Binance Strikes Back at Claims of Moving Billions for Iran: The Saga Continues!

by

Finance

What to know:

  • Binance is accusing The Wall Street Journal of spreading “false and defamatory” claims about firing investigators who looked into funds moving through the exchange to sanctioned Iran-linked entities.
  • The exchange insists those staff members resigned, not punished, for compliance complaints and that an internal review found no violations of sanctions law regarding the transactions.
  • Binance claims suspicious activity was detected and reported-proof that their compliance measures are working-and promised a full report to the U.S. Justice Department, minimizing their sanctions exposure.

The ongoing drama of Binance vs. The Wall Street Journal took another bizarre twist on Tuesday when Binance accused the venerable news outlet of fabricating “false information” about the exchange’s internal workings. Allegedly, the exchange fired employees investigating suspicious funds flowing through Binance to entities under international sanctions. The accusation? Oh, just a tiny little matter of, say, a billion dollars potentially funding terrorism. NBD, right?

Richard Teng, Binance’s co-CEO, launched a scathing attack on the WSJ, accusing the paper of “inaccurate reporting about our compliance program” in a less-than-friendly X post. Teng included a letter from Binance’s legal counsel, which called the WSJ’s claims “defamatory,” despite the company’s numerous attempts to “set the record straight.” This, of course, mirrors an earlier letter to Fortune magazine, which ran a similar piece last week. Ah, the charm of legal battles-they truly bring out the best in people!

The Journal’s Monday exposé went for the jugular, alleging that Binance fired a group of investigators who discovered $1 billion funneled into a network suspected of supporting Iran-backed terrorist activities. According to their source documents and “people familiar with Binance operations” (because who doesn’t love a good anonymous insider?), the exchange quickly dismantled the investigation into the billion-dollar transfer. It sounds like a Netflix thriller, doesn’t it?

Binance’s Not-So-Crystal-Clear Response

In the WSJ’s coverage, a Binance spokeswoman claimed the investigators resigned-not fired-thus avoiding any potential awkwardness. And despite all the drama, Binance insists the investigators were never punished for raising concerns. They were merely, as the exchange put it, “resigned,” in a rather impressive feat of corporate spin. The WSJ, however, wasn’t buying it. They referenced various documents and reports to claim that the same unsavory activities still persist within Binance, despite their 2023 settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over federal money laundering laws. Oh, and just in case you missed it, the NYT also hopped on the bandwagon, releasing an article alleging even more questionable transfers involving $1.7 billion.

The WSJ, ever the valiant sleuths, mentioned that the individuals allegedly “fired” were from compliance and market oversight roles, and their crime? Simply not escalating red flags when they noticed suspicious trading activity or potential policy violations. You know, the usual stuff. The WSJ also dropped a bombshell that the disgruntled former employees were fired after Binance concluded they failed to take appropriate action. Ouch. That’s gotta sting.

On Binance’s side, a spokesperson confirmed to CoinDesk that the exchange conducted an “internal review” and found “no evidence of violations of applicable sanctions laws or regulations.” Apparently, the suspicious activity wasn’t evidence of wrongdoing, but proof that Binance’s controls were, in fact, working. “Don’t look at us, we’re doing our best,” the spokesperson practically pleaded. They even mentioned an ongoing investigation and promised a full report would be submitted to the U.S. Justice Department on February 25. Well, that’s one way to keep the lawyers busy!

In a final twist, Binance posted a blog on Sunday, calmly stating that its “sanctions-related exposure is minimal.” The blog went on to bash the recent reports, calling them “inaccurate,” and accusing the journalists of relying on disgruntled ex-employees with a “flawed viewpoint.” A classic defense move, if you ask me-blame it on the people who aren’t there to defend themselves. Ah, corporate warfare, always a treat.

Read More

2026-02-25 00:22