Restrictions on $280,000 at Binance lifted in 40 hours
After funds were withdrawn from Uniswap, Binance restricted the account. We first mapped the on-chain source of funds and then submitted a compliance package, after which access was restored.
An anonymized case. A similar situation does not mean the same timeline or outcome.
What the client reported
Client statementThe client reported closing a Uniswap V3 liquidity position, transferring ETH to a personal wallet, and depositing the funds at Binance. About three hours later, the account was restricted with a notice citing "suspicious activity" but providing no details.
About $280,000 remained in the account. The client described the transaction as a routine DeFi operation and denied any connection to the flagged address.
What was documented
Documented factPlatform and amount
A Binance account with about $280,000 restricted after a deposit originating from DeFi.
Sequence before the deposit
Exit from a Uniswap V3 liquidity position → transfer of ETH to a personal wallet → deposit at Binance.
On-chain context of the deposit
The pool's on-chain liquidity history showed adjacent transaction hops before the deposit. The case materials did not show a direct transfer from the client to a mixer.
Case materials
The available materials included the on-chain history of the position and the context of the deposit transaction. Public TxIDs and the client's addresses are not disclosed here.
Steps toward resolution
Our analysis- 01
Identified the on-chain trigger before contacting support
We first examined what the AML system appeared to have detected: an address labeled as mixing-adjacent was about two hops away within the pool. The client's funds had entered AMM liquidity rather than moving directly through a mixer. We avoided opening multiple tier-one support tickets without a transaction map.
- 02
Built a source-of-funds tree
We mapped the sequence from entry into the pool through the AMM mechanics, the ETH withdrawal, and the exchange deposit so that the origin of the funds, not only the final transaction, was visible.
- 03
Assembled a compliance package
We prepared an annotated graph of the transaction hops, an explanation of why "AMM does not equal mixer," and a description of the indirect two-hop exposure using compliance terminology.
- 04
Submitted the package through a specialist channel
We sent a structured submission to the compliance team rather than the standard support queue.
- 05
Awaited the exchange's decision
The outcome then depended on Binance and the completeness of the materials. In this case, the period from the first submission to the decision was about 40 hours.
How the case concluded
After the forensic materials were submitted, the restriction was lifted. The client regained access to the funds and withdrew about $280,000. The period from submission to the decision was about 40 hours.
The account restrictions were lifted after the forensic materials were submitted.
Factors that influenced the outcome
Our analysis- Identifying the specific on-chain trigger before communicating with the exchange instead of relying on a general assertion of legitimate activity.
- Explaining DeFi in AML terms: AMM liquidity and an indirect hop, rather than suggesting that the client had used a mixer.
- One complete package submitted through a specialist channel instead of multiple support tickets.
Important limitations
- This outcome does not guarantee the same result or timeline in another case.
- The exchange makes the decision. On-chain analysis and a report do not by themselves restore account access.
- DeFi and AMM exposure is more complex than conventional Source of Funds evidence involving a bank or centralized exchange; the length of the transaction chain can affect the timeline.
- The client, TxIDs, and addresses are not disclosed.