Nigerian Court Adjourns Binance Tax Evasion Case Until April 30

A Nigerian court has adjourned the tax evasion case against Binance until April 30, allowing the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) additional time to respond to the cryptocurrency exchange's legal request. The court's decision comes as part of an ongoing legal battle between Binance and the Nigerian tax authority, which is seeking $2 billion in back taxes and $79.5 billion in damages for alleged economic losses resulting from Binance’s activities in the country.

The FIRS claims that Binance has a significant economic presence in Nigeria and should therefore be subject to corporate income tax, including payments for 2022 and 2023, along with a 10% annual penalty on unpaid amounts. Binance, however, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, arguing that the service of documents by email was invalid because the FIRS did not obtain judicial leave to serve legal papers outside Nigeria. Binance is registered in the Cayman Islands and does not maintain a physical presence in Nigeria.

The court granted the adjournment to enable the tax authority to formally respond to Binance’s motion. At the next hearing, the FIRS is expected to present arguments supporting the validity of the court-sanctioned substituted service. This legal dispute is part of a broader crackdown by Nigerian authorities on crypto-related platforms, which have been accused of destabilizing the country’s currency markets. In 2024, two Binance executives were detained as part of a broader investigation into the exchange’s role in facilitating naira-denominated crypto transactions. Authorities allege that platforms like Binance have undermined official exchange rates and facilitated capital flight through peer-to-peer markets.

While Binance is not officially licensed to operate in Nigeria, local users continue to use it to access digital assets and stablecoins. The ongoing legal battle highlights the complex regulatory environment for cryptocurrency exchanges operating in jurisdictions where their activities are not fully recognized or regulated. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how other countries approach the taxation and regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges.