US Justice Department Probes Whether Binance Knowingly Let Iran-Linked Trades Through

US federal prosecutors are examining whether Binance knowingly failed to stop trading that breached sanctions on Iran. Bloomberg reported the inquiry on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. For the world's largest crypto exchange by trading volume, this is the second such investigation in three years.

What investigators are actually looking at

The case is being handled by the Manhattan US attorney's office, with the Justice Department's criminal division in Washington also involved. Investigators want to know whether Binance knew about trades with sanctioned counterparties and knowingly failed to block them.

The specific transactions under review were not disclosed. Justice Department investigations can close without any charges being filed, and spokespeople for the department and the Manhattan US attorney's office declined to comment. Inquiries like this run in private, and companies rarely get official confirmation of where a case stands until it ends, either in charges or in a quiet closure.

In response, Binance issued a statement addressing its sanctions policy.

"We maintain a zero-tolerance policy for sanctions violations."

- Binance, from an official statement, September 22, 2026

The company added that it works with law enforcement on an ongoing basis and is committed to rooting out and shutting down bad actors trying to use the platform to get around sanctions.

A case that goes back to 2023

Almost three years ago, Binance pleaded guilty to violating US banking and sanctions law, paid $4.3 billion, and took on two corporate monitors. Co-founder Changpeng Zhao stepped down as chief executive at the time, served four months in prison, and was pardoned by President Donald Trump last year.

The new investigation lands as an odd contrast against the Trump administration's broader push for lighter crypto regulation. The same Zhao who received a presidential pardon last year now sees his old exchange back under scrutiny from prosecutors, this time over different allegations.

In February, Fortune reported that internal investigators at the exchange had found more than $1 billion moving through the platform to Iran-linked entities, and were dismissed afterward. The Wall Street Journal confirmed the firings, and the New York Times put the sum at $1.7 billion. The next day, Senator Richard Blumenthal opened a preliminary inquiry and demanded records on two entities, Hexa Whale and Blessed Trust.

Binance disputed that account in a March post, saying the funds neither originated nor ended on its platform, and that at most $126.1 million reached Iran-linked wallets after multiple hops, of which at most $24.1 million reached IRGC-related wallets. The exchange said it had surfaced the Iran links itself during an internal review, and that no employee was dismissed for raising compliance concerns. It has since sued the Wall Street Journal over the reporting.

A fresh $61 million episode

Both entities Blumenthal asked about resurfaced last week. Manhattan prosecutors sought forfeiture of $61 million they say came from Iranian black-market oil sales and was laundered through Binance. Investigators say two Hong Kong-registered companies misrepresented their business activities. Binance itself was not accused of wrongdoing in that action, and it's a separate asset-forfeiture case rather than a criminal case against the platform. Chains of shell companies like this are becoming a more common tool in cases against crypto exchanges, since regulators have closed off traditional banking channels for the same schemes far more tightly.

Pressure on the crypto market around Iran is building more broadly too. In August, the Office of Foreign Assets Control gave itself the power to designate any foreign person operating in Iran's digital asset sector, regardless of location, one of five sectoral determinations under the Treasury's Operation Economic Outcast campaign. On September 10, Washington added companies and individuals it says finance Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies to the sanctions list.

What it means for the exchange and traders

For Binance, the risk is mainly reputational and financial. The prior case cost the exchange billions of dollars and its chief executive's job, so a new round of scrutiny automatically raises the uncertainty around the largest crypto trading venue in the world.

The two independent monitors Binance took on under its 2023 settlement are supposed to watch for exactly this kind of case. If the current probe confirms violations, it would call into question how effective that oversight has actually been in regulators' eyes, and could bring new requirements or further fines.

For everyday users, Binance's P2P section remains one of the main channels Ukrainians use to buy and sell USDT. Many people in Ukraine regularly buy USDT for hryvnia through that same platform, which is why sanctions-related headlines are worth watching, even before any charges are filed.

• DOJ investigations can drag on for years and close with no consequences for the exchange
• the prior $4.3 billion fine shows the scale of penalties possible if violations are confirmed
• Binance has already shown it's willing to sue media outlets over reporting it disputes

What happens next

A final decision is unlikely anytime soon. Justice Department investigations typically run for months or years. Binance has already shown it's ready to publicly push back and sue reporters, so the debate around this case probably won't fade quickly.

For traders and crypto holders on Binance, the practical takeaway is simple: the exchange keeps operating as usual, and an investigation on its own doesn't mean frozen funds or halted trading. Still, the 2023 case shows that these probes sometimes end in billion dollar fines and leadership changes at the top, so it's worth tracking how this plays out rather than dismissing it as routine regulatory noise.

The wider context matters too. OFAC's expanded powers over the crypto sector mean heightened scrutiny isn't limited to Binance, it applies to any exchange handling transactions linked to Iran. For the market, that looks more like a new phase of regulatory pressure than a one-off case around a single company. The coming months will show whether that pressure becomes industry-wide or stays narrowly focused on Binance.