Binance possible misconduct highlighted by the ICIJ has intensified global scrutiny of how major exchanges manage illicit financial flows, with the findings showing how criminal assets repeatedly moved through platforms long after compliance reforms were promised. The ICIJ investigation portrays a crypto ecosystem where infrastructure intended for fast, borderless trading also enabled large scale laundering, allowing illicit proceeds to blend into legitimate liquidity with minimal resistance.
Across multiple regions, investigators traced extensive transaction paths linked to cyber fraud, human trafficking networks, drug cartels, sanctioned hacking groups and complex cross border laundering schemes. Despite notable settlements, increased audits and leadership transitions, Binance continued to receive transfers associated with entities identified as high risk. Other exchanges showed similar exposures, but Binance remained the focal point due to its size, prior legal outcomes and the sheer magnitude of suspicious flows detected.
This case challenges how the global financial system interprets crypto risk. The findings reveal how the speed and anonymity of digital assets weaken oversight, how structural vulnerabilities inside exchanges allow tainted funds to pass undetected and how regulatory gaps create a permissive environment for laundering on a massive scale. These flows did not occur in isolated incidents. They formed patterns consistent with advanced laundering typologies, indicating systemic deficiencies in how exchanges approach risk and compliance.
The following sections analyze the laundering mechanisms uncovered, the exchanges most exposed, the vulnerabilities criminals exploited and the cultural factors that allowed these patterns to persist even after public commitments to strengthen controls. The goal is to identify lessons that financial institutions, regulators and compliance professionals must extract from the ICIJ findings while focusing entirely on the AML dimension of the case.
Table of Contents
Crypto laundering mechanisms in large exchanges
The ICIJ investigation mapped extensive wallet clusters linked to organized crime, cyber fraud operations and covert financial networks. Many of these wallets funneled assets into major exchanges, with Binance most frequently identified. Even after announcing reforms, the platform continued receiving transfers from entities connected to scam syndicates and high risk regions. These flows often reached deposit addresses that accepted large values without visible intervention.
Understanding the mechanisms behind these movements is essential. Criminal networks typically initiate laundering by collecting fiat through romance scams, online fraud, forced labor, extortion or ransomware. They convert these funds into stablecoins using informal brokers, regional payment intermediaries or digital money service operators. Once in crypto, the assets are fragmented into smaller portions that move through multiple personal wallets, automated swapping services and peer to peer channels.
The goal is to obscure the link between the original criminal source and the eventual exit point. Major exchanges are the preferred end stage because they offer liquidity, speed and global reach. Once assets reach a prominent exchange, they can be converted into other digital assets, swapped into fiat or reintegrated into legitimate financial channels.
This process exploits the scale of crypto markets. Platforms handle millions of transactions per day, and incoming transfers cannot technically be blocked. Screening must occur after funds reach the deposit address. When monitoring tools rely primarily on static lists or outdated heuristics, new wallet rotations used by criminal groups escape detection. When case volumes overwhelm compliance teams, alerts tied to risky flows may not be reviewed with sufficient depth.
Criminals use predictable patterns. A victim sends money to a fraudulent platform. The scammers convert the funds into stablecoins, split them into dozens of wallets, then aggregate them before sending them to one or more exchanges. If the recipient account appears superficially compliant, withdrawals follow immediately. The funds quickly dissipate into legitimate financial channels.
These patterns were confirmed repeatedly across the investigation. Binance remained a primary node because its scale and liquidity offered criminals a reliable final step. Even after modernizing its compliance framework, the volume of suspicious flows showed that structural weaknesses endured. For AML professionals, these findings highlight how easily sophisticated schemes adapt to monitoring gaps.
Exchange compliance weaknesses
The ICIJ findings highlighted common vulnerabilities across Binance, OKX, HTX and other major venues. Criminals repeatedly exploited these weaknesses to move large volumes of tainted assets.
One critical vulnerability was inadequate onboarding rigor. Many exchanges rely on automated identity verification systems that can be tricked with compromised documents sourced from trafficked workers or residents of low income areas. When risk scoring models emphasize basic identity checks without deeper behavioral or geographic analysis, mule accounts appear legitimate.
Deposit screening represented another major weakness. Although exchanges cannot block inbound transfers, they must freeze accounts that receive suspicious deposits. Deposit monitoring often failed when criminals rotated addresses or used swapping services before funds reached the platform. The exchange would receive assets that appeared to originate from benign wallets even though they ultimately came from criminal clusters.
Staffing challenges exacerbated the problem. Compliance teams across multiple exchanges reported workloads that far exceeded their capacity. Analysts handling dozens or hundreds of alerts per shift could not investigate each case thoroughly. Some alerts were closed prematurely because transaction patterns superficially resembled ordinary trading. When analysts lack time to review historical context or cross reference risk indicators, high risk flows become indistinguishable from regular user activity.
Escalation processes also proved inefficient. Even when analysts identified concerning flows, internal reporting channels sometimes delayed necessary intervention. Without direct lines to compliance leadership or clearly defined escalation routes, significant risks remained unnoticed for extended periods.
Exchange incentives also played a role. Transaction volume drives revenue. Large customers generate significant fees. In environments where compliance is viewed primarily as an operational cost, leadership may avoid aggressive action against high volume accounts. Decisions may favor short term revenue over long term risk reduction.
Operational delays in implementing new controls further contributed to vulnerability. Exchanges frequently announced major compliance upgrades, but internal deployment required months of testing. In this transition period, criminals exploited gaps. Monitoring models needed tuning. Identity tools generated false positives. Sanctions screening processes lacked daily updates. Each delay created opportunities for laundering.
For Binance, these concerns were especially meaningful. Having previously entered a settlement that required sweeping reforms, the platform was expected to operate under intense scrutiny. The fact that significant laundering activity persisted indicated that internal safeguards had not fully matured.
Specific exchanges implicated in illicit flows
The ICIJ findings showed that money laundering vulnerabilities were not confined to one platform. Several large exchanges became recurring components of laundering pathways, although Binance remained the most prominent.
Binance consistently appeared as a recipient of funds from wallets linked to high risk activity. Its extensive global footprint, deep liquidity and rapid processing made it attractive to criminal networks. Some accounts tied to suspicious patterns remained active long after receiving funds from problematic sources. This raised concerns about how quickly Binance’s monitoring tools could detect new laundering routes.
OKX surfaced repeatedly in flows related to scam networks and high risk regional operators. Despite its public claims regarding strong AML frameworks, the platform received substantial amounts of stablecoins tied to known typologies. These patterns suggested gaps in its ability to evaluate the origins of inbound transfers, especially when criminals used multi hop wallet chains.
HTX, formerly Huobi, showed repeated exposure to funds linked to cybercrime and offshore laundering networks. Its user base and product diversity made it appealing for criminals seeking anonymity. The platform appeared frequently in layering stages where assets moved through multiple wallets before exiting.
Coinbase, although operating under stricter licensing structures, also appeared in multi hop laundering sequences. Criminals exploited its deposit infrastructure by masking origins through personal wallets. This showed that even exchanges with more robust governance can still become parts of complex laundering routes.
WhiteBIT appeared occasionally as an intermediary platform where criminals consolidated funds before forwarding them to larger exchanges. This pattern highlighted the risk that mid tier platforms create as bridging points in multi stage laundering schemes.
Taken together, these exposures demonstrated how laundering networks diversify their routes across multiple exchanges. Criminals test which platforms react slowly, which accept high volumes without scrutiny and which offer the fastest exits. In this ecosystem, even a short delay in monitoring can result in large volumes of illicit assets moving undetected.
Cultural failures driving compliance breakdowns
The ICIJ findings highlighted how cultural and governance failures within exchanges weakened AML programs, even when technology and staffing were available.
A common issue was underestimating risk. Some exchanges believed that blockchain transparency alone deterred criminal misuse. This assumption ignored how efficiently criminals use layering and swapping techniques to obscure wallet histories.
Resource misalignment further undermined compliance. Explosive user growth outpaced investments in AML infrastructure. Exchanges introduced new products, global expansions and marketing campaigns without scaling compliance proportionately. This imbalance left teams unable to manage risk volumes effectively.
Training gaps limited analysts’ ability to recognize typologies associated with modern scams. Many staff were familiar with internal policies but not with global trends such as pig butchering schemes, forced labor scam compounds or state backed cybercrime financing patterns.
Governance structures also weakened oversight. Concentrated leadership models limited the independence of compliance functions. When compliance officers felt pressure not to impede commercial goals, potentially risky behavior remained unchallenged.
Regulatory environments influenced behavior as well. When enforcement actions softened, exchanges interpreted this as reduced scrutiny. When political signals favored innovation over oversight, risk appetites increased. This dynamic made exchanges more tolerant of gray zones and slower to exit problematic accounts.
Collectively, these factors revealed a sector where technology could not compensate for cultural shortcomings. Without a strong internal commitment to AML principles, criminals quickly adapt and exploit gaps.
Related Links
- FinCEN official AML program requirements
- US Treasury financial crime policy
- European Union AML legislative framework
- National Crime Agency financial crime information
- FATF global standards
Other FinCrime Central Articles About Binance
- Binance Founder Zhao Wins Trump Pardon After AML Conviction
- French Authorities Intensify Scrutiny of Binance Over Money Laundering
- Binance founder ‘CZ’ leaves Californian prison, along with his $60 billion fortune
Source: ICIJ
Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.
Want to promote your brand, or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.
