U.S. federal prosecutors are investigating whether Binance knowingly allowed trading that violated American sanctions targeting Iran, according to a Sept. 22 Bloomberg report, reviving scrutiny of the world’s largest crypto exchange nearly three years after its landmark 4.3 billion USD federal settlement.
Manhattan prosecutors lead the inquiry
The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office is leading the reported probe, with the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in Washington participating, according to Bloomberg. Prosecutors are examining Binance’s compliance controls and whether the exchange knew about the transactions under review. The report did not identify the specific transactions or disclose when investigators began examining them, and Reuters said it had not independently verified the account.
Binance pushed back on the reporting, saying it maintains a zero-tolerance policy for sanctions violations. “We fully cooperate with law enforcement, and we remain committed to rooting out and shutting down bad actors,” the exchange said in a statement. The Justice Department declined to comment, and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office was not immediately available for comment outside normal business hours.
History of Iran-related scrutiny
Questions about Binance’s Iran-related controls are not new. In March, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen and Ruben Gallego planned congressional oversight of a reported Justice Department investigation involving Iran-linked transactions, described at the time as examining whether networks connected to Iran used Binance to evade U.S. sanctions.
Binance disputed claims made in several February reports. In a March 6 response to a Senate inquiry, the company described parts of the reporting as “demonstrably false, unsupported by credible evidence, and defamatory in several material respects,” noting that its know-your-customer rules prohibit users residing or located in Iran from accessing Binance.com.
Binance pleaded guilty in 2023 and agreed to pay 4.3 billion USD in U.S. penalties overall, one of the largest corporate settlements in American history, resolving charges related to anti-money-laundering and sanctions failures.
61 million USD forfeiture case provides the paper trail
A separate court action filed on Sept. 14 offers fresh public records about Iran-linked funds that moved through Binance accounts. The Southern District of New York filed a verified civil forfeiture complaint seeking all USDT held in ten cryptocurrency addresses, in a case titled United States v. All USD Tether Held in the Following Cryptocurrency Addresses.
Prosecutors valued the targeted cryptocurrency at approximately 61 million USD and alleged it represented proceeds from black-market Iranian crude oil and petroleum sales. The complaint claims the money was intended to finance Iranian government and military bodies, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The filing alleges that two Chinese companies, Blessed Trust and Hexa Whale, used Binance trading accounts while handling proceeds connected to Iranian oil sales. Prosecutors said a broader network of cryptocurrency actors laundered more than 1.5 billion USD in illicit oil proceeds, with the two firms using the U.S. financial system to send or receive tens of millions of dollars.
Importantly, the forfeiture complaint does not accuse Binance itself of wrongdoing. The Justice Department notes that civil forfeiture complaints contain allegations that remain unproven until a court enters judgment for the government. The targeted assets are USDT held on addresses operating on the TRON network, and Tether would burn the covered tokens and issue replacement tokens of equal value for transfer into U.S. government custody under a seizure warrant.
Binance’s version of events
Binance has laid out its own timeline regarding Hexa Whale and Blessed Trust. In its March congressional response, the exchange said law enforcement contacted it in April 2025 about transactions between Binance wallets and outside addresses with possible terrorism-financing connections. Binance said it supplied KYC and transaction records connected with Hexa Whale in June 2025 and continued reviewing the account afterward, removing Hexa Whale from the platform on Aug. 13, 2025.
A separate set of law-enforcement requests concerning other outside wallets arrived during summer 2025, according to the company. After a source-of-funds review, Binance says it offboarded Blessed Trust in January 2026.
The exchange maintains that, to its knowledge, no Binance account transacted directly with an Iran-based entity. In another March statement, the company said its internal investigation found approximately 126.1 million USD eventually reached wallets linked to Iran after multiple blockchain hops, with as much as 24.1 million USD reaching IRGC-related wallets. Those figures represent Binance’s own account of its review and have not been independently verified.
What comes next
The reported probe adds another layer of regulatory pressure on Binance as it navigates post-settlement obligations in the United States. If prosecutors determine the exchange knowingly facilitated sanctioned transactions, the consequences could extend well beyond the compliance enhancements agreed in 2023. For now, the investigation remains unconfirmed by official channels, and Binance continues to frame itself as a cooperative partner to law enforcement rather than a target.
The news broke against a broadly positive market backdrop, with Bitcoin trading around 85,941 USD, Ethereum near 2,752 USD and Solana at 117.30 USD at the time of writing, showing little immediate reaction to the headline.
zero tolerance per their statement, yet the 2023 plea itself detailed sanctions-linked volume flowing through for years. zero tolerance of getting caught, more like
zero tolerance statement two years after the plea reads like a rerun. the 61M forfeiture filing is the part with actual accounts attached
61 million dollar forfeiture case surfacing now, nearly 3 years after the 4.3 billion settlement. they really thought that was the end of it lol
@sanctionswatch bloomberg citing unnamed sources, reuters would not confirm it. could be pressure tactics ahead of something else, happened before
the 61M forfeiture filing is the part people skip. thats a paper trail with accounts attached, not bloomberg sourced speculation like the probe itself
Manhattan prosecutors again. at some point Binance has to admit its compliance team was decorative during those years, the DOJ letters were sitting in a queue
a 61 million usd forfeiture case surfacing right as the new probe leaks, someone at DOJ knows exactly how to time a press cycle
bloomberg citing anonymous sources and reuters openly saying they couldnt verify. could be real, could be a leak aimed at moving something else
the 61M forfeiture complaint is an actual court filing, not just anon sourcing. bloomberg sloppy conflation of the two but the underlying case is public record
exactly, the 61M complaint is a public court filing regardless of the anonymous sourcing. conflating the two does binance a favor for free
moved everything to self custody after the 2023 plea and never looked back. cheapest peace of mind i ever bought was a hardware wallet
nearly 3 years after a 4.3 billion settlement and the question is still whether compliance actually changed. zero tolerance on paper means little without enforcement numbers
not panic selling anything over one report but ngl im moving the bulk of my binance balance to self custody this weekend just in case
did the same after the 4.3B plea in 2023. took two years for the itch to come back lol. withdrawals still worked fine then too, for what its worth
withdrawals working fine is a weird comfort. the plea deal required cooperation anyway, everything else is optics
4.3 billion bought them a compliance department and the DOJ still found a 61M Iran-shaped hole in it. at some point these fines are just a licensing fee for binance
licensing fee framing is exactly right. the 4.3B plea was a fraction of one year of revenue and the 61M case barely rounds. fines without executive liability change nothing
the licensing fee stops the day a named compliance officer faces charges. until then every fine is just a line item under legal
licensing fee until someone at the company gets named personally. knowingly is the word that shifts this from corporate line item to individual risk
exactly, individually named is the only escalation that changes behavior. until then 4.3 billion was just onboarding cost
licensing fee until the DOJ starts naming compliance officers. knowingly is doing a lot of work in that report and nobody at the company wants that word attached to them