Binance CEO Richard Teng rejects WSJ’s $850M Iran-linked flow allegations
The report revives sanctions and AML scrutiny after Binance’s 2023 $4.3B settlement with US authorities.
Binance CEO Richard Teng publicly disputed a Wall Street Journal investigation alleging $850 million in Iran-linked transactions moved through Binance and ultimately flowed to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Journal’s account centers on alleged post-settlement compliance alerts tied to Babak Zanjani-linked entities, which Binance contests.
Key Takeaways
- Binance CEO Richard Teng called a Wall Street Journal investigation alleging $850 million in Iran-linked flows through Binance “fundamentally inaccurate” in a Friday post on X.
- The investigation alleged sanctioned Iranian financier Babak Zanjani and his firm Zedcex sat at the center of a two-year payment network that ran the funds through Binance accounts.
- Binance’s internal controls were described as flagging Zedcex after Tehran access in late 2024, yet the account allegedly stayed open for more than a year and triggered over a dozen alerts.
- The dispute lands against the backdrop of Binance’s 2023 guilty plea to AML and sanctions violations and a record $4.3 billion fine, plus an ongoing defamation lawsuit tied to earlier reporting.
Teng Calls WSJ’s $850M Iran-Linked Binance Claims “Fundamentally Inaccurate”
Binance CEO Richard Teng pushed back on a Wall Street Journal investigation that alleged the exchange processed $850 million in Iran-linked transactions that ultimately flowed to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful military organization subject to sanctions in various jurisdictions.
In a post on X, Teng called the reporting “fundamentally inaccurate,” and said Binance “never permitted transactions with sanctioned individuals.” He also argued that any flagged activity occurred before the individuals in question were placed under US sanctions, and said Binance investigated the issues before the Journal contacted the company.
For markets, this reads less like a protocol story and more like an exchange enforcement-risk headline. The immediate variable is not chain mechanics. It is whether regulators view Binance’s sanctions and anti-money laundering (AML) controls as failing again after the 2023 settlement.
Inside the WSJ Allegations: Zanjani, Zedcex, and the $850M Flow Claims
The Journal’s investigation, published Thursday, identified Babak Zanjani as the central figure in what it described as a secret crypto payment network that ran $850 million through Binance accounts over two years. The report summary in the packet says Zanjani was “re-sanctioned by the US in January,” though the exact calendar year is not specified beyond that reference.
The alleged network included Zanjani’s firm Zedcex and accounts tied to close associates, including his sister, romantic partner, and a company director. The report also claimed those accounts operated from the same devices, a detail that matters because it implies linkage beyond name-based screening.
The Journal further alleged additional Iran-linked flows beyond the Zanjani network, including $107 million moved into Binance accounts by Iran’s central bank in 2025 and roughly $260 million in direct transactions between Binance accounts and Iranian terrorist financiers during 2024 and 2025, as tracked by a foreign law-enforcement agency.
Those figures are headline risk in this packet, not confirmed flows. Binance disputes the core narrative, and the materials here do not include primary documents or independent on-chain verification.
Compliance Timeline Under Scrutiny: Late-2024 Tehran Access Flags and Year-Long Account Activity
The most market-sensitive part of the allegation is the timeline. The Journal claimed Binance internal compliance reports flagged the Zedcex account after detecting access from Tehran in late 2024, then kept the account open for more than a year while it triggered over a dozen additional internal alerts.
The report also alleged Binance’s own investigators recommended the accounts be shut down and reported to authorities, but that the accounts remained active.
That framing matters because it places the alleged friction after Binance’s 2023 guilty plea to AML and sanctions violations and its record $4.3 billion fine, when the exchange pledged to overhaul compliance systems. If the market starts to believe the “post-settlement controls still leaked” angle, the second-order effect is counterparty perception, not just reputational noise.
Exchange-Risk Signals Traders Can Track After the Latest Sanctions/AML Headline
The next catalyst is not another social post. It is whether US regulators or law enforcement attach their names to any part of these allegations, or take visible action tied to sanctions and AML compliance at Binance.
The legal thread also matters. After a March Journal report referenced in the packet claimed the US Justice Department was investigating Iran’s use of Binance to evade sanctions, Binance denied knowledge of any DOJ investigation and said it continues to cooperate with regulators and law enforcement. Binance also filed a defamation lawsuit against the publication seeking damages and a jury trial. Any filings, court dates, or rulings can keep the story in the tape.
Traders should also watch for follow-up reporting that adds primary documentation or independently verifiable transaction evidence for the $850 million, $107 million, and roughly $260 million figures.
Finally, the clean market tell is Binance-linked counterparty sentiment. If additional enforcement headlines start to coincide with visible liquidity deterioration or risk-off behavior around Binance exposures, that is when the narrative stops being purely media-driven.
Marcus Hale’s Take: Why This Headline Matters Even Without On-Chain Proof in the Packet
I treat this as an enforcement-risk and counterparty-risk story first, because the dispute is about sanctions screening, AML controls, and how internal compliance flags were handled. The dollar figures are big enough to move sentiment, but in this packet they are still allegations that Binance is directly contesting.
The threshold that matters is whether any regulator or law-enforcement body validates the post-2023 timeline implied by the allegations. If that holds, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, because it would suggest compliance friction after a record settlement, not before it, and that is what changes how counterparties price Binance risk.
