CZ threatens to sue for defamation! Senator Warren's lawyer responds strongly: the accusation is "completely accurate" and the speech is protected.

In response to mainstream CEX founder CZ's lawyer claiming that Senator Elizabeth Warren defamed him with allegations of “acknowledging money laundering charges,” Warren's lawyer issued a strong statement to refute the claims. In a letter obtained by Punchbowl News, Warren's lawyer Ben Stafford insisted that the senator's remarks were “completely accurate” and made without malice, thus not constituting defamation. Previously, CZ's lawyer had stated to the media that if Warren refused to retract her statements, CZ planned to file a defamation lawsuit immediately.

The Beginning and End of the Defamation Controversy: CZ Questions Warren's Wording on “Money Laundering”

The legal dispute arises from CZ's public statement on social media after President Trump pardoned him, made by Senator Warren.

• Warren's accusation: Warren asserted on platform X that CZ “admitted to a criminal Money Laundering charge.”
• CZ's rebuttal: CZ cited Warren's post and rebutted by stating, “There is no Money Laundering charge”; he believes he is “acknowledging a single regulatory offense - failure to implement an effective anti-money laundering program under the Bank Secrecy Act.”
• Legal Threat: CZ's lawyer Teresa Goody Guillén has stated to the media that if Warren refuses to retract the statement, CZ will immediately file a defamation lawsuit against the senior senator. Lawyer Guillén believes that Warren “abused his office” by repeatedly making defamatory statements that harmed CZ's reputation.

Lawyer Warren Strikes Back: The Statement is “Completely True” and Protected

Senator Warren's lawyer Ben Stafford comprehensively refuted the allegations made by CZ's lawyer in a letter and provided detailed legal grounds.

• “Fully accurate” statement: Attorney Stafford pointed out that Warren's statement “is true in every respect,” and she “accurately represents the publicly and widely reported facts,” namely that CZ “admitted to a criminal offense… and resulted in a prison sentence.”
• Qualification of the Bank Secrecy Act: In response to the “single regulatory offense” claimed by CZ's lawyer, Stafford emphasized that CZ “indeed admitted to criminal conduct in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act,” which is described by its enforcement agency as “the first and most comprehensive anti-Money Laundering law in our country,” and there is no such thing as “regulatory penalties.”
• The threshold for defamation lawsuits is extremely high: Attorney Stafford further pointed out that as a public figure, CZ must prove that the defendant published false statements of fact with “actual malice” in order to win a defamation lawsuit. Stafford insists that Warren's statements are entirely accurate, and even without absolute immunity, it would be difficult for CZ to meet this high legal standard that protects freedom of speech.

Conclusion

CZ faced a strong backlash from lawyers regarding Senator Warren's defamation threats, escalating the war of words. The crux of the controversy lies in the legal classification between the “criminal charges” and “regulatory charges” that CZ pleaded guilty to. From the perspective of Warren's lawyer, their statements are based on public facts and are protected by the “actual malice” standard granted by the U.S. Constitution. This public confrontation between the crypto executive and U.S. politics concerns not only personal reputation but also reflects Washington's stringent scrutiny of the cryptocurrency sector.