timing matters: the Financial Conduct Authority formally banned crypto derivatives and exchange-traded notes for retail consumers in January 2021, but the lawsuit covers conduct both before and after that ban took effect. Binance isn't the only defendant. The claim is also brought against UAE-registered Nest Exchange and a catch-all category of "persons unknown" who operate the Binance trading platform.
Some claimants say they lost tens of thousands of pounds. The law firm KP Law, which has already been instructed by hundreds of affected customers, is coordinating the action. Binance declined to comment beyond saying it "remains committed to its obligations to users and to operating in accordance with applicable law," which is the kind of statement that tells you very little about what it actually intends to do.
The FCA didn't exactly cover itself in glory during the period in question. The regulator issued a consumer warning against Binance Markets Limited in June 2021 and banned it from carrying out regulated activities without prior written consent. Binance Markets Limited later submitted a cancellation of its FCA permissions, completed in May 2023, meaning the firm is no longer authorized in the UK at all. But the FCA's enforcement actions against Binance were largely administrative. The agency never brought the kind of large-scale retail investor redress case that the size of the alleged harm arguably warranted.
That gap is exactly what this lawsuit is designed to fill. Private litigation is stepping in where the regulator moved slowly, and that's a pattern worth watching. Post-FTX, courts across major Western jurisdictions have grown more receptive to retail crypto investors bringing claims against exchanges that operated, in practice, as if regulation didn't apply to them. The UK High Court is not the only venue where this model is being tested, but a judgment here, against one of the world's most prominent exchanges, would carry significant weight across the EU and Commonwealth jurisdictions weighing similar claims.
For Binance, the reputational arithmetic is complicated. CZ completed his four-month US prison sentence in late 2024, received a Trump presidential pardon in October 2025, and has spent much of 2026 presenting himself as a reformed elder statesman of crypto, advising portfolio companies through YZi Labs and promoting a self-published memoir called "Freedom of Money" that went on sale in April. As recently as June 24, CoinDesk reported CZ saying his prison time "didn't hurt the billionaire's business" because people understood he wasn't involved in fraud. A High Court lawsuit brought by nearly 1,700 of his exchange's own retail customers complicates that narrative considerably.
The distinction CZ draws, that he wasn't involved in fraud, is one a London court will now have a chance to examine. The claim isn't technically about fraud. It's about whether Binance knowingly sold unauthorized leveraged products to retail investors in a regulated market. But the practical question a jury of public opinion asks is simpler: did the people running this platform know what they were selling, and did they know they shouldn't be selling it? UK courts can't answer the PR question, but they can answer the legal one.
Frankly, the significance of this case extends beyond the £150 million figure. If the claimants succeed, expect a wave of copycat litigation across jurisdictions where Binance operated under similar conditions. Australian, Canadian, and several EU retail investors were exposed to the same products during the same period. The infrastructure for that kind of coordinated retail action exists now in a way it didn't before FTX collapsed and crypto investors broadly began taking legal recourse more seriously. Law firms have become far more willing to take these cases on contingency, and courts have become more willing to certify them.
Binance has vowed to defend itself. Whatever the outcome, the lawsuit is a reminder that the deregulatory confidence that defined the 2019-to-2021 crypto boom is being relitigated, methodically, in the courts of countries that actually have financial law on the books.
Also read: Stripe, Visa, and 140 partners launch Open USD to take reserve profits away from Circle and Tether • OKX bets the agentic economy needs its own payment rails before anyone else builds them • Ionic Digital takes Celsius Network's ruins to Nasdaq at a $2 billion valuation
