Binance Holdings Limited

2. SEC Securities Claims Were Dismissed With Prejudice

The SEC’s June 2023 action alleged that Binance, Binance.US and Changpeng Zhao operated unregistered securities businesses, made unregistered crypto-asset and staking offerings, covertly served U.S. customers, misrepresented surveillance controls, inflated volumes through wash trading, and commingled or diverted customer assets. A court allowed many claims to proceed while dismissing some offering claims, but the parties ultimately stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in May 2025; reported consequences included outflows and layoffs at Binance.US.

On 5 June 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed civil action No. 1:23-cv-01599 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Binance Holdings Limited ("Binance"), BAM Trading Services Inc. ("BAM Trading," which operated Binance.US), BAM Management US Holdings Inc. and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, asserting 13 federal securities-law violations. The SEC alleged that, since at least July 2017, Binance.com and Binance.US had operated exchange, broker-dealer and clearing-agency functions without the required registrations and generated at least USD 11.6 billion in revenue, including transaction fees from U.S. customers; it also alleged unregistered offers and sales of BNB, BUSD, BNB Vault, Simple Earn and Binance.US’s staking programme, and sought injunctions, disgorgement, civil penalties and an officer/director bar against Zhao. The complaint further alleged that Binance and Zhao covertly retained high-value U.S. customers on Binance.com despite stated restrictions, secretly controlled the supposedly independent Binance.US platform, and controlled customer assets in a manner that enabled commingling or diversion through Zhao-controlled Sigma Chain and Merit Peak Limited. As to Binance.US, the SEC alleged that BAM Trading and BAM Management misrepresented the existence and adequacy of anti-manipulation controls and that Zhao-controlled Sigma Chain conducted wash trading which inflated reported volumes; the complaint alleged that BAM Trading and BAM Management raised approximately USD 200 million from equity investors while making the alleged misrepresentations.

Binance stated in June 2023 that it took the allegations seriously but considered them unjustified and said it would defend the platform vigorously; it denied that customer money had been at risk. On 28 June 2024, Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied BAM’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the Binance and Zhao motion: the court allowed claims concerning the BNB initial coin offering and Binance’s ongoing BNB sales, BNB Vault, the Binance.US staking programme, the alleged Exchange Act registration failures, Zhao’s control-person liability, and the Securities Act anti-fraud claim concerning Binance.US surveillance and trading-volume representations to proceed. The court dismissed the BUSD claim, the Simple Earn claim, and the part of the BNB claim concerning secondary sales by sellers other than Binance. These were pleadings-stage rulings: the court stated that it was accepting the SEC’s factual allegations as true for that purpose and that the SEC would bear the burden of proving them.

On 29 May 2025, the SEC and all defendants jointly stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice; the SEC stated that, in the exercise of its discretion and as a policy matter, dismissal was appropriate, and that the decision did not necessarily reflect its position in other proceedings. Contemporary reporting stated that dismissal with prejudice precluded the SEC from refiling the same claims. The contemporaneous operational effects reported in connection with the SEC action concerned Binance.US: Banking Dive reported that approximately 50 employees were laid off in June 2023, with a former employee saying that human resources attributed the cuts directly to the SEC lawsuit, while a board letter cited preparation for costly, multi-year litigation. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a merits judgment, an SEC monetary penalty, or other final merits relief in this action.

3. CFTC Derivatives Violations Resolved by Consent Orders

The CFTC sued Binance, Zhao and former compliance chief Samuel Lim in March 2023, alleging an unregistered U.S.-facing derivatives business, deficient KYC, AML and supervision, concealed U.S. customers, and deliberate assistance with evading controls. Proposed or entered resolutions required approximately $1.35 billion each in disgorgement and a civil penalty from Binance, a $150 million penalty from Zhao, and a $1.5 million penalty from Lim, alongside injunctions and remediation.

On 27 March 2023, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a civil enforcement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Holdings (IE) Limited and Binance (Services) Holdings Limited (together, Binance), founder and CEO Changpeng Zhao, and former Chief Compliance Officer Samuel Lim, alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations. The CFTC alleged that, from July 2019, Binance offered and executed commodity derivatives transactions for U.S. persons and operated as an unregistered futures commission merchant, designated contract market or swap execution facility. It further alleged ineffective customer-identification, know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money-laundering and supervisory procedures; retention and concealment of U.S. customers; and instructions, including to commercially valuable U.S. VIP customers, to circumvent purported controls. The complaint alleged that Zhao controlled Binance and directed the strategy to retain U.S. customers and evade controls, while Lim, Binance’s CCO from 2018 to 2022, aided and abetted the conduct, including through VPN and offshore-shell-company methods. Binance responded on its website that the complaint was an incomplete account of the facts and that it disagreed with many characterizations; it stated that Binance.com had mandatory KYC and comprehensive measures to block U.S. users.

The Northern District of Illinois entered consent orders on 14 December 2023, and the CFTC announced on 18 December that the court had approved the settlement and found Binance and Zhao had violated the CEA and CFTC regulations. The order required the Binance entities, jointly and severally, to disgorge US$1.35 billion in gains and to pay a US$1.35 billion civil monetary penalty; it separately imposed a US$150 million civil monetary penalty on Zhao. The disgorgement was subject to dollar-for-dollar credit for forfeiture in the related criminal action, and US$500 million of the Binance civil penalty was subject to credit for qualifying criminal-action or FinCEN penalty payments. The order permanently enjoined Binance and Zhao from the charged violations and required certifications concerning enhanced compliance controls, treatment of U.S.-linked accounts and sub-accounts, and a governance structure containing at least three independent directors, a Compliance Committee and an Audit Committee, with Zhao excluded from the board. The CFTC separately confirmed that the court’s order against Lim required a US$1.5 million civil monetary penalty for aiding and abetting Binance’s violations and willful evasion of U.S. law. Our investigations did not yield further findings on actual payment of the monetary obligations or completion of all ordered remediation and certification requirements.

4. Ontario Securities Class Action Permitted and Hong Kong Arbitration Enjoined

Canadian investors alleged that Binance sold crypto derivatives without Ontario registration or a prospectus and made incorrect statements about its ability to continue operating; the action was certified and permitted to proceed. Ontario courts held Binance’s Hong Kong arbitration clause unconscionable and contrary to public policy, enjoined a later arbitration brought through alleged alter ego Nest as abusive, and awarded substantial-indemnity costs against Binance.

In June 2022, Christopher Lochan and Jeremy Leeder commenced a proposed Ontario class action under section 133 of the Ontario Securities Act, seeking rescission or damages for Binance Holdings Limited’s alleged failure to file or deliver a prospectus in connection with crypto-derivatives sales; the proposed class covered Canadian purchasers from September 2019 until certification. The Ontario Superior Court record states that Binance sold crypto-derivatives to Canadians from 2019 to early 2022, was not registered with the Ontario Securities Commission or exempt from registration, and had never filed a prospectus for its securities offerings; it further records that the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal had found the prospectus-related violation against Binance. The same record states that Binance acknowledged that its December 2021 communication to Ontario users, saying that it could continue operating through cooperation with securities regulators, was incorrect, and that it had mistakenly represented that account restrictions were in place while Ontario users could still trade; Binance and its Canadian corporation subsequently entered an Undertaking and Acknowledgement with the OSC dated 16 March 2022. The action was certified, with the certification affirmed on appeal, according to the Ontario Superior Court’s January 2026 costs endorsement.

Binance sought to stay the class action in favour of Hong Kong arbitration, but the Ontario Superior Court dismissed that motion and the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the arbitration clause was contrary to public policy and void; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied. The Ontario Superior Court record states that users could be prompted to open futures accounts in under 30 seconds while purportedly accepting approximately 50 pages of terms, that Binance could unilaterally amend the arbitration agreement and had changed its forum and applicable-law provisions multiple times, and that the Hong Kong procedure was realistically inaccessible to at least some customers because of its cost.

Following those rulings, Binance, through Seychelles corporation Nest Services Limited, commenced Hong Kong arbitration against the representative plaintiffs, seeking damages for alleged breach of the arbitration agreement, including an indemnity for the costs of defending the Ontario action and any Ontario liability. The Ontario court found Nest to be Binance’s alter ego and the Hong Kong claim a transparent effort to circumvent the prior rulings and undermine the Ontario proceeding, and enjoined Binance, Nest and related persons from pursuing the arbitration. In a 9 January 2026 costs endorsement, the Ontario Superior Court characterized the conduct as vexatious, oppressive, an improper collateral attack and an abusive use of process, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs C$261,900 in substantial-indemnity costs. On 29 January 2026, the court held that service or pursuit of a proposed Hong Kong anti-anti-suit injunction would itself advance the enjoined arbitrations and was prohibited; it recorded that Nest had been refused ex parte alternative-service relief in Hong Kong and that a prospective Ontario appeal of the anti-suit injunction was not expected to be heard until late 2026. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a public final disposition of the Hong Kong arbitrations or the outcome of any appeal from the Ontario anti-suit injunction.

5. Nigerian Operations Were Ordered Halted and Proceedings Were Pursued

Nigeria’s securities regulator ordered Binance and Binance Nigeria Limited to stop allegedly unregistered operations, and authorities later restricted access to Binance websites and accused the company of foreign-exchange manipulation and tax evasion. Two executives were detained, one escaped and charges against the other were later dropped; Binance alleged officials sought a cryptocurrency bribe, which Nigerian lawmakers denied.

On 9 June 2023, according to a Legal 500 article, Nigeria’s Securities and Exchange Commission ordered Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) to halt operations in Nigeria and immediately cease soliciting Nigerian investors, on the asserted basis that it was neither registered nor regulated. An undated Wikipedia entry similarly states that the Commission deemed Binance’s Nigerian activities illegal, declared Binance Nigeria Limited to be operating unlawfully and instructed Binance to cease all activities in the country.

A Legal 500 article dated 27 August 2024 reports that the Nigerian government demanded almost US$10 billion in compensation, alleging that Binance manipulated foreign-exchange rates through currency speculation and rate-fixing, contributing to a near-70% fall in the naira’s value; these were government allegations, not findings reported by the article. The same article reports that, on 21 February 2024, the Nigerian Communications Commission was reportedly instructed by the Central Bank of Nigeria to direct telecommunications companies to restrict consumer access to websites including Binance, after which consumers had intermittent access to certain sites. Reuters reported on 14 June 2024 that Tigran Gambaryan, Binance’s head of financial-crimes compliance, had been held since February, and that Nadeem Anjarwalla, Binance’s Africa regional manager, left Nigeria in March; the Legal 500 article reports that the Office of the National Security Adviser detained the two executives and confiscated their passports after they travelled to Nigeria to meet officials. According to the Wikipedia entry, Anjarwalla escaped custody in March 2024, while Gambaryan was released in October 2024 after the Nigerian government dropped charges against him. This account is not fully reconciled with Reuters’ 14 June 2024 report: while it states that Nigeria’s Federal Inland Revenue Service (“FIRS”) removed both executives as defendants in the tax-evasion case after Binance appointed a local representative, it also states that separate money-laundering charges remained against Binance and both executives at that date; Binance and both executives denied the tax-evasion and money-laundering allegations. The Wikipedia entry further reports that Binance CEO Richard Teng alleged in May 2024 that Nigerian officials had sought a cryptocurrency bribe to resolve the regulatory issues, an allegation Nigeria’s House of Representatives denied, saying Binance was seeking to divert attention from criminal allegations.

Reuters reported that Binance faced four Nigerian tax-evasion counts, including alleged non-payment of value-added tax and company income tax, failure to file tax returns, and complicity in helping platform users evade taxes; Binance denied the charges. In 2025, FIRS sought US$79.5 billion for alleged economic losses caused by Binance’s Nigerian operations and US$2 billion in back taxes, according to court documents reported by Reuters; FIRS also alleged that Binance had a significant economic presence in Nigeria and sought income tax for 2022 and 2023, a 10% annual penalty on unpaid amounts and interest at 26.75%. Binance’s counsel challenged email service of court documents outside Nigeria, arguing that FIRS had not first obtained court permission; Reuters reported on 7 April 2025 that the matter was adjourned to 30 April, and Fintech News Africa reported, citing court records, that the 30 April hearing was further adjourned to 12 May for FIRS to seek permission for email service. Binance previously stated that it was working with FIRS to resolve potential historic tax liabilities, while it stopped naira transactions and trading in March 2024, according to The Guardian. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a final judgment, settlement, withdrawal or other ultimate disposition of the tax case, the US$79.5 billion and US$2 billion claims, or the separate money-laundering case.

6. Unregistered-Securities Sales Alleged in Private Lawsuits

Investors sued Binance and Changpeng Zhao over alleged sales of unregistered securities. An earlier action was dismissed in 2022 on limitation and territorial grounds. Further actions were reported in 2023; the material reviewed does not establish their outcomes.

In Anderson et al. v. Binance et al., No. 20-02803, digital-token investors sued Binance in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after purchasing nine tokens—EOS, QSP, KNC, TRX, FUN, ICX, OMG, LEND and ELF—through Binance’s online exchange beginning in 2017, according to Reuters’ 31 March 2022 report. The investors’ 327-page complaint alleged that Binance sold unregistered tokens, failed to register as an exchange or broker-dealer, carried out millions of transactions wrongfully and did not warn purchasers of significant token-investment risks; they sought to recover the amounts paid. Reuters reported that the plaintiffs filed the action in April 2020 and contended that the one-year limitation period began when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a framework characterising the tokens as securities. On 31 March 2022, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter dismissed the action, holding that the investors had sued more than one year after their purchases and that U.S. domestic securities laws did not apply because Binance was not a domestic exchange, notwithstanding its alleged use of U.S.-based Amazon servers and Ethereum blockchain computers.

A separate law-firm case page identifies a proposed class action, Michael Sizemore et al. v. Changpeng Zhao et al., No. 1:23-cv-21261-RKA, brought by Sizemore and other similarly situated persons against Zhao and other defendants; the listed summonses include BAM Trading Services Inc., Binance (Services) Holdings Limited, Binance Holdings (IE) Limited and Binance Holdings Limited. ClassAction.org reported on 4 April 2023 that Binance, its chief executive Changpeng Zhao and several influencers faced a class action over their alleged roles in the illegal sale of unregistered securities. The materials provided do not state the precise allegations or relief sought in the Sizemore action, whether all listed entities were served or appeared, or its procedural outcome; our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome of that action.

7. UK Derivatives Claims Brought Against Binance

Groups ranging from nearly 1,700 to approximately 2,800 UK consumers or investors brought or prepared English proceedings alleging that Binance sold futures, options, leveraged tokens, margin products and other derivatives without FCA authorization. The claimants allege financial losses, with one report seeking at least £150 million, and the stated proceedings had no reported outcome.

In June 2026, a group of 1,700 UK investors reportedly brought a class action against Binance and Changpeng Zhao, seeking at least £150 million in damages; the claimants alleged that Binance had offered derivatives and leveraged products to UK retail customers without the required regulatory authorisation, causing financial losses. Reuters likewise reported that almost 1,700 British investors were suing Binance and Zhao for at least £150 million (US$200 million), alleging that the platform sold risky and complex derivative products without regulatory authorisation.

KP Law, the claimant law firm, states on its website that it has issued English High Court proceedings on behalf of consumers who say that, while resident in England or Wales, they traded Binance futures contracts, leveraged tokens, options and/or margin and suffered losses. According to KP Law, the claimants contend that Binance offered and sold those products through its online platform without Financial Conduct Authority authorisation and, as a result, breached the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. KP Law describes the claim as confined to consumers, rather than professional traders, who traded the specified products while based in England or Wales; losses from spot trading and other Binance services are excluded.

The reported claimant numbers are inconsistent: one current KP Law page refers to nearly 1,800 consumers, whereas another refers to nearly 2,800, and Reuters refers to almost 1,700 investors. Although KP Law says proceedings have been issued, it also states that it is assessing the viability and merits of the group action, and it does not estimate recoverable damages at this stage. Our investigations did not yield further findings on any court ruling, settlement, Binance or Zhao response, final damages figure, or other outcome of these English proceedings.

8. Binance Criminal Guilty Plea Accepted and $4.3 Billion Penalty Ordered

Binance pleaded guilty in November 2023 to Bank Secrecy Act violations, operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business and sanctions violations, admitting deficient AML controls, failure to report suspicious transactions and dealings involving sanctioned or illicit counterparties. The coordinated resolution imposed more than $4.3 billion in criminal penalties and forfeiture, compliance remediation and independent monitoring; related FinCEN, OFAC, CFTC and Zhao proceedings are addressed separately.

On 21 November 2023, Binance Holdings Limited, doing business as Binance.com, pleaded guilty in the United States to conspiracy to violate the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), failure to register as a money-transmitting business, and violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as announced by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ described the plea as part of coordinated resolutions with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); the related agency resolutions are addressed separately in this report. A Reuters company-case listing states that a U.S. judge subsequently accepted Binance’s guilty plea and the more than $4.3 billion penalty.

According to the DOJ, Binance admitted that, while serving U.S. customers, it did not register with FinCEN as a money services business or implement an effective AML programme, including comprehensive know-your-customer procedures and systematic transaction monitoring; it never filed a suspicious activity report with FinCEN. The DOJ further stated that Binance announced in 2019 that it would block U.S. customers and launched the separate U.S. exchange Binance.US, but took steps to retain valuable U.S.-based VIP customers on its global platform, including helping them use offshore accounts or provide information suggesting that they were not in the United States. The admitted conduct included failing to deploy controls preventing U.S. users from trading with persons in sanctioned jurisdictions; the DOJ states that this caused more than $898 million in trades between U.S. users and persons ordinarily resident in Iran between January 2018 and May 2022. Treasury additionally reported that Binance willfully failed to report well over 100,000 suspicious transactions involving, among other matters, terrorist organisations, ransomware, child sexual exploitation material, frauds and scams.

Under the criminal plea agreement, Binance agreed to forfeit $2,510,650,588 and pay a $1,805,475,575 criminal fine, totalling $4,316,126,163; it also agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years and remediate and enhance its AML and sanctions-compliance programmes. The DOJ stated that it gave Binance only partial cooperation credit because the company delayed producing relevant evidence, including recorded executive meetings, and that the resulting criminal penalty reflected a 20% reduction from the bottom of the applicable sentencing-guidelines fine range. In June 2024, the DOJ stated that the $898 million IEEPA-forfeiture component qualified for deposit into the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. Our investigations did not yield further findings on collection of the full criminal forfeiture and fine or completion of the DOJ three-year monitorship.

9. Binance Founder Was Convicted, Imprisoned and Pardoned

Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective AML program, resigned as Binance CEO and agreed to personal monetary penalties and restrictions on managing the company. He was sentenced to four months in prison, was released in 2024, and several sources state that he received a presidential pardon in October 2025.

On 21 November 2023, Changpeng Zhao, Binance Holdings Limited’s founder and then chief executive officer, pleaded guilty to violating the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act by causing Binance to fail to implement an effective anti-money-laundering programme, and resigned as CEO. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Zhao admitted that he knew Binance served U.S. users and was therefore required to register with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and operate an effective AML programme; he knew that such controls, including know-your-customer procedures, could deter customers, and he prioritised the company’s growth over compliance. The DOJ states that, without an effective AML programme, Binance caused transactions between U.S. users and users in sanctioned jurisdictions, a clear and foreseeable result of Zhao’s decision to prioritise Binance’s profit and growth over BSA compliance. This individual plea formed part of the separate coordinated U.S. resolution involving Binance’s corporate guilty plea and associated enforcement actions.

