Binance's He Yi Says Frozen-Fund Cases Have Entered Litigation

Binance co-founder He Yi said on Nov. 13 that cases connected to judicial freezes of user funds have entered litigation. Her post named no specific case, court, agency or affected account, and she did not say whether the litigation relates to her Nov. 8 warning about deposits with unclear origins.

He Yi wrote that financial institutions cooperate with judicial freezes, that the related cases had entered litigation, and that evidence gathering in those matters was clear. The statement is the second in a week from one of Binance's most senior figures on the operational risk that tainted inflows pose to exchange accounts.

What did He Yi warn about on Nov. 8?

The litigation comment follows a Nov. 8 post in which He Yi urged Binance users not to deposit several categories of funds. She specifically flagged:

• discounted "U" (USDT) received from friends;
• cryptocurrency sent on-chain by relatives;
• money from business activities in Myanmar;
• a friend's funds briefly passing through a user's account.

She also referenced collection operations in Cambodia in the same warning. The geography matters for practitioners: both Myanmar and Cambodia appear regularly in law-enforcement filings tied to fraud proceeds and pig-butchering schemes, where mule accounts routinely layer funds before they reach a major exchange.

He Yi said Binance's compliance team can identify those deposit patterns, and that the sending addresses may already have been flagged before the funds arrive at the exchange. The consequence is practical: a deposit can trigger a freeze at or near the moment of arrival, not after a prolonged review.

Can Binance lift a law-enforcement freeze?

No. He Yi stated plainly that Binance lacks the authority to lift freezes imposed by law-enforcement bodies. Once a judicial or investigative authority orders a freeze, the exchange's role is to comply, not to adjudicate. For users, that means an appeal to Binance customer support will not restore access to frozen funds; the dispute sits with the originating authority.

Government agencies can submit information requests through Binance's public law-enforcement portal. Binance reviews each request individually and cooperates as required by law. The portal's public description does not identify any freeze connected to He Yi's posts, so the specific cases she referenced remain unnamed.

What does this change for users and compliance teams?

The two posts, taken together, formalize a position practitioners have long inferred: deposit provenance is the user's responsibility, and the exchange will act on flags before funds clear. For retail users, the guidance is to refuse informal over-the-counter purchases of stablecoins at a discount and to keep third-party funds out of personal accounts. For compliance and operations teams at other exchanges, the statement signals how major platforms frame the boundary between user recourse and judicial process when funds are frozen.

The litigation He Yi referenced now proceeds in unnamed courts. Whether any freeze tied to deposits from Myanmar or Cambodia reaches a published judgment, or prompts a formal disclosure from Binance or the prosecuting authorities, is the detail that will determine if this guidance hardens into precedent for how exchanges handle frozen user funds.