Manhattan US Attorney is probing Binance over possible Iran sanctions violations, Bloomberg says

The Manhattan US Attorney’s Office is now looking into whether Binance knowingly allowed trading that violated US sanctions on Iran, according to Bloomberg. For high-risk PSPs, the useful part is simple: this is another reminder that sanctions controls on crypto flow can become a DOJ issue, not just an internal compliance headache.

1. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office is investigating whether Binance knowingly allowed trading that violated US sanctions on Iran. The report said this adds new detail to a Justice Department investigation first reported in March.
2. The Justice Department’s Criminal Division in Washington is also involved, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. That means the matter is not sitting with a single local office; it has both a Manhattan and DOJ Criminal Division angle.
3. Asked for comment, a Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph: “We maintain a zero-tolerance policy for sanctions violations. We fully cooperate with law enforcement, and we remain committed to rooting out and shutting down bad actors.” The statement did not directly address whether Binance is aware of the reported investigation.
4. The March reporting came from the Wall Street Journal, which said the DOJ was examining whether Iran used Binance to evade US sanctions, citing company documents and people familiar with the matter. At that time, it was unclear whether the DOJ was investigating Binance itself, its users, or both.
5. Binance told Cointelegraph in March that it was not aware of any DOJ investigation. As Bloomberg noted, an investigation does not establish wrongdoing and may end without charges being filed.

For PSPs, the practical takeaway is that sanctions exposure around crypto venues is being treated as an enforcement matter at the US federal level, with the DOJ Criminal Division involved. If your flow touches sanctioned jurisdictions, the question is not whether a policy exists on paper; it is whether the controls actually stop the transactions.