Binance P2P - Case #168142449 - Unauthorised manual fund release to third-party

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

Sorry for your loss OP,  but I want to assume alot of other users that have used Binance p2p... will agree with me that the only time manual authorization steps in is when one party marks the transaction as paid and window for other party to confirm this lapses the given time. So did this transaction pass that given confirmation window and is it possible this happened maybe after hours when say you were asleep? Otherwise this is alarming if it happened as narrated.

Use a verified account with a massive following on X to get their attention and get these guys to take a look at your case ,  someone should be held accountable for this ,goodluck.

It seems like you are trying to map this massive compliance breach to a standard P2P timeout scenario. I appreciate you bringing this up, because clarifying this detail makes the agent's actions even more alarming.

To answer your question: No. This was not a case where the confirmation window lapsed, nor did this happen after hours while I was asleep.

Both parties were actively present in the dispute chat. The issue is not when the manual authorization stepped in, but who they authorized the release to. The Binance Support Agent actively and manually released the escrowed funds to an unverified third-party name (JI PENGFEI), completely ignoring the verified KYC owner (LE XUAN HUNG).

How does a standard dispute process justify a front-line agent intentionally bypassing a Zero-Tolerance Anti-Third-Party rule, and then hiding the technical audit logs under "internal confidentiality"?

Also, regarding your advice to use X (Twitter): That is exactly what has been done. The public dossier is already in the hands of crypto journalists like @zachxbt, Protos, and CoinDesk, and the formal regulatory escalation is currently sitting with the Abu Dhabi FSRA.

We are past the point of asking for standard support. We are now auditing a systemic AML failure.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

[Escalation Update: The Ostrich Strategy]

It seems Binance has officially adopted the 'Ostrich Strategy'—burying their heads in the sand and hoping the community forgets that their P2P escrow system has a massive, undocumented backdoor.

Their silence here is deafening, but it is also a definitive answer. They cannot defend Case #168142449 because the raw logs explicitly show their agent overriding the Zero-Tolerance KYC rule to release funds to a 3rd-party (JI PENGFEI).

Since Binance refuses internal accountability, the battlefield has officially moved.

Today, I have formally notified the Abu Dhabi FSRA that I will be highlighting their regulatory inaction to the investigative media (Protos, CoinDesk). The question is no longer just about Binance's rogue agents; it is about whether the regulators are implicitly endorsing these AML bypasses by staying silent.

Is anyone else comfortable trusting an escrow system where the ultimate arbiter can hand your funds to a stranger and hide the evidence under "internal confidentiality"?

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

[Escalation Update: Official Regulatory Case Opened - FSRA #00403511]

The strategy of staying silent and hoping this case disappears has officially failed.

The Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) has now officially processed the formal complaint regarding Binance Case #168142449. An official regulatory enforcement file has been assigned and opened under Case Number: #00403511.

While Binance continues to hide behind "internal confidentiality" to mask their Support Agent's manual override of Anti-Third-Party escrow rules (releasing funds to JI PENGFEI instead of verified KYC owner LE XUAN HUNG), the regulatory machinery is now in motion.

A front-line support agent's decision to bypass core AML/KYC policies is no longer just an internal ticket issue—it is now a matter of regulatory compliance under official scrutiny.

To the community: Keep monitoring this thread. Updates will be posted as the official FSRA investigation proceeds.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

[Escalation Update: FSRA Formally Commences Material Assessment]

Binance’s strategy of institutional silence is deteriorating rapidly.

Following the submission of the comprehensive evidence dossier (including the 2021 account verification, Order #2768 details, and chat logs showing the unauthorized release of 2,839.93 USDT to JI PENGFEI), the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) has officially confirmed receipt and transitioned Case #00403511 into the formal assessment phase:

"We acknowledge receipt of the information provided to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA)... Please allow us some time to assess the material."

While Binance Support continues to hide behind "internal confidentiality" to cover up their agent's manual override of Anti-Third-Party escrow rules, the regulatory authority of ADGM is now officially reviewing the raw evidence.

The core compliance question remains completely unanswered by Binance: How can an exchange claim full regulatory compliance while allowing front-line agents to manually bypass KYC/AML rules mid-dispute without an audit trail?

The dossier is active. The assessment is underway. Updates will follow.

[Shishir99]

I am worried about this because I have used Binance before, and I still do, to sell crypto for fiat.
I always choose verified buyers who have completed at least 100 deals in the last 30 days. But it's sad to know that the support team released the funds without your approval. If the counterparty submits evidence, the Binance support team verifies the documents and can release the funds if the order time expires. But it happened only once with me because I somehow forgot that I had an open order on Binance.

However, if I remember correctly, the other party has to submit evidence, and I was able to see the screenshot as well. Please keep us updated about this case. I am not sure where to complain if something like this happens to me.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

I am worried about this because I have used Binance before, and I still do, to sell crypto for fiat.
I always choose verified buyers who have completed at least 100 deals in the last 30 days. But it's sad to know that the support team released the funds without your approval. If the counterparty submits evidence, the Binance support team verifies the documents and can release the funds if the order time expires. But it happened only once with me because I somehow forgot that I had an open order on Binance.

However, if I remember correctly, the other party has to submit evidence, and I was able to see the screenshot as well. Please keep us updated about this case. I am not sure where to complain if something like this happens to me.

It sounds like you are genuinely concerned about your own funds, and you have every right to be. Filtering for buyers with 100+ deals won't protect you from what happened here, because the failure wasn't caused by the buyer—it was executed directly by Binance Customer Support.

Let me clarify the exact vulnerability so you understand why your trade metrics won't save you:

This was not a case of an expired order timer or a seller forgetting to release funds. Both parties were actively present in the dispute chat. The counterparty submitted a payment proof from a bank account under the name JI PENGFEI.

My verified Binance KYC name is LE XUAN HUNG. Binance’s absolute, non-negotiable P2P rule states: Zero Tolerance for Third-Party Payments.

Instead of freezing the trade or cancelling it due to a third-party policy breach, the Binance Support Agent manually overrode their own compliance rules and forced the release of 2,839.93 USDT to a completely unverified third-party name. When I demanded the technical audit trail, they unilaterally closed the ticket under "internal confidentiality."

You asked where you should complain if this happens to you: That is precisely the point. Binance internal support will wall you off with boilerplate responses and hide behind "confidentiality."

That is why Case #00403511 is now officially open and under formal material assessment by the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).

If a support agent can manually bypass KYC/AML rules and hand your escrowed funds to an unverified third party mid-dispute, no amount of buyer statistics will keep your money safe.

[cryptoaddictchie]

It sounds like you are genuinely concerned about your own funds, and you have every right to be. Filtering for buyers with 100+ deals won't protect you from what happened here, because the failure wasn't caused by the buyer—it was executed directly by Binance Customer Support.

As a long time Binance P2p customer from different merchants, this is really not good experience on your side OP. If the Binance Customer support executed a wrong transaction, then they should definitely held liable for this scenario.

Just like other users, I never intended to do transactions with none verified merchants and only those who have good feedbacks and trusted profile. Since I did many already Ive always pick them when doing transactions regardless if there are offers or price higher than him/her.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

It sounds like you are genuinely concerned about your own funds, and you have every right to be. Filtering for buyers with 100+ deals won't protect you from what happened here, because the failure wasn't caused by the buyer—it was executed directly by Binance Customer Support.

As a long time Binance P2p customer from different merchants, this is really not good experience on your side OP. If the Binance Customer support executed a wrong transaction, then they should definitely held liable for this scenario.

Just like other users, I never intended to do transactions with none verified merchants and only those who have good feedbacks and trusted profile. Since I did many already Ive always pick them when doing transactions regardless if there are offers or price higher than him/her.

[Status Update: Community Consensus & Escalation Phase]

Appreciate your input, cryptoaddictchie. When continuous feedback from long-term merchants and Legendary members aligns on the same conclusion, it confirms this is far beyond a simple "bad customer experience"—it is a structural liability.

When a front-line support agent actively overrides the Zero-Tolerance Anti-Third-Party rule to release funds to an unverified third party (JI PENGFEI) instead of the verified KYC owner (LE XUAN HUNG), liability is no longer debatable. It is a documented compliance breach.

Binance’s failure to respond on this forum or provide the technical audit logs only reinforces what the community already sees: there is no logical defense for what happened in Case #168142449.

Because internal support chose concealment over liability, the matter is no longer in their hands. As updated earlier, the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) has officially taken over under Case #00403511 and is currently reviewing the raw evidence dossier.

Thank you to everyone in the community keeping eyes on this. I will post the next update as soon as the FSRA completes its material assessment.

[Shishir99]

This was not a case of an expired order timer or a seller forgetting to release funds. Both parties were actively present in the dispute chat. The counterparty submitted a payment proof from a bank account under the name JI PENGFEI.

My verified Binance KYC name is LE XUAN HUNG. Binance’s absolute, non-negotiable P2P rule states: Zero Tolerance for Third-Party Payments.

Instead of freezing the trade or cancelling it due to a third-party policy breach, the Binance Support Agent manually overrode their own compliance rules and forced the release of 2,839.93 USDT to a completely unverified third-party name. When I demanded the technical audit trail, they unilaterally closed the ticket under "internal confidentiality."

You asked where you should complain if this happens to you: That is precisely the point. Binance internal support will wall you off with boilerplate responses and hide behind "confidentiality."

