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
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand