Binance Co-CEO Yi He warns against transferring funds from certain sources
On November 8, Binance Co-CEO Yi He posted on X to remind users to pay attention to scenarios such as “discounted U from a friend,” “coins transferred on-chain by a relative,” “money from doing business in Myanmar,” “accounts collected in Cambodia,” and “a friend’s money passing through an account once.” Such funds should not be transferred to Binance.
Yi He said that Binance has strict global compliance standards, and such funds are very easy for the compliance team to identify. Related addresses are already flagged before dirty money enters Binance, and the money that is transferred in will face law enforcement freezes. In general, cases are complicated and the case cycle is relatively long, and Binance does not have the authority to unfreeze them. She called for mutual understanding and mutual respect.
This reminder is aimed at the risk of fund sources and related addresses, rather than a blanket denial of all business activities in specific countries. Related addresses may already have been flagged before the funds are transferred in, and once they enter the platform they may trigger law enforcement procedures, while the platform itself does not have the authority to lift the freeze.
Original source:
Title: Yi He X platform post Publisher: Yi He (@heyibinance) Publication date: November 8, 2026 URL: https://x.com/heyibinance/status/2119361395393503534 Source nature: original post by the person involved Verification status: full post text read Support content: listed five fund scenarios that should not be transferred to Binance; emphasized that global compliance standards make them easy to identify; related addresses were flagged before dirty money entered; funds face law enforcement freezes after transfer; cases are complicated and lengthy; Binance has no authority to unfreeze them.
ABAB AI Insight
Yi He’s reminder focuses on the risk flags of fund sources and on-chain related addresses, rather than simply on the identity of the counterparty. The scenarios she listed cover discounted USDT, on-chain transfers from relatives, business payments from specific regions, and pass-throughs through third-party accounts; these patterns are relatively easy to identify in compliance systems. Related addresses may already have been flagged before the funds are actually transferred in, making subsequent law enforcement freezes preemptive.
Law enforcement freezes and platform authority are clearly distinguished. Once funds enter Binance and a freeze is triggered, the case usually involves a complex investigation and a longer timeline, while Binance itself does not have the authority to unfreeze them. This means that even users who did not directly participate in suspicious activity may face temporary inability to access assets because of the funds’ historical links, and the platform cannot unilaterally lift the freeze.
The statement connects compliance identification capabilities with law enforcement procedures. Binance emphasizes that its global compliance standards can flag risk addresses in advance, thereby creating an interception point before dirty money enters. This reduces the likelihood that the platform will passively receive problematic funds, while also defining the boundary of responsibility at “identification and cooperation” rather than “self-unfreezing.”
The reminder ends with “mutual understanding and mutual respect,” positioning it as a notice about user awareness and risk assumption rather than a new prohibition. It targets specific fund pathways and historical links, not a blanket characterization of business activities related to Myanmar or Cambodia, and it does not change the platform’s normal handling of compliant funds.