Despite recent sanctions freezing $26 million in Tether linked to the Russian crypto exchange Garantex, significant amounts of cryptocurrency continue to flow, raising serious questions about enforcement effectiveness, a new blockchain report indicates.
In early March, coordinated actions between U.S., German and Finnish authorities resulted in a high-profile freezing of Garantex’s holdings in Tether (USDT). Yet analysis by the blockchain analytics firm Global Ledger revealed an additional $15 million worth of digital assets scattered across Ethereum, Bitcoin, and BNB Chain networks that were not impacted by the sanctions and remain accessible—some actively moving through the crypto ecosystem.
According to the data, shortly after the official freeze went public on March 6, previously dormant Ethereum wallets associated with Garantex became active. One particular wallet rapidly accumulated nearly 3,265 ETH—worth roughly $8.6 million—and began systematically transferring the funds shortly afterward. Between May 22 and June 4, at least $2.25 million of Ethereum moved through Tornado Cash, a mixing service notorious for helping obscure crypto transactions from tracing. Analysts categorized these movements as deliberate attempts at money laundering to distance assets from the sanctioned exchange.
Bitcoin holdings showed similarly suspicious activity. Starting in March, 19.39 BTC quietly accumulated in previously inactive wallets, growing within weeks to exceed 30 BTC, valued around $3.17 million. Investigators tracked a specific transfer of 2.2 BTC in early May, bridged onto the TRON blockchain and sent toward wallets linked to Grinex, an exchange suspected to be a successor or affiliate of Garantex.
Global Ledger CEO Lex Fisun has stated that transferring Bitcoin assets to the fast and inexpensive TRON network likely represents a calculated strategy aimed at minimizing costs and detection risks. TRON’s network offers considerable speed, liquidity, and near-zero transaction fees, providing an efficient route for quickly converting bitcoin reserves into stablecoins—further complicating attempts by regulators to detect or freeze illicit transactions.
Meanwhile, on BNB Chain, another substantial amount—approximately $4 million worth of cryptocurrency—remains in wallets associated with Garantex. Notably, BNB Chain does not support Tether and thus doesn’t allow Tether’s issuer to freeze funds directly. According to Global Ledger, this reveals a critical enforcement blind spot since sanctions enforcement on BNB Chain typically must rely on off-chain legal actions, making it slower, less effective, and far less certain. As highlighted by Fisun, authorities took almost two years before successfully enforcing sanctions in the earlier PopcornSwap scam—a cautionary precedent.
Although originally the sanctions targeted Tether holdings, Garantex also handled many other cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, ethereum, ERC-20 and BEP-20 tokens, and even a ruble-pegged stablecoin named A7A5. This broad mix of non-USDT assets further compounds regulators’ challenges in applying effective restrictions and freezes. Global Ledger has noted the persistence of assets held across less-enforceable chains, evidencing significant limitations in current cross-chain enforcement strategies.
All told, at least $15 million in Garantex-related crypto assets remain effectively beyond the reach of United States enforcement measures—potentially more if stealth wallets or additional crypto reserves exist that have yet to be identified.
Moreover, exchange operators appear quick to adapt, rapidly shifting resources into alternative blockchains with fewer vulnerabilities to sanctions or freezes. These ongoing transfers and the deliberate obscuring of transactions underscore widening loopholes that sophisticated crypto operators can exploit with relative ease.
Ultimately, the revelations from this recent analysis demonstrate profound vulnerabilities present in current multi-chain asset-freezing mechanisms. The complex interplay of different blockchain protocols makes enforcement far more complicated than previous traditional financial battery, posing significant questions for enforcement agencies aiming to contain sanctioned entities’ access and movement of funds.
