Binance’s He Yi Flags Five Deposit Freeze Risks on Nov. 8

On Nov. 8, Binance co-founder He Yi (何一) warned that deposits tied to informal transfers and overseas business activity may face law-enforcement freezes after reaching Binance, freezes that the exchange has no authority to lift.

She said Binance follows “global compliance standards” and its compliance team can recognize funds that fit the patterns she described. Her warning covered both the source of money and the route it took before reaching the cryptocurrency exchange.

She listed five examples:

• A friend’s discounted “U” tokens.
• Cryptocurrency sent by a relative over a blockchain.
• Money from business in Myanmar.
• Collections in Cambodia.
• Funds passed through an account for a friend.

The five-part list is important because the warning reaches beyond a direct peer-to-peer transfer. It includes a discounted token transfer, blockchain money from family, business-related funds in Myanmar, collections in Cambodia and use of another person’s account. Across the examples, He Yi emphasized both origin and route before the funds reached Binance.

The sequence of events was central. He Yi said the relevant addresses had already been flagged before the funds were transferred. She also said law enforcement may freeze the funds after they reach Binance. The warning therefore describes a pre-transfer flag followed by a possible post-arrival freeze, rather than a problem confined to the period after an account holder uses the funds.

What does this change for depositors?

It changes what a successful transfer proves. Sending cryptocurrency to Binance does not remove the possibility that law enforcement will freeze the deposit after arrival. If a relative sent funds over a blockchain, or a friend’s account served as an intermediary, those features remain part of the path that Binance’s compliance team can recognize. The same applies to money connected to business in Myanmar and collections in Cambodia.

The practical consequence is that availability cannot be inferred from arrival alone. He Yi’s warning was that recognition can happen before transfer, freezing can occur afterward and Binance cannot undo the latter on its own. She did not say that informal transfers or overseas activity are inherently unlawful; she identified transaction patterns that can attract law-enforcement attention.

That distinction defines Binance’s role in the process. Her account places Binance’s compliance team on the recognition side of the process, while law enforcement holds the freeze power. Binance is a cryptocurrency exchange rather than the authority that creates or releases the restriction. “Binance has no authority to lift a law-enforcement freeze,” He Yi said.

Resolution is the remaining uncertainty. He Yi said the cases can be complicated and can take a long time to resolve. She set no processing deadline and offered no timetable for when frozen funds might become available. For users and businesses, that means transfer confirmation and balance availability are separate operational milestones, particularly when money has moved through a relative, friend or overseas business channel.

The warning shifts compliance risk earlier in the transaction lifecycle and leaves it open after funds arrive at the exchange. For depositors, the relevant enforcement window can begin before transfer, when addresses may already be flagged, and can remain unresolved after arrival because Binance has no unilateral power to lift a law-enforcement freeze.