Binance is defending its sanctions program after Reuters reported Monday (July 11) that the cryptocurrency exchange processed trades by clients in Iran despite United States sanctions against the country and a company ban on conducting business there.
Binance told PYMNTS Monday morning that its sanctions program is “fully compliant with all international financial sanctions, including blocking platform access to users in Iran, North Korea, among many others.”
The company said it had also “implemented advanced detection tools that allowed us to further crack down on users in sanctioned regions that had access to sophisticated masking tools including VPNs.”
Citing interviews with seven traders, Reuters reported that Binance told traders in November 2018 that it would no longer serve them and ordered them to liquidate their accounts. That move followed the U.S. decision to reinstitute sanctions against Iran that had been lifted as part of the nuclear deal.
However, the traders told Reuters they got around the ban and used their Binance accounts until September 2021. They lost access when Binance strengthened its anti-money laundering (AML) measures. Before that, customers could trade simply by registering with an email.
“There were some alternatives, but none of them were as good as Binance,” said Asal Alizade, a trader in Tehran, per the report. “It didn’t need identity verification, so we all used it.”
Binance senior employees knew — and joked — about the exchange’s popularity in Iran, according to the report, which cited messages that circulated among staff in 2019 and 2020.
Last month, a French Member of the European Parliament (MEP) called on her country’s market regulator to review its approval of the Binance cryptocurrency exchange, citing reports of possible money laundering activity on the platform.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh