Richard Teng Denies Direct Iran-Linked Transfers Through Binance

Highlights:

• Binance denied direct Iran-linked transfers and said it did not breach sanctions laws.
• Richard Teng said intermediary wallets separated Binance from the final receiving wallets.
• Binance removed related accounts, reported suspicious activity, and defended its compliance response.

Binance has denied claims that it directly handled Iran-linked fund flows, saying the situation has been wrongly presented. In a post on X, Chief Executive Officer Richard Teng said Binance did not break any US or international sanctions laws. He also said the transactions in question did not go straight from Binance wallets to any sanctioned or identified Iranian entities. According to Teng, the exchange finished its internal review, removed the related accounts, and reported suspicious activity to law enforcement.

Facts over fiction!

Contrary to false reports:
· No employees were fired for raising compliance concerns
· Binance did not violate any US and international sanction provisions
· Between any Binance wallet and ultimate receiving wallet, there were at least 3 intermediary… pic.twitter.com/nfwbGcoLGE

— Richard Teng (@_RichardTeng) March 16, 2026

WSJ Report and Binance’s Legal Response

The issue gained wider attention on 23 February, when The Wall Street Journal published its report on the Iran-linked transaction allegations. WSJ claimed Binance had dismantled an internal compliance investigation into more than $1 billion in crypto flows linked to a network supporting Iran-backed militant groups. 

The report said investigators traced some of the transactions through entities, including a Hong Kong trading firm that allegedly moved hundreds of millions of dollars in stablecoins connected to Iranian networks. It also claimed that some investigators were later suspended or dismissed after presenting their findings. Binance denied the allegations.

On 10 March, Binance later responded in its compliance blog and said its review found no direct transfers to Iranian entities, even though some funds later reached Iran-linked wallets through intermediaries. The exchange also sued The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones for defamation.

We have filed a complaint against the @WSJ for publishing a false and defamatory report, and to shine the light of truth.

We view this suit as a necessary step to defend ourselves against misinformation, hold the WSJ accountable for prioritizing clicks over journalistic… pic.twitter.com/c4BPAi95Kh

— Binance (@binance) March 11, 2026

Teng Explains Wallet Trail and Compliance Action

In X post, Teng further explained the saga and wrote “facts over fiction” and outlined several points he said reports had either missed or framed incorrectly. He said Binance did not fire any employees for raising compliance concerns. He also said at least three unattributed wallets stood between any Binance wallet and the final receiving wallet. Teng further stressed that the funds did not originate on Binance and did not move directly from the exchange to wallets linked to Iran.

In its March 10 compliance blog, the exchange said no funds moved directly from Binance to sanctioned Iranian entities. It also said the funds did not begin on Binance or go straight from the platform to Iran-linked wallets. Instead, Binance said investigators traced the money through several intermediary wallets before linking part of it to Iran-connected addresses.

Binance said its investigation traced about $126.1 million to wallets linked to Iran and about $24.1 million to wallets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The exchange claimed that these findings came from a broader tracing process and did not show direct transfers from the exchange to sanctioned entities.

The blog also rejected claims about Binance’s internal handling of the case. The company said it did not fire employees for raising compliance concerns, did not shut down the investigation, and did not block investigators from reviewing the accounts involved. Binance said it removed all related accounts after identifying suspicious links and reported the matter to the relevant authorities. The exchange said this case shows its compliance system worked as intended, not that it failed.