ZachXBT questions FinCEN’s allegation that MEXC was involved in $16 billion in illicit funds, saying it “seems exaggerated,” and asks for public data for comparison
On November 10, 2026, on-chain detective ZachXBT posted on X in response to the U.S. Treasury Department’s FinCEN’s earlier allegation that crypto exchange MEXC was involved in at least $16 billion in illicit funds. He said that the amount “seems exaggerated” and asked for the relevant data to be made public and compared with peers. ZachXBT acknowledged that MEXC’s AML/KYC policies have traditionally been relatively lenient, but pointed out that on any large centralized exchange such as Binance, Coinbase, Bybit, OKX, and Kraken, he can flag hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars in illicit activity.
He also questioned why several offshore centralized exchanges immediately cut off transfers to MEXC users, and said that taking similar measures against HTX and MEXC, while KuCoin and other more serious violators were not sanctioned, suggests possible government overreach.
MEXC CEO Vugar Usi posted on X on the same day that the platform had established a communication channel with FinCEN through a top U.S. law firm, and FinCEN confirmed on Monday (U.S. time) that it had received its written request. MEXC is willing to fully cooperate; at present, the platform’s deposits, withdrawals, and trading are all operating normally.
Original source:
Title: Does it concern anyone else about how all of these other offshore CEXs... Publisher: ZachXBT (@zachxbt) Publication date: 2026-11-10 URL: https://x.com/zachxbt/status/2120100614361530424 Source nature: original post by the party concerned Verification status: The full text of the original post was actually read in this instance. Verification date: 2026-11-10. Supporting content: Supports all core statements in the main text, including ZachXBT’s judgment that the $16 billion allegation “seems exaggerated,” his request for public data and peer comparison, his acknowledgment that MEXC’s AML/KYC is lenient, his statement that illicit activity in the hundreds of millions to tens of billions can be flagged on other large CEXs, his questioning of other offshore CEXs cutting off transfers, and his suggestion that the measures against HTX and MEXC may involve overreach.
ABAB AI Insight
ZachXBT is long known for tracing illicit funds on-chain and for scrutinizing exchange compliance issues, and he has previously publicly criticized the transparency and risk controls of offshore platforms such as MEXC. This time, he did not deny that MEXC’s policies are lenient, but focused on the framing and comparability of FinCEN’s allegation amount, asking for specific data and a cross-exchange comparison, which matches his longstanding style of investigating where the money goes.
On November 6, FinCEN issued an order under Section 9714 of the Russian Illicit Finance Act, designating MEXC as a primary money laundering concern related to illegal Russian finance, barring U.S. financial institutions from handling fund transfers involving it, and alleging an amount covering the period from May 2021 to May 2026. The order is not on the OFAC sanctions list, but is a special measure, taking effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. ZachXBT’s challenge raises whether the attribution of the amount has been sufficiently broken down and whether the selective enforcement is consistent.
Meanwhile, MEXC CEO Vugar Usi quickly responded, saying the company had established communication with FinCEN through a U.S. law firm and confirmed that the written request had been received, while emphasizing that the platform is operating normally. This shows that when offshore exchanges face U.S. regulators, they tend to seek dialogue first through legal channels while signaling business continuity to users in order to ease withdrawal pressure.
This episode highlights the continued pressure large crypto exchanges face on anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance. Even non-U.S. entities may trigger FinCEN special measures if they involve the U.S. financial system or dollar-clearing channels; the rapid transfer cutoffs by peer platforms further amplify liquidity and reputational contagion risks. The final dispute over the amount and the effectiveness of compliance remediation will still depend on whether FinCEN discloses more detailed data and on MEXC’s subsequent cooperation.
ABAB News · Cognition Law
If regulatory allegations lack public breakdowns and peer comparisons, on-chain observers are likely to question whether the framing is exaggerated.
After U.S. regulatory action, offshore platforms prioritizing law-firm communication and emphasizing normal operations is a common strategy to stabilize users.