By the way, Phil's mentioning a kind of crime that is a plea to not-intending the money laundering, which surely the facts surrounding such a crime would need to be sufficient within the plea, so there would either still be intentions to certain acts or even levels of negligence or gross recklessness that would rise to the level of criminality. There are also kinds of crimes that are called "strict liability" in which performing the restricted act is enough to constitute a crime, and intention is not required to be proven for those kinds of acts that are constituted as strict liability crimes.. Many times strict liability comes into civil kinds of cases, and many times there are certain levels of intent that are needed to be proven (or plead to) in criminal cases... but not always, as Phil mentioned which would be part of the justification for lighter sentencing (or the kinds of crimes that have lower levels of punishment) - which also shows that all crimes are not the same.. They have levels and sometimes nuance.
Say CZ's team ends up wanting to suggest that the plea was done under false pretenses as you said. Though he has no intent to commit the crime, will he be able to settle a deal still after this and no more than 6 months in prison?
And if proven there is a crime though with no intention, will the authorities also get hold of binance.com? As many have said ts the main Binance.com is the target of all these.