Yi He: Judicial freezes are complied with by financial institutions; related cases have entered litigation
Binance co-CEO Yi He posted on the X platform around November 12, 2026, responding to recent discussion surrounding asset freezes. She said that judicial freezes are complied with by financial institutions, related cases have entered the litigation process, and the evidence-gathering process is clear.
Previously, around November 8, Yi He had posted to remind users to be wary of scenarios such as “friend-discounted U,” “coins transferred on-chain by relatives,” “money from doing business in Myanmar,” “money from gambling in Cambodia,” and “money from a friend that just passed through an account,” so as to avoid transferring such funds into Binance. At the time, she pointed out that the relevant addresses may already have been flagged, and after funds are transferred in, they may face freezes by law enforcement agencies; Binance has no authority to unfreeze them on its own.
This response did not disclose the specific number of cases, the amounts involved, or the range of users affected, nor did it confirm whether the freezes were directly related to the scenarios warned about earlier.
Original source:
Title: Yi He responds to posts related to discussions about asset freezes
Posted by: Yi He (@heyibinance)
Publication date: 2026-11-13
URL: x.com/heyibinance/status/2121098408282964459
Source nature: original post by the party concerned
Verification status: the post content was actually read in this instance; verification date: 2026-11-12
Supporting content: Yi He’s statements that judicial freezes are complied with by financial institutions, related cases have entered the litigation process, and the evidence is clear; as well as the background of earlier reminders about specific source-of-funds scenarios (cross-checked by other English reports).
ABAB AI Insight
Yi He is Binance’s co-CEO and chief customer service officer, and she has long handled user complaints and compliance communication in Chinese communities. She has previously responded multiple times to account restrictions, mistaken transfers, and law-enforcement cooperation issues, including explanations about freezes and compensation after the hacker incident in late October 2026. This response is aimed at the online claim that “Binance actively freezes users’ assets to maintain operations,” emphasizing that the source of the freeze is judicial procedure rather than unilateral action by the platform.
In terms of capital and business path, Binance, as a major global trading platform, cooperates with freezes through LERS (the Law Enforcement Request System) or international judicial assistance, which is a compliance obligation rather than an investment or revenue adjustment. Once related funds enter the platform and are flagged, account-level restrictions generally remain until law enforcement issues release documentation; Yi He added that freezes beyond the scope can be lifted after consultation with the handling authorities through lawyers, while risk-control restrictions are shorter-lived. This does not change Binance’s fees or market share, but it affects users’ judgment of the risks of “transit funds.”
Comparable cases include other centralized exchanges carrying out freezes on specific accounts after receiving law-enforcement orders, as well as a case in which a Hong Kong court once issued and later lifted a property injunction involving Binance-related wallets. The similarity is that exchanges cooperate rather than initiate judicial freezes themselves; the difference is that this time Yi He proactively clarified the matter on social media and named Southeast Asian-related scenarios, while not disclosing the specific amounts involved or the number of users.
The specific change is that if users transfer USDT or other assets that may be implicated into Binance, they may face account-level rather than transaction-by-transaction freezes, and the platform has no authority to lift them independently; through her public explanation, Yi He shifted responsibility to the source of funds and the law-enforcement process, reducing public pressure to directly blame the platform. The observation indicators are whether public judicial documents later appear for specific users or amounts, or whether Binance updates the relevant compliance guidance.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
A judicial freeze is initiated by law-enforcement procedures; an exchange’s cooperation does not mean the platform proactively restricts users’ funds.
After transit funds or funds from a suspicious source are transferred in, they may trigger an account-level freeze, and the platform has no authority to lift it on its own.
Public clarification of the litigation status can shift the focus of public opinion, but it does not change the existing law-enforcement cooperation process.