Zhao’s plea agreement stipulated a US$50 million criminal fine, which his April 2024 sentencing memorandum states he paid on 9 January 2024; the same memorandum states that he paid an additional US$50 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on 4 March 2024. Separately, the CFTC’s 21 November 2023 announcement stated that its proposed consent order would require Zhao to pay a US$150 million civil monetary penalty, subject to court approval. On 30 April 2024, a Seattle court sentenced Zhao to four months’ imprisonment; Reuters subsequently reported that he served nearly four months in prison. A 6 November 2025 letter by 28 House Democrats asserted that the 2023 agreement required Binance to prohibit Zhao from involvement in operating or managing the company for three years, and asked the DOJ whether it would continue to enforce that prohibition; this was a lawmakers’ request rather than an agency determination of its continuing effect.

On 23 October 2025, Reuters reported that the White House confirmed that President Donald Trump had granted Zhao a full and unconditional pardon; Zhao publicly acknowledged and thanked the President for the pardon that day. Reuters characterised a return by Zhao to Binance and any scope for Binance’s U.S. expansion as potential consequences of the pardon, not established outcomes. Our targeted searches did not locate a presidential pardon instrument or White House webpage, nor an authoritative public source establishing that the pardon changed Binance’s separate corporate resolution or the asserted three-year management prohibition.

10. Illicit Flows Alleged During Compliance Monitoring

ICIJ reported that Binance accounts continued receiving or moving funds linked to Huione, the Bybit hack, scam victims, suspected money mules and other high-risk activity while court-appointed monitors were in place. Former staff and internal discussions described limited investigative authority, potentially loosened controls and tensions with monitors, while a later policy change was said by European investigators to impede tracing requests.

According to a November 2025 investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), from July 2024 through July 2025 Binance customer accounts received at least $408 million in tether from Huione Group while Binance was subject to two compliance monitors under its 2023 plea arrangements. ICIJ described Cambodia-based Huione as a financial firm used by Chinese criminal groups to launder proceeds from human trafficking and industrial-scale scam operations, and stated that it derived its findings from public blockchain data, including three addresses identified in Huione’s 2024 Chinese-language quarterly report. Binance told ICIJ that it works with global law enforcement, investigates users transacting with the service, and would take appropriate action if potential illicit activity were identified; it also said the technology does not permit it to block deposits. However, ICIJ reported that Binance did not provide details of any freezing of funds or closure of accounts connected with the Huione flows.

ICIJ further reported that, during the 10 days in late February 2025 when ether stolen in the approximately $1.5 billion Bybit hack was routed through THORChain, ChainArgos identified more than $900 million in ether deposits from THORChain into five Binance deposit addresses and traced some flows from suspected North Korean laundering actors through THORChain to those addresses. ICIJ found no evidence that the Binance accounts were controlled by those alleged launderers, and experts told it that the ether likely changed owners in THORChain transactions before reaching the accounts; blockchain analysts nevertheless told ICIJ that Binance should have acted given the scale and source of the inflows. Binance did not directly answer ICIJ’s questions about the THORChain inflows, but its spokesperson said that security and compliance were central to its operations and cited more than 1,280 employees and annual investments of millions of dollars in its compliance programme.

The ICIJ article also reported that former Binance compliance employee Alessio Della Santa, who left in September 2024, said his office lacked authority to conduct meaningful suspicious-transaction investigations and lacked customer information including home addresses, which he said had resulted in apparently criminally linked accounts remaining active. In a separate scam-victim case, ICIJ reported that a private investigator traced more than $500,000 of a Minnesota victim’s unrecovered funds to customer accounts at Binance and other exchanges, and that ICIJ independently confirmed the transaction path. ICIJ also reviewed law-enforcement files concerning two Binance accounts which moved millions of tether in the nine months ending mid-2024 without information on source of funds or business purpose; a former prosecutor consulted by ICIJ said they appeared to be money-mule accounts or accounts opened by trafficking victims, and Binance declined comment. As earlier context, ChainArgos told ICIJ that a wallet controlled by Khadzhi Magomedov of the Smart group directly sent or received at least $40 million in cryptocurrency to or from Binance accounts between 2019 and 2021; Binance responded that it cannot block incoming crypto transactions.

ICIJ reported that Binance had clashed with its court-appointed monitors and that, in April 2025, staff discussed anti-money-laundering-control changes which some employees viewed as loosening checks on riskier customers; according to ICIJ, Binance criticised the monitors’ “inefficient and costly burdens.” A Binance webpage dated September 17, 2025, whose full text could not be retrieved, states that Binance requested that the U.S. Department of Justice end compliance oversight early. An April 17, 2026 letter from Senator Richard Blumenthal, as Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked DOJ whether the monitorship’s scope or stage had changed, whether access or cooperation had been impeded, whether the monitor had reported misconduct, and whether DOJ had discussed early termination; the letter does not provide DOJ’s response. Our investigations did not yield a public DOJ determination, monitor report, court order or other official source resolving Binance’s September 2025 request or stating that the monitorship ended early.

According to a July 2026 New York Times report, Binance in April 2025 required certain law-enforcement requests to be routed through foreign government agencies; European investigators said this caused delays and obstacles in tracing scammers and combating money laundering. Binance told the newspaper that it had not reduced law-enforcement cooperation and that the change was intended to comply with regulations and privacy laws governing customer data.

11. Stolen-Cryptocurrency Laundering Was Alleged in Private Lawsuits

Cryptocurrency owners and proposed classes alleged that Binance, Binance.US and Zhao allowed hackers, fraudsters and other actors to launder stolen assets through accounts with deficient KYC and AML controls, asserting claims including RICO, conversion and aiding theft. The matters included the Zaif dispute and later class actions; some were transferred or sent toward arbitration, one Florida complaint was dismissed, and many claims were unresolved.

In the Zaif dispute, Reuters reported that hackers stole US$63 million in cryptocurrency from the Japanese exchange Zaif on 14 September 2018 and, according to Zaif’s January 2021 California complaint, transferred a US$10 million portion to Binance to launder it. Reuters further reported that Zaif alleged the hackers split the funds into thousands of two-bitcoin transactions—the amount that could be traded from a Binance account registered only with an email address—and that Binance failed to freeze the transactions after Zaif asked it to do so; Binance denied wrongdoing and asserted that Zaif had failed to prevent the hack. The California judge recorded settlement discussions in September 2021, after which Zaif dismissed the action; both Binance and Zaif’s owner, Caica Digital Inc., declined Reuters’ request to comment on any settlement. Our investigations did not yield a public official record resolving the Zaif settlement or identifying its terms.

A June 2023 proposed class action separately alleged that Binance knowingly aided and abetted theft and subsequent laundering of Bitcoin, Ether and other assets, according to ClassAction.org. In February 2024, Leonard Licht, described by OffshoreAlert as a 75-year-old Texas widower victimised by a Cambodia-based pig-butchering scheme, sued Binance Holdings Limited, BAM Trading Services Inc. and Changpeng Zhao in the District of Massachusetts. The official GovInfo docket characterises Licht v. Zhao et al. as a civil RICO action and, as published on 20 March 2026, identifies Binance Holdings, Binance.US/BAM entities and Zhao as defendants alongside Licht and numerous other plaintiffs. Our investigations did not yield an order, judgment or other disposition in the Licht proceeding.

On 16 August 2024, Philip Martin, T.F. “Natalie” Tang and Yatin Khanna filed the proposed class action Martin v. Binance Holdings Ltd. in the Western District of Washington on behalf of US persons whose cryptocurrency had been removed from non-Binance/BAM wallets, accounts or protocols through hacks, ransomware or theft; the defendants were Binance Holdings, BAM Trading Services doing business as Binance.US, and Zhao. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the claim seeks relief under RICO and alleges that Binance, Binance.US and Zhao knew hackers, fraudsters and other bad actors used Binance.com to launder cryptocurrency stolen from plaintiffs and others, and permitted this as a conspiracy to gain market share and generate transaction fees. Counsel further describes allegations that the defendants deliberately operated Binance.com and Binance.US contrary to US laws and regulations, enabling anonymous accounts and transactions by bad actors and sanctioned entities, and asserts claims based on alleged Bank Secrecy Act, AML/KYC, RICO and conversion violations; these are allegations, not findings. The parties stayed discovery in November 2024 in anticipation of a transfer or arbitration application; the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida in 2025 and consolidated with Baratta for Binance’s arbitration motion, which the court granted in early 2026. Plaintiffs appealed in May 2026, and, according to counsel’s case update, the Eleventh Circuit remanded on 19 August 2026 with instructions to vacate the arbitration order; Judge Ruiz vacated it on 20 August 2026 and set a 27 August 2026 status conference. The same update states that the defendants had not answered the plaintiffs’ claims; the supplied sources do not state a subsequent merits determination or final resolution.

Other 2024 proceedings reflected related allegations but provide limited substantive detail: David Gonzalez sued Binance Holdings, Binance.US/BAM and Zhao in the District of New Jersey on 18 August 2024 and sought temporary restraints against movement of assets from an alleged hacker account, while a Florida court dismissed Steven Paul Kowalski’s claim over the loss of approximately 1,400 bitcoins in August 2020 for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the underlying allegations or disposition of the Gonzalez action.

12. Canadian Penalty Imposed and U.S. State Licences Revoked

FINTRAC imposed a CAD 6.002 million administrative penalty on Binance in May 2024. Washington later entered a consent order over alleged unlicensed money transmission, imposing fines and a five-year licensing prohibition on Binance and Zhao, while multiple states revoked Binance.US licenses.

