US Probes Crypto Exchanges For Suspected Sanctions Violations Linked To Iran

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-04Última atualização em 2026-02-04

Resumo

U.S. authorities are investigating whether cryptocurrency exchanges have enabled Iranian entities to bypass international sanctions, following a surge in crypto activity linked to Iran. Blockchain data indicates that transaction volumes reached an estimated $8–10 billion over the past year, with both government-linked actors and everyday users increasingly turning to digital assets. Analysts report record inflows into Iranian wallets, reaching $7.8 billion in 2025. The Treasury Department is examining if platforms facilitated sanctions evasion, including moving money offshore or accessing hard currency. Iran’s largest exchange, Nobitex, acknowledged some users transfer funds internationally but stated it employs monitoring systems to detect suspicious activity. Data also shows a gradual movement of assets out of Iranian exchanges, often into self-custodied wallets, rather than abrupt capital flight.

Crypto activity in Iran has expanded rapidly over the past year, drawing renewed attention from US authorities who are now examining whether certain digital asset platforms may have played a role in helping Iranian officials and state‐linked actors bypass international sanctions.

Rising Iran Crypto Volumes

According to a blockchain researcher cited by Reuters, cryptocurrency transaction volumes tied to Iran surged to an estimated range of $8 billion to $10 billion over the past year, as both government‐connected entities and everyday users increasingly turned to digital assets.

Estimates from blockchain analytics firms TRM Labs and Chainalysis show that crypto usage in Iran has grown steadily despite mounting restrictions on the country’s access to the global financial system.

TRM Labs estimates that crypto activity in Iran reached roughly $10 billion last year, compared with $11.4 billion in 2024. Chainalysis reported similar growth, saying wallets linked to Iran received a record $7.8 billion in 2025, up from $7.4 billion in 2024 and $3.17 billion in 2023.

US authorities are now investigating if crypto platforms, which weren’t mentioned in the report, have enabled sanctioned Iranian organizations to move money offshore, access hard cash, or pay for items in ways that circumvent sanctions.

Ari Redbord, global head of policy at TRM Labs, said the US Treasury is actively examining whether digital asset services were used to facilitate sanctions evasion. Redbord said he had direct knowledge of the Treasury Department’s concerns.

A Treasury spokesperson declined to comment directly on the investigation but pointed Reuters to a statement issued in September announcing new measures targeting so‐called “shadow banking” networks that support Iran, including those that officials say rely on cryptocurrencies to avoid sanctions.

What Blockchain Data Shows

Inside Iran, crypto adoption has spread widely among the public. Nobitex, the country’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, told Reuters that industry estimates suggest around 15 million Iranians have some level of exposure to digital assets.

The exchange said it has approximately 11 million customers, with most activity coming from retail users and smaller investors. According to Nobitex, many Iranians use crypto primarily as a way to store value amid the continued decline of the rial.

Data from analytics firm Nansen suggests that some Iranian users moved funds out of Nobitex during 2025. The firm said balances of major cryptocurrencies on the exchange fell sharply from a peak reached around the middle of the year.

Analyst Nicolai Sondergaard said the data indicates that digital assets in Iran have increasingly served as a gradual exit channel rather than a one‐time flight of capital. According to Nansen’s analysis, funds did not leave the crypto ecosystem entirely but instead moved steadily toward platforms outside the country throughout 2025.

Nobitex acknowledged that some customers may use digital assets to move funds internationally, but said it does not track the final destination or purpose of those transactions.

The exchange stated that it employs robust monitoring systems designed to detect potentially suspicious activity and protect user assets. It also said concerns about asset safety following the June hacking incident may have influenced user behavior.

In many cases, Nobitex explained, customers transferred assets to self‐custodied wallets rather than directly to overseas exchanges. The exchange said this approach allows users to secure their holdings temporarily while assessing risks and deciding whether to redeposit funds later.

The 1-D chart shows the drop in the total crypto market cap below $2.6 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the estimated range of cryptocurrency transaction volumes tied to Iran over the past year, as cited in the article?

AThe estimated range is $8 billion to $10 billion.

QWhich two blockchain analytics firms provided data showing the growth of crypto usage in Iran?

ATRM Labs and Chainalysis.

QAccording to the article, what is the primary reason many Iranians use cryptocurrency, as stated by the Nobitex exchange?

AMany Iranians use crypto primarily as a way to store value amid the continued decline of the rial.

QWhat US government department is actively examining whether digital asset services were used to facilitate sanctions evasion, according to Ari Redbord of TRM Labs?

AThe US Treasury Department.

QWhat did data from analytics firm Nansen suggest about the movement of funds from the Nobitex exchange in 2025?

AThe data suggested that funds did not leave the crypto ecosystem entirely but moved steadily toward platforms outside the country throughout 2025, serving as a gradual exit channel.

Leituras Relacionadas

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbitHá 2h

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbitHá 2h

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbitHá 3h

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbitHá 3h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片