On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, the US District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an order allowing families of victims of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel to serve two former Binance executives through their lawyers rather than in person, after finding that traditional service methods had proven impractical.
Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal granted in part and denied in part a motion by plaintiffs led by Eyal Balva, who sued Binance Holdings Limited, its founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao, and co-founder Guangying Chen under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The plaintiffs allege the defendants helped terrorist organizations move billions of dollars through the Binance platform, directly aiding the financing of the October 7 attacks.
Binance has already been served and appeared in the case, but plaintiffs said they could not locate residential addresses for Zhao or Chen, both believed to live in the United Arab Emirates. According to court filings, an investigation firm determined the UAE has no national registry of residential addresses and no public property ownership records, making conventional service extremely difficult.
One international process-serving agency quoted at least $6,000 for an attempt likely to end with papers left at a building’s front desk, while a second agency stopped responding once it learned Zhao was the target.
The judge ruled that plaintiffs may serve Zhao through BakerHostetler LLP, the law firm representing him in four other similar Anti-Terrorism Act cases, and through Kalbian Hagerty LLP, which appeared on his behalf solely to contest this motion. Chen may be served through Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C., her counsel for the limited purpose of opposing the motion.
The court declined, however, to allow Chen to be served through Binance’s own counsel, Withers Bergman LLP, finding insufficient evidence of communication between that firm and Chen regarding the lawsuit.
The order also denied plaintiffs’ request to serve Zhao and Chen directly via email, finding that while plaintiffs had identified email addresses reportedly linked to the two executives, they failed to adequately show the addresses actually belonged to or were used by them.
In her ruling, Judge Senechal rejected arguments from Zhao and Chen that plaintiffs must first exhaust formal international service procedures, such as letters rogatory, before resorting to alternative service. She cited conflicting evidence about how the UAE processes such requests, including testimony that completed letters rogatory to the UAE are rare and can take six months to a year or longer.
The judge noted both executives have actual notice of the lawsuit through counsel who have already appeared to contest the service motion, and that neither had disclosed an address where they could otherwise be served.
The order referenced related litigation, including Atzili v. Islamic Republic of Iran in Washington, D.C., where a court previously declined similar alternative-service requests against Zhao, and Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited in New York, where a court permitted service on Zhao through BakerHostetler after he could not be located following his release from federal custody.
Under Tuesday’s order, plaintiffs have twenty days to complete service on Zhao and Chen through the designated law firms.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment