According to a report by The Wall Street Journal on June 25, 2024, based on traceability from public on-chain data, wallets linked to Iran have been accused of transferring over $3.84 billion in cryptocurrency assets through the CoinEx platform since 2019. Some of these addresses have been analyzed and pointed to entities already on the sanctions list, such as the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), pushing a platform originally seen as a "normal cross-border transaction channel" into the forefront of geopolitical and financial sanctions discussions. Amid high-pressure sanctions and global operations, when on-chain evidence connects the exchange's custodial wallets, sanctioned entity labels, and large fund flows, the core questions arise: what level of scrutiny should platforms like CoinEx undertake, how should business boundaries be defined, and for which on-chain behaviors should they be held accountable?
$3.84 Billion Cross-Border Transfer: CoinEx Takes the Spotlight
According to The Wall Street Journal's report on June 25, 2024, since 2019, wallets linked to entities associated with Iran have frequently interacted with CoinEx, and the total cryptocurrency assets transferred through the platform over five years have been reported to exceed $3.84 billion. This is not a sudden large transfer but rather a total formed by multiple phases and repeated inflows and outflows from various wallet addresses, turning an exchange address that could be seen as a normal "transit point" into a fixed node in the cross-border fund path.
On-chain records show that these assets often first flow from wallets marked as Iranian-related into CoinEx's custodial addresses, forming platform balances through deposits, and then flow out in the form of withdrawals to new external addresses or other platform accounts, linking long-term migration paths across platforms and addresses. In this process, the interaction frequency and amounts between some Iranian-related addresses and CoinEx are significantly higher than those of other addresses, presenting a sustained and relatively concentrated relationship. The Wall Street Journal cites on-chain data stating that by 2024, CoinEx's weight in certain Iranian-related transaction paths has increased, replacing certain roles previously held by Binance in some scenarios. Although this judgment currently primarily comes from a single media source, it is enough to push CoinEx from being "one of many nodes" to the center of scrutiny in discussions about sanctions evasion risks.
Central Bank of Iran and IRGC: On-Chain Opponents Named
Tracing back along these high-frequency interacting addresses reveals the first emerging wallet marked by on-chain analytics as related to the Central Bank of Iran. According to public information, these addresses not only withdrew assets into CoinEx's custodial wallets multiple times, but they also included cryptocurrency assets allegedly obtained through hacking. Initially, the funds were received by an address suspected of being the attacker, then transferred through multiple intermediary stages into the wallet marked as related to the Central Bank of Iran, ultimately reaching the associated custodial address on CoinEx, forming a relatively complete transfer path on-chain.
On the other end, there are more sensitive security tags. In recent years, U.S. officials have identified certain wallets as accounts used by the IRGC in sanction documents and public statements, and the CoinEx addresses named this time have direct on-chain transaction records with some of those "labeled" accounts—not simply remote indirect relations, but appearing in the same transaction or in adjacent transfers. It is crucial to emphasize that this attribution to the "Central Bank of Iran" and "IRGC" does not come from CoinEx's disclosures, but results from cross-referencing known addresses in the public sanctions list with blockchain transaction paths, which positions CoinEx not only as an ordinary transit node but also in a sensitive position regarding whether there is substantial contact with sanctioned entities.
From Binance to CoinEx: Role Replacement Following Stricter Compliance
Before CoinEx was thrust into the spotlight, controversies surrounding Iranian-related funds had already surfaced multiple times. Over the past few years, various media have focused on local Iranian platforms like Nobitex and international platforms like Binance, pointing out that some wallets linked to Iran had completed cross-border cryptocurrency transactions through these platforms, raising questions about whether the platforms were adequately enforcing sanction requirements. Building on this existing narrative, The Wall Street Journal's report on June 25, 2024, presents new on-chain snippets: in some of the funding paths related to Iran, it is CoinEx that appeared in the actual matching roles in 2024, rather than the frequently mentioned Binance. This notion of "role replacement" currently stems mainly from a single media interpretation of on-chain data, lacking further independent verification from additional sources.
