Binance cut ties with sanctioned banks in a move to show compliance with global regulatory standards.
Binance is reportedly removing some banks from its payment options. Among the impacted are Banco de Venezuela, a Venezuelan institution, and Russia’s Tinkoff and Rosbank.
The speculated reasoning behind the decision is the increased awareness of sanctioned banks in peer-to-peer payments.
Did you know?
Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?
Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!
What is a Cryptocurrency: For Beginners (Animated Explainer)
Users reported noticing that Banco de Venezuela was gone from P2P payment selection on August 28th. The bank is the largest in the country and currently belongs to the state after it was sold in 2009.
The United States Treasury Department currently has sanctions imposed against the Venezuelan government and related institutions. This could be Binance’s attempt to keep itself away from the controversial establishment since other banks in the country, including Banesco, Banplus and BBVA Provincial, seem to be available in P2P.
Recently, Binance announced it will no longer support the Binance card in Latin America, which narrowed down the payment options for people in the area, Venezuela included.
It’s not just the Venezuelan bank that was removed from the popular exchange platform. Last week, Binance cut ties with several Russian banks that also are sanctioned. According to Binance, the move was to ensure the company complies with local and global regulatory standards.
Previously, the exchange received some criticism for allowing the sanctioned Russian banks to be available as a payment option. After that, a color-coded system was introduced, and the banks, namely Tinkoff and Rosbank, were replaced by nicknames Yellow and Green.
As of August 25th, the banks were removed entirely.
Compliance with global sanctions rules comes at a trying time for the company as, for a while now, Binance has been in a legal chess match with the SEC, going as far as seeking a protective order against a “fishing expedition” conducted by the agency.