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) announced on 9 May 2024 that it had imposed a CAD 6,002,000 administrative monetary penalty on Binance Holdings Limited, also identified as Binance Holdings (IE) Ltd., Binance.com, Binance Global and Binance, on 7 May 2024. FINTRAC stated that the penalty concerned non-compliance with Part 1 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations, finding two administrative violations: failure to register as a foreign money-services business and failure to report qualifying single large virtual-currency transactions of CAD 10,000 or more with prescribed information. FINTRAC describes such administrative monetary penalties as non-punitive measures intended to encourage changes in non-compliant conduct. Our investigations did not yield further findings on payment of, or any challenge or disposition concerning, the FINTRAC penalty.

On 7 August 2024, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Consumer Services (the Department), issued a consent order with Binance Holdings Ltd., doing business as Binance.com, and its former chief executive officer Changpeng Zhao, resolving allegations in a 1 December 2023 statement of charges under Washington's Uniform Money Services Act. The attached statement of charges alleged that Binance.com had never been licensed by the Department and that, from approximately 14 July 2017 to 30 July 2023, Binance and Zhao engaged in money transmission for Washington residents without a licence. Under the consent order, Binance and Zhao agreed jointly to pay a USD 220,770 fine and USD 1,600 investigation fee, totalling USD 222,370, and for five years neither may participate in the affairs of a Department-licensed or regulated money transmitter or apply to the Department for a licence under any name. The order states that it fully resolves the statement of charges and that the respondents did not admit or deny wrongdoing by entering it. Our investigations did not yield further findings on payment of the fine and fee or compliance with the Washington consent order.

These actions concerned BAM Trading Services Inc., doing business as Binance.US, which the sources distinguish from Binance Holdings Ltd. and Binance.com. On 30 April 2024, the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation announced that it had revoked BAM Trading's Oregon money-transmission licence, with the consequence that Binance.US could no longer accept money for transmission or hold or sell fiat or crypto funds for Oregon consumers. On 1 August 2024, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance announced that BAM Trading voluntarily surrendered its Georgia money-transmitter licence under a consent order resolving a notice of intent to revoke; according to the Department, that notice was based on Zhao's felony guilty plea and his status as BAM Trading's ultimate equitable owner. The Georgia consent order required an orderly wind-down: unstaking Georgia users' assets by 1 October 2024, ending their trading by 1 December 2024, and requiring withdrawal of their funds by that date; it also barred new Georgia users and restricted activity by users with zero balances. A Binance.com item available only as a search snippet states that Florida was the first state to revoke Binance.US's licence in November 2023, whereas another Binance.com snippet says that Binance.US successfully appealed a Florida money-services-licence suspension; the available sources do not clarify the legal status or final outcome of the Florida action.

13. Bank Secrecy Act Violations Found

FinCEN found that Binance operated as an unregistered U.S. money services business, retained and concealed U.S. customers, lacked an effective AML program and failed to report well over 100,000 suspicious transactions. Its November 2023 consent order imposed a $3.4 billion civil penalty, a five-year monitorship, a retrospective reporting review, compliance undertakings and Binance’s complete exit from the United States.

On 21 November 2023, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued Consent Order No. 2023-04 against Binance Holdings Limited, Binance (Services) Holdings Limited and Binance Holdings (IE) Limited, collectively doing business as Binance and Binance.com, following its civil enforcement investigation into Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) violations. The Order concerns the Binance.com exchange, rather than the separate U.S.-focused Binance.US platform operated by BAM Trading Services, Inc., and describes conduct from approximately 14 July 2017 to 30 July 2023. FinCEN determined that Binance was a domestic financial institution and money services business (MSB), operated in substantial part in the United States without ever registering with FinCEN, and cultivated and served more than one million U.S. customers through Binance.com. According to the Order, Binance personnel and senior management took steps to retain commercially valuable U.S. users, including changing or encouraging changes to KYC documentation, suggesting virtual private network use, and reclassifying U.S. users in internal reports; FinCEN also found that Binance had represented to regulators that it was not serving U.S. customers.

FinCEN further determined that Binance willfully failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective AML programme: it launched without AML controls, did not adopt a written programme until July 2018, permitted no-KYC accounts from July 2017 to at least August 2021, and did not conduct due diligence on those accounts. The regulator identified additional deficiencies in controls for exchange-broker subaccounts and nested exchanges, anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies, law-enforcement requests, high-risk jurisdictions, compliance staffing, training and independent testing. FinCEN found that Binance filed no suspicious activity reports (SARs) during the relevant period and failed to report well over 100,000 suspicious transactions, including transactions associated with ransomware, terrorist financing, high-risk jurisdictions, darknet markets, scams and child sexual-abuse material. The Consent Order records that Binance admitted the facts contained in its 21 November 2023 Department of Justice plea agreement but neither admitted nor denied the remaining facts stated in the Order; for purposes of resolving the FinCEN matter, it admitted willful BSA and implementing-regulation violations.

The Order imposed a $3.4 billion civil money penalty, crediting $2.47 billion in payments to the Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; it required a $780 million payment to Treasury and suspended a further $150 million pending compliance with the undertakings. FinCEN required Binance to retain, at its own expense, an independent compliance monitor for five years from the monitor's retention, subject to potential early termination by FinCEN or an extension of up to one additional year. The undertakings required offboarding or restriction of identified U.S. Binance.com users, annual reviews during the monitorship, an AML-program review and implementation plan, and a retrospective SAR review of transactions from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022. The SAR lookback report was due no later than May 2025, followed by SAR filings within 90 days, subject to a 60-day extension as of right; Treasury stated that failure to comply could trigger the suspended $150 million penalty. Our investigations did not yield public FinCEN findings confirming completion of the retrospective SAR review, termination or modification of the monitorship, or Binance's compliance with those requirements.

14. Binance and Zhao Were Investigated by U.S. Authorities

From at least 2018, the Justice Department, IRS and other authorities investigated Binance and Zhao over possible money laundering, tax, sanctions and regulatory-evasion issues and sought internal records. Before the November 2023 resolution, reports described continuing probes, congressional requests about Binance’s finances and relationship with Binance.US, and uncertainty over whether charges would be brought.

Public reporting indicates that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating Binance Holdings Limited ("Binance") and its founder Changpeng Zhao in 2018, amid concerns that the exchange had breached U.S. anti-money-laundering and sanctions laws. According to a 2023 University of Liège master’s thesis citing Reuters, federal prosecutors sought extensive internal Binance records in December 2020, including material concerning anti-money-laundering checks and communications involving Zhao and other executives. Bloomberg reported on 13 May 2021 that the DOJ and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were investigating Binance and seeking information concerning the exchange in connection with money-laundering and tax issues, while stating that neither agency had accused Binance of wrongdoing. Separately, Reuters reported in January 2022, citing two people familiar with the probe, that the IRS was investigating possible money laundering at Binance; the IRS declined to confirm an investigation.

By March 2023, ACAMS reported that federal officials suspected Binance of violating U.S. sanctions and anti-money-laundering rules, and that prosecutors in Seattle and Washington, D.C. were leading the DOJ investigation. CNBC reported on 2 March 2023 that the DOJ had not then decided whether to charge Binance or individual executives. The same report states that Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen and Roger Marshall sought documents from Binance and Binance.US concerning finances, compliance, risk management and the entities’ relationship, including balance sheets from 2017, internal anti-money-laundering policies and written relationship policies; they cited allegations of illegal conduct, opacity, regulatory evasion, money laundering and sanctions evasion. Binance stated to CNBC that it would provide information, correct the record, explain its operations and cooperate with regulators; Binance.US stated separately that it welcomed engagement and was confident in its compliance practices. In April and June 2023, the New York Times and BBC respectively reported that DOJ prosecutors were investigating Binance for money-laundering violations and that Binance remained under DOJ investigation, while the Securities and Exchange Commission was examining its business practices; the related SEC and CFTC proceedings are addressed elsewhere in this report. As of July 2023, reporting described the DOJ investigation as ongoing and connected it to alleged efforts to mislead U.S. regulators, money laundering and sanctions violations; Fortune reported rumours of a possible indictment but did not report that one had been issued. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a charging decision before the November 2023 coordinated U.S. resolution, which is addressed elsewhere in this report.

15. AML Controls and Illicit Flows Reported Weak

Reports before the 2023 plea described weak KYC controls, acceptance of customers from high-risk jurisdictions, alleged management resistance to stronger checks and difficulties responding to law-enforcement requests. Other reports linked Binance accounts or wallets to Bitzlato, ransomware, drug proceeds, criminal funds and militant-related transactions, while some allegations were disputed or remained unproven.

A January 2022 Reuters investigation, based on interviews, internal messages and documents, reported that Binance maintained weak customer checks despite concerns raised by senior personnel and departed from its compliance department’s recommendations. Reuters reported that mid-2019 internal messages attributed to then Global Money Laundering Reporting Officer Karen Leong said that Changpeng Zhao wanted “no kyc” and customer trading within 10 minutes of signup; three former senior employees also told Reuters they had raised concerns over weak know-your-customer (KYC) controls with Zhao and that he ignored them. Reuters further reported that Binance continued to recruit customers in seven jurisdictions rated “extreme” money-laundering risk in an internal 2020 assessment, including after Russia and Ukraine were manually reduced to “high,” although its rules stated that customers should not be accepted from “extreme”-risk countries. Binance told Reuters that it had a sophisticated anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing approach, that its risk ratings continuously changed based on multiple variables, and that Reuters’ information was “wildly outdated” and in several respects incorrect; its legal representatives said the reviewed documents were partial and did not reflect the full context of its decision-making. Reuters also reported that, under an agreement with German partner CM-Equity, Binance was to scrutinise accounts receiving a single deposit exceeding €10,000, but a June 2021 Binance document increased that threshold to at least US$100,000; CM-Equity’s chief executive said the firm would not have partnered with Binance had it known in advance.

A 2021 K2 Integrity policy alert reported that Chainalysis had traced US$2.8 billion in Bitcoin from criminal entities to exchanges in 2019 and concluded that more than 50% of criminal-activity-linked funds passing through exchanges that year flowed through Binance and Huobi, more than through any other exchanges; the alert also stated that U.S., Indian and UK authority actions targeted potential illicit activity on Binance. Forbes reported in December 2022 that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration alleged that between US$15 million and US$40 million in illicit proceeds may have been funnelled through Binance; the article’s full text could not be retrieved. Separately, an undated Wikipedia entry states that data supplied in January 2023 identified an alleged money-laundering nexus from Bitzlato through intermediary Binance wallets, which deposited approximately US$15 million in cryptocurrency onto Binance over several years. A February 2021 CoinGeek article also stated, without identifying the underlying sources, that other sources had claimed Binance accounts were used in connection with Ryuk ransomware proceeds and that groups reportedly used the exchange to launder money on multiple occasions. The sources provided do not establish that Binance itself knew of, facilitated, or was legally responsible for each of these reported flows.

Bloomberg reported in November 2023 that, according to messages cited in the CFTC’s March 2023 lawsuit, then Chief Compliance Officer Samuel Lim acknowledged in February 2019 that Binance was being used to funnel money to Hamas; the cited exchange included a colleague’s comment that terrorists normally sent small sums. Reuters reported that German police, prosecutors and lawyers sent Binance 44 requests between May and July 2021 seeking information about transactions totalling at least €2 million, which the requesters alleged had been stolen from German residents and laundered through Binance; Reuters could not review most written responses, and several senders said Binance replied that it could not help. As to a separate BKA request concerning two men suspected of assisting the Vienna attacker, Binance’s legal representatives subsequently told Reuters that Binance responded on 18 May 2021, supplied further information it held after a 22 June request, and had advised that it lacked some data on vendor-processed fiat deposits; the BKA did not comment. Reuters had reported that neither of the two men had been formally charged and that no arrest warrants had been issued, according to their lawyers. Our investigations did not yield further findings on official confirmation of Binance’s response to the BKA, the final disposition of the two suspects, or the outcomes of the other 44 German information requests.

16. WazirX Assets Frozen Amid Disputed Binance Ownership

India’s Enforcement Directorate froze WazirX assets during a money-laundering investigation. Binance and WazirX’s co-founder gave conflicting accounts of whether Binance had acquired the exchange; the material reviewed does not resolve the ownership dispute.

On 5 August 2022, Reuters reported that India’s federal Enforcement Directorate (ED) had frozen assets worth INR 646.70 million (USD 8.16 million) belonging to WazirX, which Reuters described as linked to Binance, in an investigation concerning suspected foreign-exchange-regulation violations. According to Reuters’ account of the ED’s statements, the action concerned WazirX’s suspected role in helping instant-loan-app companies launder criminal proceeds by converting them into cryptocurrency on its platform. Reuters further reported that the ED searched one director of Zanmai Lab, identified as WazirX’s owner, while investigating shadow banks and fintech companies for alleged central-bank-rule violations and predatory lending; the ED said that fintech companies had diverted substantial funds to buy crypto assets, with the largest amount sent to WazirX and the purchased assets then sent to unknown foreign wallets. WazirX stated through a spokesperson that it had cooperated fully with the ED and answered its queries, but did not agree with the allegations in the ED press release and was considering further action.

The ownership relationship between Binance and WazirX/Zanmai Lab was publicly disputed in connection with the freeze. Reuters reported that Changpeng Zhao stated on 5 August 2022 that a 21 November 2019 Binance blog post had said Binance had “acquired” WazirX, but that the transaction was never completed, Binance had never held Zanmai Lab shares, and Binance provided only wallet services to WazirX as a technology solution. Wikipedia states that WazirX co-founder Nischal Shetty disputed Zhao’s account and asserted that Binance had acquired WazirX; this is therefore a conflict between the respective public accounts, rather than an ownership position established by the materials reviewed. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a public disposition or release of the INR 646.70 million freeze, or on the final outcome of the ED investigation.

17. French Money-Laundering Investigations Were Opened

The Paris prosecutor’s office opened a preliminary investigation in 2023 into alleged illegal client canvassing and money laundering by Binance. French authorities opened a judicial investigation in January 2025 concerning potential money laundering, drug trafficking and tax fraud in the European Union from 2019 to 2024.

According to the undated Binance entry on Wikipedia, the Paris prosecutor’s office announced in June 2023 that Binance was subject to a preliminary investigation concerning alleged illegal client canvassing and money laundering. The cited material does not identify the relevant Binance legal entity, describe the underlying transactions or customers, quantify any allegedly laundered proceeds, or state whether any person or entity was charged in connection with that preliminary investigation. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome or present status of the 2023 preliminary investigation.

The same Wikipedia entry states that French authorities opened a judicial investigation in January 2025 into Binance’s potential involvement in money laundering, drug trafficking and tax fraud within the European Union during 2019 to 2024. The Tribunal de Paris (Tribunal de Paris) archive, which publishes Paris prosecutor’s office communications, independently lists a 28 January 2025 press release entitled “Cryptoasset platform Binance” (Communiqué de presse 28.01.2025 - Plateforme de cryptoactifs Binance), corroborating that an official announcement concerning Binance was issued on that date. The accessible official archive does not provide the communiqué’s substantive text and therefore does not itself specify the suspected conduct, the legal basis, the entities or individuals concerned, or procedural measures taken. The available sources do not state whether the January 2025 judicial investigation arose from, replaced, or otherwise relates procedurally to the June 2023 preliminary investigation. Our investigations did not yield further findings on any subsequent charges, judicial decision, penalty, closure, or current case-status update concerning the January 2025 judicial investigation.

18. OFAC Sanctions Violations Settled

OFAC stated that Binance matched and executed more than 1.66 million trades between U.S. users and users in sanctioned jurisdictions or blocked persons from 2017 to 2022, with senior management permitting deficient controls and circumvention. Binance agreed to pay approximately $968.6 million and accept five years of independent sanctions-compliance monitoring; this was a related line of the November 2023 coordinated resolution.

On 21 November 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $968,618,825 settlement with Cayman Islands company Binance Holdings, Ltd. ("Binance") resolving its potential civil liability for 1,667,153 apparent violations of multiple U.S. sanctions programs. OFAC stated that, from approximately August 2017 to October 2022, Binance matched and executed more than 1.67 million virtual-currency trades on Binance.com between U.S. persons and users in sanctioned jurisdictions or blocked persons. According to OFAC, Binance exported goods and services from the United States, or by U.S. persons, to sanctioned-jurisdiction users or blocked persons and caused U.S. persons to transact with such users; OFAC determined that the apparent violations were egregious and not voluntarily self-disclosed.

Treasury stated that Binance knew or should have known by mid-2018 that enabling this activity would result in sanctions violations, but deliberately undermined and ineffectually implemented its sanctions controls. Treasury identified, among other conduct, Binance’s suggestion that users use virtual private networks to circumvent its geofencing controls, while it sought to retain both U.S. users and customers in sanctioned jurisdictions despite knowing that its matching algorithm would inevitably execute prohibited trades between them. Treasury further stated that Binance executives, including its chief executive officer, directed personnel to appear compliant while knowingly permitting the apparently violative activity to continue.

The OFAC settlement requires Binance to retain an independent compliance monitor for five years to review and assess its sanctions-compliance program. Treasury stated that the $968 million OFAC penalty requires robust sanctions-compliance obligations and full cooperation with the FinCEN-overseen monitorship, under which Treasury will have access to Binance’s books, records and systems for five years. Treasury also stated that a material breach of Binance’s compliance commitments could result in exposure to further penalties up to billions of dollars. The settlement formed part of the coordinated November 2023 U.S. resolution involving related DOJ, FinCEN and CFTC matters.

19. Iran-Linked Transfers Alleged and Investigators Reportedly Dismissed

Reports and a Senate inquiry alleged that more than $1 billion to $1.7 billion moved through Binance to Iran-linked entities, terrorist groups, Russian sanctions-evasion activity or related networks after the 2023 resolution. Binance investigators who raised concerns were reportedly fired or suspended and an internal inquiry was dismantled, while Binance denied retaliation or sanctions violations and said relevant entities were removed.

Major-media reports in February 2026 alleged that, after Binance Holdings Limited’s 2023 U.S. resolution, Binance compliance investigators identified more than $1 billion sent through the exchange to Iran-tied entities between March 2024 and August 2025, potentially in breach of sanctions laws. The New York Times, citing company records and other documents, separately reported that people in Iran accessed more than 1,500 Binance accounts during the preceding year and that approximately $1.7 billion flowed from two Binance accounts to Iranian entities linked to terrorist groups; one account allegedly belonged to a Binance vendor. The Wall Street Journal further reported that, weeks after October 2025, Binance executives dismantled an investigation concerning $1 billion moved to a network funding Iran-backed terrorist groups, for which a close Binance business partner’s trading account was a principal channel. The reported amounts and scope are therefore not uniform: Fortune referred to more than $1 billion during March 2024-August 2025, whereas the Times reported approximately $1.7 billion from two accounts and the Journal described $1 billion to the alleged network.

The Times reported that the investigators escalated their findings to senior executives and that Binance fired or suspended at least four personnel involved within weeks, citing, among other reasons, alleged breaches of protocol for handling client data. Fortune reported that at least five investigators were fired from late 2025 after internal reporting, although it could not determine the exact reasons, and that at least four senior compliance personnel had left or been pushed out during the preceding three months. Binance denied retaliatory dismissals: in its March 6, 2026 response to Senator Richard Blumenthal, it stated that no employee was terminated for escalating compliance concerns, that most departures were resignations, and that one employee was dismissed following an internal finding of unauthorized disclosure of internal user information. Binance also stated that law-enforcement inquiries prompted its reviews, that it offboarded Hexa Whale on August 13, 2025 and Blessed Trust in January 2026, that no Binance account directly transacted with an Iran-based entity, and that its internal review found no evidence of applicable sanctions-law violations connected with the reported activity.

On February 24, 2026, Blumenthal, then Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened a preliminary inquiry and sought records concerning the alleged Iranian and Russian use of Binance, the accounts of Hexa Whale and Blessed Trust, and personnel suspensions or dismissals; his letter characterized the reported events as raising questions regarding Binance’s compliance with its 2023 resolution. In an April 1 follow-up, Blumenthal stated that Binance had not provided the full requested material, alleged discrepancies and unexplained inaction in its response, and requested further records by April 14; these were the Senator’s stated concerns, rather than agency findings. Binance sued Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal in federal court in Manhattan on March 11, alleging that the Journal falsely reported that it ended the internal investigation, fired staff because of it, and failed to act; the Journal said it stood by its reporting, and Binance sought unspecified and punitive damages. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome of the PSI inquiry, Binance’s response to the April 1 follow-up, any DOJ, Treasury or monitor determination concerning the alleged post-resolution activity, or the outcome of the Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal action.

Finally, an undated Wikipedia entry states that, in a September 2026 civil lawsuit, U.S. federal prosecutors said Chinese companies used Binance to launder Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps oil-sale proceeds; no underlying court filing or prosecutorial statement was provided in the materials, so the alleged case and assertion could not be independently assessed from the supplied sources.

20. Terrorism-Financing Claims Were Brought and Partly Dismissed

Several groups of terrorism victims and families sued Binance, Binance.US and Zhao, alleging that the platforms knowingly processed transfers for Hamas, Hezbollah and other designated organizations and thereby aided attacks. Some actions or claims remained pending, but courts dismissed the 535-plaintiff action and a similar Alabama case for insufficient allegations, generally allowing amendment.

In Raanan et al. v. Binance Holdings Limited et al., 40 alleged victims or representatives of victims of Hamas’s and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel sued Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) and former chief executive Changpeng Zhao under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”). The plaintiffs alleged that Binance processed thousands of transactions involving Hamas and PIJ wallets between 2019 and September 2023, valued at nearly $60 million, and that Binance and Zhao knowingly failed to maintain controls that enabled those groups to finance the attacks; these were allegations recited by the court for purposes of the dismissal motion, rather than findings of fact. On February 25, 2025, the Southern District of New York denied the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction motion without prejudice pending jurisdictional discovery, dismissed the ATA primary-liability claims in part, and denied dismissal of the JASTA aiding-and-abetting claim after finding the complaint plausibly alleged knowing and substantial assistance. Law360 reported in May 2026 that Binance and Zhao sought dismissal of the remaining claim; our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome of that renewed dismissal motion.

A separate September 2024 Southern District of New York action, Troell et al. v. Binance Holdings Limited et al., was filed by 535 victims or relatives of victims of 64 terrorist attacks against Binance, Zhao and BAM Trading Services Inc. (“BAM”), the entity identified in the order as nominally operating Binance.US from approximately September 2019. The amended complaint alleged ATA/JASTA aiding-and-abetting, conspiracy and primary-liability theories concerning transactions by, or affiliates of, groups including the IRGC, Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, al-Qaeda and ISIS; the court recorded that the plaintiffs did not identify the owners of the relevant wallets, their links to the groups, or the dates, amounts and nature of specific transactions. On March 6, 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding, among other matters, that the pleading did not plausibly establish a discernible nexus or culpable association between Binance’s services and the attacks, or an agreement supporting conspiracy; the court allowed an amended complaint within 60 days. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the filing or disposition of a further amended Troell complaint.

In November 2025, families of approximately 300 U.S. citizens killed or injured in the October 7 attack filed a North Dakota federal action against Binance and its founders, including Zhao, seeking damages and alleging that Binance knowingly facilitated more than $1 billion in transfers to and from accounts connected with designated terrorist organizations, including $50 million transferred after the attack. Binance declined to comment to the BBC on that litigation but stated that it complied fully with internationally recognised sanctions laws; it separately stated that it had improved its compliance systems and that illicit flows represented a tiny fraction of platform trading. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the procedural status of the North Dakota action. A March 2026 secondary report stated that a similar ATA case had been dismissed in Alabama, whereas a May 2026 announcement by Cahill, which acted for Binance, stated that Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia had dismissed an unidentified ATA complaint with prejudice on May 29, 2026; the Cahill announcement does not identify the plaintiffs or case caption, and the reviewed sources do not establish whether it was the Alabama matter.

21. Civil Claims Were Filed Against Binance

Separate records identify a contract claim by Q6 Intelligence, complaints whose underlying allegations were not stated, and a POA Networks claim against Binance. Another source reported 40 federal lawsuits involving Binance across securities, fraud and RICO case categories without detailing individual outcomes.

On 21 December 2023, POA Networks Ltd. filed a writ of summons and statement of claim in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands against Binance Holdings Limited and Nest Services Limited; OffshoreAlert described Binance Holdings as a Cayman Islands company that had owned and operated a centralised virtual-asset exchange. The available OffshoreAlert entry does not state POA Networks’ allegations, the relief sought, or the case outcome, and our investigations did not yield further findings on those matters.

On 26 February 2024, Adin Gess, Noach Newman, Maya Parizer, Natalie Sanandaji, Yoni Diller, Hagar Almog, Lishay Lavi, David Bromberg and Ariel Ein-Gal filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against BAM Trading Services Inc., doing business as Binance.US, Binance Holdings Ltd., doing business as Binance, and Changpeng Zhao, according to OffshoreAlert. The available record does not identify the claims, alleged misconduct, relief sought, or disposition of that complaint; our investigations did not yield further findings on those issues.

On 8 February 2025, Binance Holdings removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida a complaint by Q6 Intelligence LLC that OffshoreAlert described as seeking $155,250 for breach of contract. The docket identifies Q6 Intelligence as plaintiff and Binance Holdings as defendant, and records Binance Holdings’ 10 March 2025 motion to compel arbitration. On 29 August 2025, Judge Raag Singhal granted Binance Holdings’ motions to stay the case and compel arbitration and closed the federal case. The docket does not report an adjudication of Q6’s contract claim, damages, or an arbitral outcome; our investigations did not yield a public copy of the order, the complaint’s factual allegations, or a public arbitration disposition, settlement, or recovery.

In a 6 November 2025 article, Law Street Media reported that Docket Alarm analytics showed 40 federal lawsuits involving Binance, with case types including securities and exchange, fraud, and RICO, and stated that the tracked parties were defendants more than 75% of the time. The article does not identify the individual Binance cases, allegations, monetary exposure, or outcomes within that total.

22. Regulatory-Evasion Allegations Were Denied and Defamation Suit Dismissed

Forbes alleged that Binance created structures to evade U.S. regulators and used Binance.US as a regulatory diversion, allegations Binance denied as false and defamatory. Binance sued Forbes and two writers in November 2020 but voluntarily dismissed the defamation action in February 2021.

In November 2020, Binance Holdings Limited commenced a defamation action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Forbes Media LLC and reporters Michael del Castillo and Jason Brett, with a jury demand. According to a contemporaneous Yahoo Finance report, the complaint alleged that Forbes and the two writers had published numerous false, misleading and defamatory statements concerning purported regulatory-evasion tactics by the global exchange. The court docket identifies the case as Binance Holdings Limited v. Forbes Media LLC, No. 2:20-cv-16398, and records the complaint as filed on 18 November 2020.

The disputed Forbes reporting was described by CoinGeek as based on a purportedly leaked 2018 internal presentation concerning a proposed entity called “Tai Chi.” CoinGeek reported that Forbes alleged Binance.US was intended as a regulatory “bait and switch”: superficially complying with local requirements and participating in U.S. regulatory programmes while U.S. traders’ fees were funnelled to a Cayman Islands parent, with occasional nominal fines contemplated to demonstrate compliance. The report further stated that the article alleged efforts to educate users on accessing advanced features unavailable in the United States, including leveraged derivatives. Binance denied the allegations, asserting in its complaint that the claimed wrongdoing was false and defamatory and that it had not implemented the presentation’s suggestions; it also denied that the presentation originated with Binance or any person acting for it. Yahoo Finance similarly reported that Binance disputed both the allegations and the authenticity of the Tai Chi documents, and sought removal of the story and punitive damages to be determined at trial.

On 4 February 2021, Binance filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). CoinGeek reported that the four-line dismissal notice gave no reason for discontinuing the case. Our investigations did not yield further findings in the reviewed public docket on the reason for dismissal, any determination on the merits of Forbes’ allegations, or damages or other relief.

23. International Licensing Restrictions Imposed

Regulators in numerous jurisdictions warned that Binance lacked authorization, ordered it to stop or blocked its services, questioned stock tokens and derivatives, or imposed registration-related penalties and restrictions. The actions included measures in the UK, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and other markets, with banks also restricting payments and Binance later reducing some European products.

Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) was subject to a series of licensing-related warnings, restrictions and sanctions across jurisdictions between 2020 and 2024, including measures concerning crypto-exchange services and the availability of stock-token, derivatives and other products. The Malta Financial Services Authority stated on 21 February 2020 that Binance was not authorised to operate in the cryptocurrency sphere and was therefore not subject to its regulatory oversight, while it assessed whether Binance had activities in Malta outside regulatory oversight. Reuters reported that Japan’s regulator publicly warned that Binance was offering crypto-exchange services to Japanese residents without registration, and that in April 2021 Germany’s regulator warned Binance of a possible fine over the absence of an investor prospectus for its stock tokens. Reuters further reported that, after the German warning, Binance discontinued stock tokens and stopped selling derivatives in certain European markets in July 2021; K2 Integrity reported that the affected markets included Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

According to the cited regulatory actions summarised by Wikipedia, Italy’s Consob ordered Binance to be blocked from operating in July 2021; Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority ordered Binance on 23 June 2023 to cease immediately all virtual-currency services offered in Belgium, stating that those services were offered from non-European Economic Area countries; and the Dutch central bank imposed a €3.3 million fine in April 2022 for providing services without registration, following an August 2021 warning. The same source states that Binance announced its departure from the Netherlands in June 2023 after failing to obtain regulatory approval. In the United Kingdom, the FCA ordered Binance to stop all regulated activity in June 2021, and cancelled unused permissions held by Binance Markets Limited in June 2023, meaning that entity could no longer provide regulated activities and products in the United Kingdom. Binance told the UK Treasury Select Committee in November 2022 that it had not held FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations for cryptoasset exchange and custody services, remained committed to obtaining it, and denied that its Paysafe arrangements circumvented UK regulation. K2 Integrity reported that HSBC, Barclays, Banco Santander and Clear Junction announced blocks on UK-customer payments to Binance following the regulatory actions.

