TL;DR
- Binance’s April 2025 policy routes most foreign law-enforcement requests through the UAE and MLAT procedures, slowing access to user information in crypto investigations.
- Officials say delays can hinder scam tracing, account freezes and asset seizures, although Binance still responds directly to terrorism, child abuse and imminent threats.
- Binance says cooperation has increased and safeguards strengthened, while reported concerns from U.S. prosecutors and scrutiny of compliance operations present a conflicting picture.
Binance’s compliance shift is drawing criticism from investigators who say a policy adopted in April 2025 now makes user information harder to obtain in many foreign cases. According to a new report, most requests outside emergencies are being redirected through the United Arab Emirates and formal Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. The quiet procedural change has turned speed into the central law-enforcement problem. Officials argue that delays can determine whether scammers are identified, accounts are frozen, or suspicious assets disappear before authorities receive the records needed to act. That concern is acute in fast-moving crypto investigations.
Treaty-based requests create a slower investigative path
At a June law-enforcement conference in the Netherlands, police officials from five European countries reportedly described difficulties obtaining information from Binance. The exchange still answers directly in cases involving child sexual abuse material, terrorism, or an imminent threat to life, but most other inquiries face the treaty route. Formal legal safeguards are colliding with the operational urgency of tracing digital crime. MLATs create a government-to-government process for exchanging evidence, yet investigators say those channels move considerably slower than direct cooperation with an exchange, where minutes can affect the outcome of asset seizures and account freezes.
Binance disputes the suggestion that it has reduced cooperation. The company says assistance has increased year over year while it navigates increasingly complex approaches to crypto regulation and data protection. It also describes the new procedures as stronger controls expected from a regulated institution, with its United Arab Emirates entities operating under Abu Dhabi Global Market. Binance frames the shift as institutional discipline rather than obstruction. That defense, however, contrasts sharply with the exchange’s previous practice of working directly with authorities to provide user information and freeze suspicious accounts under investigation before funds could move.
The controversy extends beyond European investigators. A reported Justice Department memo warned federal prosecutors handling crypto cases to prepare for less assistance from Binance when attempting to freeze or seize assets, although the exchange denied any change in its relationship with U.S. authorities. The larger concern is whether procedural friction can become an advantage for criminals. The dispute arrives amid wider scrutiny of Binance’s compliance operations, including reports that it dismissed employees who examined transactions allegedly connected to Iran. Binance rejected those allegations as false or defamatory, leaving regulators and investigators with sharply conflicting accounts.
