The hack of Binance co-CEO Yi He’s abandoned WeChat account to promote the MUBARA memecoin was a clear-cut criminal act. But beyond the simple security failure, this incident lands squarely in a regulatory gray zone that authorities like the U.S. SEC or CFTC are actively examining: market manipulation conducted via social media platforms.
While the perpetrators are hackers, the act is market manipulation—a fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate an asset’s price for profit. The fact that the crime occurred using a Web2 platform (WeChat) to manipulate a Web3 asset (MUBARA token) does not, in the eyes of regulators, absolve the act of its illegality.
Manipulation Is Manipulation, Regardless of the Platform
In traditional finance, using false or misleading statements to induce trading is strictly illegal. The MUBARA pump-and-dump fits this definition perfectly. The posts coming from Binance co-CEO Yi He’s account—even if unauthorized—constituted a material misstatement that directly caused a trading frenzy. Regulators generally view the effect on the market as the key metric, not the medium used to transmit the fraudulent information.
The Challenge of Jurisdiction in the Binance co-CEO Yi He’s Case
Credit from Watch Crypto Live
The primary legal challenge here is jurisdiction. The hackers are anonymous, the platform (WeChat) is Chinese-based, and the asset is a decentralized memecoin traded on the BNB Chain. Tracking the attackers and prosecuting them requires global cooperation. However, the regulatory message from global authorities remains firm: if U.S. citizens or entities are harmed, or if the manipulation touches markets under their purview, they will attempt to assert jurisdiction.
Lessons for Exchanges and Executives
This event forces exchanges and their executives to acknowledge their “digital footprint liability.” They must treat social media security as a regulatory compliance issue. After the MUBARA incident, Binance co-CEO Yi He’s team and CZ focused on warning users. However, regulators will see this as evidence that high-profile figures must employ advanced, regulated security protocols—even for seemingly innocuous platforms—to prevent their influence from being weaponized against the public.