On 2 July 2021, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against Binance, which its October 2021 notice identified as a foreign digital-asset operator, alleging provision of digital-asset exchange services without a licence in breach of Section 26 of the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses; the regulator stated that Binance had not responded to an April 2021 warning letter. The Thai SEC expressly stated that the complaint commenced an investigative and prosecutorial process and that guilt could only be adjudicated by a court; our investigations did not yield further findings on a prosecutorial decision, court outcome, settlement, withdrawal or other final disposition of that complaint. In the Philippines, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved on 25 March 2024 to block Binance’s website and affiliated pages after identifying the platform as operating without the necessary licence, citing concerns for Filipino investors’ funds, and also sought to stop digital advertising aimed at Filipino users.

According to Eco.com’s August 2026 account, Binance France’s AMF PSAN registration ended at the end of the MiCA transitional period while the group pursued full EU crypto-asset service provider authorisation, and Binance phased out non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins for EEA users through 2025. The account states that USDT was removed from EEA spot-trading pairs in March 2025, although it remained available for custody and conversion, reducing the range of products available in the EU.

24. Consumer-Design and Disclosure Gaps Identified at Binance.US

Consumer Reports found that Binance.US used gamification that could encourage frequent trading, did not clearly disclose during onboarding that exchange-held crypto lacked FDIC or SIPC protection, and obscured transaction spreads. It also found that Binance.US used a fraud-warning block that users could easily skip.

On 4 August 2026, Consumer Reports (CR), a consumer advocacy organisation, published an evaluation of the customer-facing applications of five major cryptocurrency exchanges, including Binance.US, using its financial-products assessment tool, which prioritises consumer safety, privacy, transparency and user-centricity. CR found that the five platforms made cryptocurrency trading easy but often placed pricing and risk information in dense, difficult-to-locate legal disclosures, and that each used incentives or gamification, including rewards, sweepstakes and challenges, which CR considered capable of encouraging impulsive or frequent trading. Specifically, CR recorded that Binance.US operated “Boost events” tied to particular coins; CR stated that such features can incentivise less deliberative, more frequent trading, potentially amplifying losses and short-term capital-gains tax burdens. The evaluation did not attribute those potential consumer consequences to identified Binance.US customers or quantify any resulting customer losses.

CR further found that none of the five exchanges, including Binance.US, clearly disclosed during onboarding or account creation the absence of FDIC protection for cryptocurrency or information about custody arrangements for crypto assets held in exchange-managed wallets; it noted that the exchanges did provide these disclosures in legal documentation. CR stated that customers may have limited protection for crypto assets if an exchange becomes bankrupt or suffers a hacking theft, and that pooled conventional-currency accounts at partner institutions can make insurance eligibility and treatment on insolvency or failure difficult to understand. On transaction pricing, CR found that Binance.US disclosed a “Binance.US fee,” but customers had to consult support pages for the factors used to calculate it; Binance.US also did not display the transaction spread—the difference between the buy and sell pricing—in the transaction flow, although its fee explanation acknowledged that a spread could change the price. CR considered an undisclosed spread a potentially meaningful cost because it is embedded in price and consumers may not recognise how much they pay to trade.

For fraud prevention at the point of transfer, CR found that Binance.US presented a single alert box before finalisation that users could dismiss without reading, unlike Gemini’s multiple mandatory fraud-risk acknowledgements. In response to CR’s findings, Binance.US stated that it offers secure and transparent digital-asset trading focused on compliance and security, and that customers benefit from low-fee trading and education and scam-prevention measures embedded throughout its platform. Our investigations did not yield further findings on regulatory follow-up, formal remediation, or a further Binance.US response specific to this evaluation.

25. Bitcoin Withdrawals Were Suspended and System Failures Were Alleged

Binance temporarily prevented bitcoin withdrawals during a sharp market decline in June 2022, resuming them later the same day. It was later accused of contributing to an October crypto-market crash through glitches and price discrepancies and offered approximately $600 million in compensation to affected customers and businesses.

On 13 June 2022, during serious declines in cryptocurrency values, Binance announced that bitcoin withdrawals would be unavailable for an unspecified period; the withdrawals resumed later that day, according to the undated Wikipedia entry for Binance. The available source does not identify the cause of the interruption, the number of customers affected, the value of withdrawals delayed, or whether users suffered losses as a result.

In reporting published on 2 February 2026, The Japan Times stated that Binance continued to face accusations that it contributed to the crypto-market crash of the preceding October, when users encountered technical glitches and price discrepancies on the platform during a record liquidation event. The article reported that approximately $19 billion in leveraged crypto positions were erased on 10 October and that Binance offered customers and businesses about $600 million in compensation following the crash. Former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (赵长鹏, “Zhao”), speaking in a live session on Binance’s social platform in his stated capacity as a Binance shareholder and user, denied that Binance had been a key cause of the liquidations and described the allegations as “far-fetched.” Zhao further said that users who lost money because of the platform’s system problems had been compensated, while a Binance spokesperson referred to an October blog post stating that roughly 75% of liquidations occurred before a three-token depeg on the platform. The Japan Times also reported that Star Xu (徐明星), chief executive of rival exchange OKX, maintained after Zhao’s session that Binance’s size gave it outsized influence and corresponding responsibility, evidencing the continuing dispute over Binance’s role. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the affected customers and businesses, the basis and allocation of the approximately $600 million offered, or whether any related claims or official investigation reached a final outcome.

26. Maltese Licence Plan Abandoned, Charity Pledge Disputed and Partner Allegations Raised

Reuters reported that Binance abandoned a planned Maltese license application after facing AML and financial-disclosure requirements, while continuing for a time to state that its terms were governed by Maltese law. Malta’s national charity said it never received nearly $200,000 Binance said it raised, and a Binance LCX partner accused Zhao of regulatory and diligence failures, allegations another former board member disputed.

Reuters reported in January 2022 that Binance notified Malta’s financial regulator in October 2018 that it intended to seek a licence to operate its exchange from Malta, and then amended its terms of use to provide that they were governed by Maltese law. According to Reuters, the proposed licence required Binance to provide all transaction and accounting records to the regulator and prohibited trading in assets where the holder could not be identified. The Maltese regulator told Reuters that Binance notified Maltese authorities in October 2019 that it would not proceed with the application; four people with direct knowledge said that Changpeng Zhao had been concerned by the requirements, while Binance’s representatives said its consideration of Malta was part of the rapidly developing regulatory environment rather than deceitful conduct. Reuters further reported that Binance removed Malta from its terms only in early 2020, meaning that it continued for several months to state that the terms were governed by Maltese law after abandoning the licensing plan.

In October 2018, following an agreement with Malta’s national charity, Binance stated on its website that it had raised cryptocurrency donations for terminal cancer patients equivalent to nearly US$200,000; Reuters reported that the head of Binance’s charitable arm terminated the agreement by a November 2020 letter and that the charity said it had never received the funds. Binance stated in July 2021 that it was keeping the funds safe and sought to agree with the charity how disbursements could be made directly to patients in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. MaltaToday reported in October 2025 that the Malta Community Chest Fund Foundation (MCCFF) had sued in 2021 to enforce the 2018 pledge, and that an out-of-court settlement reached earlier in 2025 resulted in MCCFF dropping the case and both sides agreeing that Binance would withdraw the pledge. The same report states that 2022 testimony by MCCFF’s then board head was that Binance’s Blockchain Charity Foundation had refused to transfer the assets and sought patient data for direct transfers, whereas a BCF representative testified that BCF intended only a minimal transfer to MCCFF and direct wallet transfers to patients; the representative accepted that this arrangement was not contained in the original 2018 agreement. MaltaToday further reported that the funds remained untouched and had appreciated to almost US$39 million, but no public official court order or primary settlement document was located in the searches run.

Reuters reported that in October 2019 Monty Metzger resigned from the board of Binance LCX, the Liechtenstein joint venture, accusing Zhao in his resignation letter of failing to fulfil diligence and regulatory obligations, making material misstatements to local officials, and displaying unusual and erratic behaviour. Martin Wachter, a former Binance LCX board member, told Reuters that he disagreed with Metzger’s allegations and was unaware of the alleged failings. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome of these allegations or the Maltese licensing plan.

27. Workforce Reduced and Senior Executives Departed

Several senior Binance executives resigned in July 2023 amid reported disagreement over Zhao’s handling of U.S. investigations, although Binance disputed or qualified parts of that account. Binance also reportedly laid off more than 1,000 employees globally over several weeks, potentially reducing its workforce by one-third.

In the week of 3 July 2023, Fortune reported that Binance General Counsel Hon Ng, Chief Strategy Officer Patrick Hillmann and Senior Vice-President for Compliance Steven Christie told Changpeng Zhao they were leaving Binance, following the earlier departure of Matthew Price, who had overseen global investigations and intelligence. Fortune attributed the executives’ decisions to a Binance source familiar with the situation, who said they departed because of Zhao’s response to an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation; this was reported against the background of regulatory pressure, which is addressed elsewhere in this report. After publication, Zhao told Fortune that Binance had promoted a new general counsel a month earlier, that Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman remained with the company, and that Hillmann had left for personal reasons. Reuters separately reported on 14 July 2023 that the prior week’s executive departures included Hillmann, but did not identify the other executives or state why they left.