That is why Case #00403511 is now officially open and under formal material assessment by the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).

If a support agent can manually bypass KYC/AML rules and hand your escrowed funds to an unverified third party mid-dispute, no amount of buyer statistics will keep your money safe.

I assume you have created this thread because you did not receive the funds, right?
Well, sometimes the buyers pay from different bank accounts that are not added on Binance. However, if I received the money, I don't check the counterparty bank account name anymore. Even though I should do because there might be a dispute later. I use Mobile banking most of the time, and it has a daily transaction limit. So, if I make large orders, the buyers have to use multiple accounts under different names to send me that amount. I think I have to accept it.

For you, I assume you are concerned not because of the different non-verified sender account, but you did not received the funds. Please confirm this so I can understand clearly about what is going on. Yeah, I am really concerned about this case and I want to know the updates.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

This was not a case of an expired order timer or a seller forgetting to release funds. Both parties were actively present in the dispute chat. The counterparty submitted a payment proof from a bank account under the name JI PENGFEI.

My verified Binance KYC name is LE XUAN HUNG. Binance’s absolute, non-negotiable P2P rule states: Zero Tolerance for Third-Party Payments.

Instead of freezing the trade or cancelling it due to a third-party policy breach, the Binance Support Agent manually overrode their own compliance rules and forced the release of 2,839.93 USDT to a completely unverified third-party name. When I demanded the technical audit trail, they unilaterally closed the ticket under "internal confidentiality."

You asked where you should complain if this happens to you: That is precisely the point. Binance internal support will wall you off with boilerplate responses and hide behind "confidentiality."

That is why Case #00403511 is now officially open and under formal material assessment by the Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).

If a support agent can manually bypass KYC/AML rules and hand your escrowed funds to an unverified third party mid-dispute, no amount of buyer statistics will keep your money safe.

To answer your question directly: Yes, the 2,839.93 USDT was stolen from me. The fiat payment was never sent to my bank account, yet Binance Support manually released my escrowed crypto to an unverified third party (JI PENGFEI).

However, your assumption that "accepting third-party payments under different names is fine as long as you get paid" reveals a massive, dangerous misunderstanding of how P2P compliance and banking laws work.

Let me break down why your current practice is a ticking time bomb:

The Core Breach: In my case, no money arrived, and the buyer provided a fake/third-party transfer receipt under the name JI PENGFEI. Instead of cancelling the trade or freezing the funds per the "Zero-Tolerance Anti-Third-Party" rule, the Binance agent manually overrode the system and released my crypto to the scammer.

The Legal Trap You Are Walking Into: When you accept payments from "multiple accounts under different names" just because of your daily transaction limits, you are actively facilitating Third-Party Fraud & Money Laundering (Triangulation Scams).

If one of those third-party accounts turns out to be stolen/hacked money, the real victim will file a police report. Your bank account will be frozen, your funds confiscated, and you could be investigated as an accomplice to money laundering—regardless of whether you completed the deal on Binance or not.

This is precisely why Binance’s written rules strictly forbid third-party payments.

The core issue of Case #168142449 (now under official assessment by the Abu Dhabi FSRA under Case #00403511) is that a Binance Support Agent actively legitimized a third-party scam by bypassing their own security protocol, refusing to provide the technical audit trail, and hiding behind "internal confidentiality."

I appreciate you keeping eyes on this thread, but please reconsider accepting third-party payments—you are exposing your own bank accounts to catastrophic legal risks.

I assume you have created this thread because you did not receive the funds, right?
Well, sometimes the buyers pay from different bank accounts that are not added on Binance. However, if I received the money, I don't check the counterparty bank account name anymore. Even though I should do because there might be a dispute later. I use Mobile banking most of the time, and it has a daily transaction limit. So, if I make large orders, the buyers have to use multiple accounts under different names to send me that amount. I think I have to accept it.

For you, I assume you are concerned not because of the different non-verified sender account, but you did not received the funds. Please confirm this so I can understand clearly about what is going on. Yeah, I am really concerned about this case and I want to know the updates.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

[Escalation Update: FSRA Officially Demands Information from Binance]

The silent treatment from Binance has officially hit a regulatory brick wall.

The Abu Dhabi Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) has just confirmed an active enforcement action regarding Case #00403511:

"The FSRA have requested some information from Binance and are awaiting acknowledgement of our request."

Binance can ignore customer tickets, hide behind "internal confidentiality," and remain silent on public forums—but they cannot ignore a formal regulatory demand from the government authority that oversees their operating license in ADGM.

The core compliance questions are now sitting directly on the desk of Binance's legal and compliance team:

Why did a front-line support agent manually override the Zero-Tolerance Anti-Third-Party rule in Case #168142449?