From the presentation of on-chain paths, this change resembles an adjustment of channels and participants rather than a direct revelation of "what the funds are being used for." Reports indicate that since 2019, wallets connected to Iran have transferred over $3.84 billion in cryptocurrency through platforms including CoinEx, where the same types of labeled wallets have engaged in significant cross-border interactions with custodial addresses at different years with both Binance and CoinEx. If we consider regulatory pressure and compliance discussions as external constraint variables, it is reasonable to assume that when major platforms tighten rules in sanctioned regions, some cross-border transactions that previously relied on those platforms for settlement may attempt to migrate to other entry points that have not been similarly scrutinized. However, based on the current public materials, we can only confirm how transfers occurred between addresses and on which platforms matching took place; the specific business context behind each transaction, whether there are direct benefit arrangements with sanctioned entities, and whether the participants subjectively tried to evade or comply with sanction requirements, are not verifiable based on on-chain records.
CoinEx's Response and the Approaching Compliance Scrutiny
After being named by the media, some reports quoted CoinEx's response, stating that the platform has no relationship with the Iranian government and that it is taking or has taken measures to restrict access from the Iranian region. However, these statements currently remain at the level of media recounting, failing to provide independent verification in broader public materials regarding when restrictions started, what technical paths were taken, and how existing accounts and on-chain custodial assets are managed. In contrast, on-chain records have clearly shown that there have been multiple interactions between CoinEx's custodial addresses and those pointed to the Central Bank of Iran and the IRGC, which in itself constitutes a starting point for external compliance scrutiny.
In such a context, even without any publicly authoritative documents indicating specific law enforcement actions or penalties related to CoinEx at this event, institutional pressure has begun to manifest. For a trading platform involved with global users, being drawn into the controversy of funds from sanctioned countries often means a rapidly needed "catch-up" on identity verification, on-chain address screening, and geographic blocking: connecting sanctioned lists and suspicious address tags, raising customer due diligence standards in high-risk areas, while simultaneously strengthening access and transaction filtering from restricted jurisdictions at both frontend and backend. In similar cases, major jurisdictions like the U.S. typically probe whether platforms have established and executed rules to identify sanctioned entities and their associated addresses and whether they timely adjusted risk control parameters upon awareness of the risks—rather than merely relying on post-facto verbal denials for coherence. Therefore, every step CoinEx takes in public disclosure and internal compliance reform will be scrutinized closely against these specific questions.
The Era of On-Chain Investigation: Centralized Exchanges Have Nowhere to Escape
The CoinEx case’s most glaring aspect is not a single transfer amount but the way it lays a structural contradiction bare: on one side is an open on-chain ledger that anyone can trace, while on the other is a sovereign sanction system drawn along national lines and lists, with both increasingly converging in practice and creating more friction. The core evidence in this controversy comes from the traceability of public blockchain data and address attribution analysis, rather than traditional account or bank flow leaks, perfectly confirming a clear trend over the past few years—regarding the cryptocurrency assets of sanctioned countries like Iran, media and regulatory bodies have increasingly started from on-chain fund paths, then reversely locked down specific platforms and applied pressure; CoinEx is simply one of the samples focused under this new paradigm. The next key points to watch will be three leads: first, whether more platforms will be named by on-chain analysis due to their interaction paths with similarly sanctioned labeled addresses; second, whether visible compliance adjustment signals such as interaction contraction with Iranian-related addresses will appear in CoinEx's related custodial addresses in future transaction patterns; third, whether the pointed-out existing cryptocurrency funds linked to Iran will reveal new transit points and channel reorganizations on-chain. As of now, the controversy surrounding CoinEx and Iranian-related addresses continues to ferment, with uncertainties in regulatory attitudes and on-chain behaviors, and these undecided variables will determine whether this incident is merely an isolated interlude or marks a new phase in which no centralized platform can easily detach itself from the sovereign sanctions game in the era of on-chain investigation.
Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