On 14 July 2023, Fortune reported, citing a source, that Binance had laid off more than 1,000 employees globally over recent weeks and that the reductions could cut its then approximately 8,000-person workforce by one-third; an employee confirmed that layoffs had occurred but did not give Fortune a number. Fortune further reported that former employees told the Wall Street Journal that customer-service personnel were disproportionately affected, and that management had reportedly asked U.S.-based employees during midyear reviews whether they would relocate abroad, with those unwilling to do so reportedly dismissed. Binance confirmed involuntary terminations but characterized them as an assessment of talent and expertise in critical roles rather than conventional rightsizing. Reuters reported that a source familiar with the matter confirmed job cuts, while Zhao said that media-reported figures were "all way off" and that Binance was still hiring; a Binance spokesperson stated that the group had grown to almost 8,000 staff globally and was focusing on "talent density" to remain nimble and dynamic. Accordingly, the reported 1,000-plus figure and potential one-third reduction were disputed by Zhao, and the sources do not establish the final number of employees terminated or the eventual workforce reduction.

28. Voyager Asset Acquisition Was Subject to Potential CFIUS Review

A U.S. government notice said transactions in Voyager’s bankruptcy could be subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Binance.US terminated its proposed asset-acquisition agreement in April 2023, citing the U.S. regulatory environment. The material reviewed does not establish the outcome of any CFIUS review.

Following the 30 December 2022 announcement of Binance.US’s proposed acquisition of Voyager Digital’s assets, the U.S. government filed a notice on the Voyager bankruptcy-court docket stating that transactions contemplated by Voyager could be subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), according to a 2 February 2023 client alert published by law firm Vinson & Elkins’ Foreign Investment Watch. The notice stated that potential CFIUS review could affect the parties’ ability to complete the transactions, the timing of completion, or relevant terms. The notice did not expressly name Binance.US, but the client alert reported that the circumstances of Voyager’s bankruptcy indicated that Binance.US’s involvement had prompted CFIUS interest; it described Binance.US as the U.S. operating company of Binance Holdings Ltd. The same alert reported that Voyager had filed for Chapter 11 in July 2022 and that Binance.US had made the winning offer in December 2022 after a prior proposed sale to FTX failed.

FinTech Futures reported on 27 April 2023 that Binance.US terminated the $1.022 billion asset-acquisition agreement, stating that its reason was the “hostile and uncertain regulatory climate” in the United States and an “unpredictable operating environment” affecting the American business community. The outlet further reported that the Voyager Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors was “incredibly disappointed” and was investigating potential claims against Binance.US. The available sources do not state that CFIUS opened or completed a review, imposed conditions, or issued a final decision, and do not attribute Binance.US’s termination of the agreement to CFIUS. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the outcome of any CFIUS review or any claims considered by the creditors’ committee.

29. Customer Access, Transaction and Support Failures Were Alleged

Hundreds of customers complained that Binance or Binance.US locked or flagged accounts, delayed verification and withdrawals, mishandled deposits or trades, retained personal data and provided inadequate customer support. Individual allegations included inaccessible large balances, unauthorized asset movements, an early limit-order execution and security-related failures to close accounts; Binance pointed users to live chat.

A 1 July 2017 Reddit post, whose full text could not be retrieved, stated that a first-time Binance trader had incurred an undisclosed funding rate and lost money because the trader did not understand it.

According to Gizmodo’s 9 July 2021 report on records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had received 760 complaints concerning Binance since June 2020 and released 200 redacted complaints to the outlet. Gizmodo cautioned that the redactions made independent verification of each individual claim difficult, and stated that some complaints contained speculation about criminal conduct that it could not independently verify. The reported complaints repeatedly alleged that Binance or Binance.US had flagged accounts for suspicious activity, delayed identity or cash-account verification, and prevented customers from withdrawing, transferring or trading deposited assets for weeks or months. Individual complainants said that Binance.US had left $3,186.13 inaccessible following a verification delay, locked an account holding nearly $80,000—during which the complainant estimated its value fell to about $60,000—and trapped $43,000 after requesting an identity video. Further complainants alleged that Binance or Binance.US failed to credit a $1,000 payment or refund it, processed five transactions previously shown as failed and debited $2,500—causing alleged overdrafts exceeding $1,000 and $150 in fees—and did not reflect a $250,000 wire transfer after more than 21 days.

The complaints also alleged that Binance and Binance.US provided no telephone support, responded to online tickets slowly or with generic replies, or left tickets unresolved; Gizmodo separately reported complaints of consumers being scammed when searching online for Binance support contact details. In response to Gizmodo, Binance spokesperson Lily Lee said users with service issues could contact Binance Live Chat, where an AI bot would suggest solutions; Binance.US did not respond to Gizmodo’s U.S.-specific enquiries. Other Binance.US complainants alleged that the company refused to delete personal and verification data, including Social Security numbers, identification, photographs, addresses and support records; failed for weeks to close an account despite stated security concerns; and executed a Bitcoin limit sell order at approximately 11:02 p.m. EST before the specified price, without explaining the cause in the open support ticket. One complainant further alleged that, after Binance.US blocked account access, BNB was transferred out, sold for Bitcoin and moved to a wallet the complainant believed Binance.US controlled; the complainant claimed to have identified more than 160 similar users and estimated aggregate losses at about $30 million, and stated an intention to sue. The sources provided do not state the resolution of these individual complaints or whether the threatened lawsuit was filed or decided, and our investigations did not yield further findings on those outcomes.

30. Binance Exchange and Coin Were Reported Hacked

Hackers stole 7,000 bitcoin worth approximately $40 million from Binance in May 2019, after which Binance halted transactions and used its customer protection fund to cover losses. A separate October 2022 hack affected approximately $568 million in Binance Coin tokens.

On 7 May 2019, Binance disclosed what the Wikipedia entry describes as a “large scale security breach,” in which hackers stole 7,000 bitcoin, valued at approximately US$40 million at the time. The entry states that Binance suspended all transactions for one week while it investigated and pledged to reimburse customers through an emergency fund. A 2023–2024 University of Liège master’s thesis similarly states that malicious actors stole 7,000 Bitcoin from the platform in May 2019, then valued at more than US$40 million, and that the loss was covered by Binance’s Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU), with no Binance user losing money. The available sources do not identify the attackers, explain the technical vulnerability or state whether any stolen bitcoin was recovered; our investigations did not yield further findings on those issues or on the completion of Binance’s investigation.

The Wikipedia entry reports that, on 6 October 2022, Binance Coin was hacked, affecting approximately US$568 million in tokens. The same entry identifies BNB’s previous name as Binance Coin and states that BNB was moved to BNB Smart Chain when that chain was released in September 2020; it also reports prior criticism that BNB Chain was overly centralised and says that this had led to several exploits on the network. The available source does not specify the affected wallets or systems, the attacker, whether the stated US$568 million represented stolen, frozen or otherwise affected tokens, the operational impact on Binance or BNB Chain, or the incident’s resolution; our investigations did not yield further findings on these matters.

31. Academic Abstract Does Not Identify a Specific Binance Incident

An academic article discusses governance and compliance in Binance and FTX case studies. The available abstract does not identify a specific incident or attribute particular indicators separately to Binance.

A research article, made available online by Elsevier on 29 January 2025, examines Binance and FTX as case studies of cryptocurrency-sector disruptions and describes them in its title as “scandals.” The article states that its analysis concerns the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies and exchanges, particularly the difficulties those businesses create for conventional accounting and auditing under existing regulatory frameworks. According to the article’s abstract, the Binance and FTX case studies presented operational and financial indicators that had been overlooked, although the abstract does not identify the particular indicators or attribute them separately to Binance. The authors state that the two cases were distinct but yielded similar lessons for practitioners, regulators and the structure of blockchain platforms, including risk management and investment diversification, corporate governance and ethical practices, transparency and disclosure requirements, and robust compliance frameworks. The article further emphasizes sound corporate governance, effective risk management and enhanced transparency as measures intended to strengthen regulatory compliance and auditing effectiveness in the cryptocurrency sector.

This source is a general analytical article rather than an official finding concerning Binance, and the available text does not specify the underlying Binance event, the conduct or persons involved, the red flags concerned, or any resulting enforcement action, remediation or outcome. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the particular Binance incident examined by the article or its outcome.

32. Uncorroborated Shareholder Claim Does Not Establish a Binance Connection

A social-media post made an uncorroborated claim about shareholders of an unnamed prospective local exchange. The material reviewed does not establish a connection to Binance shareholders.

A Facebook post by Philippine news outlet InsiderPH, linking to its article on a possible Binance return to the Philippines, stated that certain shareholders of “this company” were known associates of an unnamed powerful political figure allegedly implicated in a flood-control controversy. The post did not identify the company, the shareholders, the political figure, the alleged association, or evidence supporting the statement. The linked InsiderPH article, dated 25 May 2026, described an unnamed prospective local cryptocurrency exchange that had reportedly been permitted to operate on a trial basis and whose partnership with a global exchange had not been disclosed; it said that market speculation suggested that the partner might be Binance. In that context, the article repeated that some shareholders in “this company” were associates of an unnamed political figure implicated in the controversy, but did not state that they were shareholders of Binance Holdings Limited or identify the prospective exchange as Binance or a Binance affiliate.

The InsiderPH article separately stated that Binance had been mentioned in flood-control-corruption investigations because alleged beneficiaries used cryptocurrency wallets, without identifying the investigations, beneficiaries, transactions, or any finding of wrongdoing by Binance. Accordingly, the available material does not establish that the political-association assertion concerned Binance shareholders, rather than shareholders of the unidentified prospective local exchange. Our investigations did not yield a public official, court, regulatory, or established-media source corroborating an alleged association of Binance shareholders with the flood-control controversy, or identifying any resulting inquiry, proceeding, or outcome.