Why were 2,839.93 USDT released to an unverified third party (JI PENGFEI) instead of the verified account holder (LE XUAN HUNG)?

Where is the technical audit trail for this manual authorization?

The regulatory machinery is actively moving. Binance now has to answer to the government.

Further updates will be posted as the FSRA receives Binance's official submission.

[Shishir99]

I understand your case now.
This is totally bullshit from Binance, and it is called a planned, organized scam. Imagine someone works as support on Binance, and they do have their own account for trading, and they are making a million each month by doing this. The customers will be totally clueless, and they won't even understand how to proceed next. It is good to see that you did not give up and are trying to fight a giant exchange company for your own money.

Yes, I agree that my way is actually risky. Did you actually submit any counterevidence, like showing your bank statement that you did not receive the money? If so, why wouldn't the support verify it and release the funds? I feel like they are involved in this scam.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

I understand your case now.
This is totally bullshit from Binance, and it is called a planned, organized scam. Imagine someone works as support on Binance, and they do have their own account for trading, and they are making a million each month by doing this. The customers will be totally clueless, and they won't even understand how to proceed next. It is good to see that you did not give up and are trying to fight a giant exchange company for your own money.

Yes, I agree that my way is actually risky. Did you actually submit any counterevidence, like showing your bank statement that you did not receive the money? If so, why wouldn't the support verify it and release the funds? I feel like they are involved in this scam.

I submitted my complete, official bank statement right inside the appeal chat proving zero funds ever entered my bank account (LE XUAN HUNG).

The buyer did not pay me. They transferred money to a random third-party named JI PENGFEI, then submitted that third-party receipt as proof.

Despite my verified KYC name being LE XUAN HUNG and my bank statement showing 0 fiat received, Binance Support accepted a transfer receipt made out to a completely unrelated person (JI PENGFEI). They bypassed their own mandatory "Zero-Tolerance Anti-Third-Party" rule and manually released my 2,839.93 USDT to the buyer.

When I demanded the technical audit logs for why they authorized a release based on a third-party payment receipt, they unilaterally closed the ticket citing "internal confidentiality."

That is why this isn't just gross negligence—it is a total compliance collapse.

The Abu Dhabi FSRA is now investigating this exact transaction under Case #00403511 and has issued a formal request for information to Binance. They will have to explain to the regulator why they handed my crypto to a buyer who paid a third party instead of the verified seller.

[Shishir99]

The Abu Dhabi FSRA is now investigating this exact transaction under Case #00403511 and has issued a formal request for information to Binance. They will have to explain to the regulator why they handed my crypto to a buyer who paid a third party instead of the verified seller.

You did what you had to do.
Well done so far. I see people are not interested in this thread, probably because they did not understand the thread well. You had to explain it in a better way so people would understand more. However, they are a big company, and they are not on this forum. I know the forum members cannot actually do anything against Binance. Thank you for creating this thread. I believe this would help other potential victims to learn from your case.

I am very much interested in knowing what FSRA does with Binance. I wish you success and I hope they will be able to get your money back to your account and you would be able to withdraw your funds. However, if I understand correctly, these cases takes a lot of time.

[homthucualexuanhung@gmail]

The Abu Dhabi FSRA is now investigating this exact transaction under Case #00403511 and has issued a formal request for information to Binance. They will have to explain to the regulator why they handed my crypto to a buyer who paid a third party instead of the verified seller.

You did what you had to do.
Well done so far. I see people are not interested in this thread, probably because they did not understand the thread well. You had to explain it in a better way so people would understand more. However, they are a big company, and they are not on this forum. I know the forum members cannot actually do anything against Binance. Thank you for creating this thread. I believe this would help other potential victims to learn from your case.

I am very much interested in knowing what FSRA does with Binance. I wish you success and I hope they will be able to get your money back to your account and you would be able to withdraw your funds. However, if I understand correctly, these cases takes a lot of time.

Appreciate your supportive words, Shishir99.

To clarify: I never expected this forum thread to directly force Binance's hand. The sole purpose of documenting everything here on Bitcointalk is to create an immutable, public audit trail of the breach that Binance cannot delete or edit—ensuring future users and researchers see exactly how compliance is handled when things go wrong.

As for the timeline: Regulatory enforcement processes are never fast, but speed is secondary to accountability.

The most critical milestone has already been reached: Case #00403511 is no longer an internal dispute within Binance's black box. The Abu Dhabi FSRA has officially served a formal request for information to Binance, placing the entire burden of proof directly on their compliance department.

I am now maintaining dynamic silence while the regulator conducts its formal material assessment.

Thank you to everyone who followed and contributed to this thread. I will post the next update the moment the FSRA provides their findings or Binance responds to the official inquiry.