US targets $1 billion in Iranian cryptocurrency-who holds the key?

核心要点

贝森特描述的是可能发生的10亿美元扣押行动，而非已完成的操作。

链上可见性并不意味着能够获取钱包的私钥。

稳定币发行方、交易所和托管机构可以通过其他途径限制资金流动。

命名地址、法院文件或发行方的行动将显示案件的进展。

贝森特提供数字但未说明途径

在美国华盛顿举行的Newsmax NPolicy峰会上，美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特表示，美国本周“可能”会扣押与伊朗有关的10亿美元加密货币。他补充说，当局知道这些资产的位置，并正在努力将其隔离。

“我们这周可能会扣押十亿美元的加密货币。我们知道它在哪里，并且正在对其进行隔离。”

贝森特没有指明涉及的区块链、代币、钱包地址、交易所或托管机构。他也没有说明这一数字是否会增加美国官员此前引用的与伊朗相关的加密货币金额。Newsmax报道了上述言论，而The Block指出这些细节仍未公开。

缺乏这些细节，“扣押”一词可以描述几种截然不同的结果。调查人员可能已将资金追踪至某个地址，获得了中介的合作，或直接获取了资产的控制权。每条路径对之前控制加密货币的人都会产生不同的结果。

可见的地址无法签署交易

Public blockchain allows investigators to track balances and transfers between addresses. These records can be combined with exchange data, seized equipment, and company documents to build case evidence around the person or entity behind the wallet.

However, tracing does not generate valid transactions. If assets are stored in self-managed Bitcoin or Ethereum wallets, authorities still need to obtain private keys, obtain cooperation from those with access, or obtain legal access to funds held by third parties. An address can be monitored and sanctioned, but the government may not necessarily be able to make it expendable.

Location of assets and possible enforcement channels

Asset Type Possible implementation paths Evidence for Attention Self-managed BTC or ETH Private key access, holder cooperation, or action taken against custodian Court documents or transfers to government-controlled addresses stablecoin Issuer blacklisted or restricted transfers Public blacklist operations or issuer confirmation Exchange or escrow account balance Account Restrictions, Preservation Orders or Asset Dispositions Platform notices, seizure orders or forfeiture petitions On-chain address only Tracking and Sanction Designation Evidence that control or signing rights have been transferred

The asset type determines the avenues available. Self-custodial coins depend on signing authority, while stablecoins and custodial accounts may introduce company-level constraints between wallet holders and the ability to transfer funds.

stablecoins and exchanges create independent bottlenecks

Even if they do not control the wallet's private key, the stablecoin issuer may prevent token transfers. Tether's disclosure documents show that the company can restrict transfers, suspend redemptions, and in some cases attempt to freeze tokens in external wallets at legal or government requirements.

Blacklists can prevent transfers without transferring tokens to government wallets or resolving final ownership. This operational gap emerged in the controversy reviewed in our report on the Tether USDT freeze, when the wallet balance was still visible, but the holder said the token could no longer be moved.

Exchanges and custodians provide another avenue because they can suspend withdrawals, retain balances and comply with court orders. This is also the practical question behind Binance's Iran-related compliance reviews: The question is not just whether venture funds reach the platform, but whether its systems recognize and block them.

Justice Department case shows legal steps after control

In September this year, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil forfeiture complaint against approximately $61 million in cryptocurrencies allegedly linked to Iranian oil sales. Prosecutors said the broader network moved more than $1.5 billion in funds through linked addresses, including activities involving Binance accounts.

These data describe different things. $61 million is property designated in the forfeiture operation, while the $1.5 billion figure refers to the allowed size of the broader trading network. The Ministry of Justice's announcement also stated that the charges contained in the civil forfeiture petition remained unproven until the court issued a decision.

This process provides a useful legal background for Besant's statement. Authorities can identify and lock assets before the court decides whether to allow the government to retain them permanently. As a result, seizure headlines, frozen token balances and completed confiscation procedures describe different stages rather than interchangeable events.

How to verify the US$1 billion statement

The following records will clarify the action:

• Named wallet address or sanctioned counterparty.
• Document seized or confiscated by the Ministry of Justice.
• Actions disclosed by an exchange, custodian or stablecoin issuer.

Before these records emerged, Besent's remarks were still a warning of possible enforcement action, rather than evidence that the United States had taken $1 billion in cryptocurrency.

This article is for reference only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. Unless and until the court makes a decision, the charges in civil forfeiture cases are unproven.