Binance Denies All! But Wait… What’s the Real Story?

by

Binance and the news reporters are having a fierce battle, like a duel between a dragon and a pencil. The matter centers on alleged transfers tied to Iran, which sounds like a plot straight out of a spy novel. At stake is how a giant platform handles risk when past missteps still hang over it like a grumpy cloud.

Allegations And Denials Collide

According to reporting by Fortune, internal teams found more than $1 billion in transfers linked to Iranian entities that moved through the exchange between March 2024 and August 2025. Imagine a treasure trove of cash, all tied to a country that’s about as trustworthy as a chocolate fountain in a storm.

The pieces named stablecoin flows on the network run by Tron and pointed to a familiar issuer, Tether. It’s like finding a needle in a haystack, but the haystack is made of glitter and lies.

Reports say several investigators who documented those flows were later let go. That claim, if true, would raise questions about how warnings from inside a company are handled. It’s like telling a magician they’re not allowed to shout “Abracadabra!” after the trick is done.

Binance pushed back hard. The platform, represented by its leadership, called the claims false and said a full internal review with outside counsel found no sanctions breaches. It’s like a child saying, “I didn’t eat the cake,” while crumbs are still on their face.

The record must be clear.

No sanctions violations were found, no investigators were fired for raising concerns, and Binance continues to meet its regulatory commitments.

We’ve asked for corrections to recent reporting.

– Richard Teng (@_RichardTeng) February 16, 2026

“This is categorically false. No investigator was dismissed for raising compliance concerns or for reporting potential sanctions issues as there are no violations,” the exchange disclosed in an email circulated by Binance CEO, Richard Teng. It’s like a fairy tale where the villain is actually a misunderstood puppy.

“The record must be clear. No sanctions violations were found, no investigators were fired for raising concerns, and Binance continues to meet its regulatory commitments,” Teng said in an X post.

The response noted that none of the wallets in question were sanctioned at the time the activity took place. Still, critics say the real test is evidence and outside oversight, not statements from either side. It’s like asking a magician to prove they’re not cheating, but they’re holding a rabbit in a top hat.

Questions Around Internal Reviews

A separate set of reporting by Financial Times added fuel to the debate last December by showing internal data that, according to that outlet, suggested suspicious accounts continued to move big sums after Binance’s 2023 settlement with US authorities. It’s like a ghost haunting a haunted house-unseen, but definitely there.

That 2023 agreement led to a $4.3 billion penalty and to changes in leadership. The firm’s founder, Changpeng Zhao, later faced legal consequences. It’s like a schoolyard bully getting detention, but the principal is too busy to notice.

Legal experts say there is a meaningful legal line between knowingly processing funds tied to sanctioned entities and handling transactions that later turn out to be problematic. It’s like trying to tell the difference between a wink and a blink-both are quick, but one might be a secret.

Records and timestamps matter. So do who knew what, and when they knew it. In this case, the exchange says internal checks found no violations and that monitoring continues under the terms of its US settlement. It’s like a detective saying, “I didn’t see the clues, but I’m sure they’re not there!”

Regulators Watch Closely

Reports note that the story adds to an ongoing narrative: big crypto firms operating under close scrutiny, where any hint of lax controls draws attention. It’s like a circus where the ringmaster is always watching, ready to shout “Look out!” at the slightest misstep.

This dispute may end with more documentation, an independent probe, or simply with each side standing by its version. It’s like a game of chess where no one is sure who’s winning, but everyone’s still playing.

Read More

2026-02-17 03:11