Shelbit and Aban Tether sanctioned on suspicion of Iran…

Why did the United States sanction Shelbit and Aban Tether?

The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on two cryptocurrency exchanges on Friday, expanding its crackdown on digital asset networks. Washington says the networks help Iran move money outside of its traditional banking system. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added Shelbit Exchange, Iranian-based Aban Tether, and Shelbit operator Siavash Kayvanpour and several companies it controls in Georgia, Poland and United Arab Emirates to the sanctions list. The sanctions are part of the Trump administration's "economic rage" campaign against financial networks linked to Iran.

OFAC alleges that the exchanges are used to transfer cryptocurrencies, circumvent sanctions, and provide support to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other entities subject to U.S. sanctions. The Ministry of Finance said wallets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards sent more than $1 million in cryptocurrency to Shelbit addresses and received more than $2 million from the exchange. According to the agency, wallets belonging to or controlled by Kayvanpour also transferred more than $2 million to Iran's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Nobitex. The Treasury Department said Aban Tether, which appears to have no connection with USDT issuer Tether, handled millions of dollars in transactions involving sanctioned Iranian exchanges such as Nobitex, Wallex, Bitpin and Ramzinex.

Finance Minister Scott Bessent said: "The Iranian regime's reliance on digital assets and shadow banking networks is further evidence that 'economic anger' is at work. Whether it's the U.S. dollar, riyal or cryptocurrency, the Treasury Department will pursue and disrupt the illegal financial networks that keep the regime running."

How big is Shelbit's cryptocurrency network?

In addition to transfers involving wallets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Finance said Shelbit also serves more than 2000 gambling websites promoted by two Iranian Internet celebrities. The agency accused the network of being used to launder tens of millions of dollars. Wallets associated with Shelbit also transfer large amounts of cryptocurrency to major international trading platforms. In two years, at least US$676 million was transferred from Shelbit's wallets to Binance, of which approximately US$540 million occurred after the Dubai Virtual Assets Authority (VARA) fined Shelbit in January 2025 for operating without a license. VARA took further enforcement action in July, ordering Shelbit to stop operating without a license. Binance said Shelbit itself did not open an account on its platform and questioned the total amount of reported transfers. Binance said accounts associated with Shelbit users had been investigated, frozen and reported to authorities. The case illustrates a complex problem faced by large exchanges: blockchain transfers can pass through multiple wallets before reaching a centralized platform, and compliance teams need to determine whether funds are directly controlled by sanctioned entities or are simply linked through transaction history.

Notes for Investors

These sanctions increase compliance pressure on exchanges, custodians and stablecoin issuers to identify Iran-related funds before regulated platforms discover them. Risk is not limited to direct accounts, as blockchain exposure may manifest itself through linked wallets and intermediary transactions.

Why is cryptocurrency a bigger target for sanctions? [TAG

Friday's action follows several measures taken by the United States against Iran's cryptocurrency infrastructure. In January, the Treasury Department sanctioned Zedcex and Zedxion, the first cryptocurrency exchanges to be targeted under specific U.S. financial sanctions against Iran. In June, OFAC blacklisted Nobitex and several other Iranian exchanges. The Treasury Department said Nobitex handled more than half of all cryptocurrencies flowing into Iran in 2025, making it a core target for Washington to restrict Iran's access to digital asset markets. Last month, U.S. authorities also sanctioned four cryptocurrency wallets linked to Iran's central bank. Tether subsequently froze approximately $131 million of USDT in those wallets, indicating that when contemporary coins include management freezing capabilities, stablecoin issuers can directly restrict access to sanctioned funds. When banks restrict access to foreign currency or international payment channels, cryptocurrencies can provide an alternative to sanctioned entities. At the same time, transactions on the public blockchain create permanent records that investigators can analyze to track the flow of funds between wallets, exchanges and counterparties.

What does the crackdown mean for cryptocurrency platforms?

Expanding sanctions have increased the cost of providing services to customers exposed to Iran and other restricted jurisdictions. As regulators focus not only on customer identities, but also on the source and destination of digital assets, exchanges may need to devote more resources to blockchain analysis, wallet screening and transaction monitoring. Issuers of stablecoins are facing similar pressures. Centralized tokens such as USDT can be frozen at the issuer level, so compliance decisions become increasingly important when authorities identify wallets associated with sanctioned organizations. The risk for trading platforms is that even if sanctioned exchanges do not open formal accounts, indirect exposure can raise regulatory issues. Funds may flow through personal wallets, intermediaries or other exchanges and eventually reach major platforms.

For investors, these sanctions show that the role of cryptocurrencies in global finance is bringing digital asset companies deeper into the same enforcement framework that applies to banks and payment providers. As U.S. authorities track more transactions along the chain, exchanges that cannot identify and block the flow of prohibited funds may face greater legal, operational and licensing risks.