South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has blocked digital-asset deposits and withdrawals involving six Canadian money services businesses targeted by U.S. sanctions over alleged Iran-related financial activity. The restrictions took effect immediately on November 10, converting a U.S. Treasury designation announced four days earlier into an operational barrier for transfers involving named overseas counterparties.
Bithumb’s Korean-language notice identifies Darvish Exchange, Farah Exchange, Million Exchange, Amin Exchange Vancouver, NIA Exchange and CCC Inc. It cites South Korea’s anti-money-laundering rules and virtual-asset user-protection legislation, describing the measure as intended to comply with applicable law and protect customers. The notice concerns transfers involving these businesses, not a general suspension of cryptocurrency withdrawals or a ban on all Canadian exchanges.
The development is significant because the underlying U.S. action named eight Canadian legal entities, while Bithumb has published a shorter list of six operating names. It also raises practical questions about incoming blockchain payments: the company says deposits from the designated counterparties are prohibited, but does not specify whether transfers that nevertheless arrive on-chain will be credited, held for investigation or handled through a lawful return process.
Which Six Businesses Did Bithumb Restrict?
In a notice published at 10:05 a.m. Korean time on November 10, Bithumb said all cryptocurrency deposit and withdrawal transactions with the following overseas businesses would be blocked immediately:
- Darvish Exchange, also identified in U.S. sanctions records as Kanata MD Inc.
- Farah Exchange, the operating name of 2397639 Ontario Ltd.
- Million Exchange, operated by Diverse Trade Inc., also called MillionEX.
- Amin Exchange Vancouver, an alias of 1380079 BC Ltd.
- NIA Exchange, an alias of NIA Nations Currency Ltd.
- CCC Inc., a company also associated in U.S. records with the C Exchange and Cryptoyal trade names.
The published list maps to six entities in the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s November 6 designations. OFAC separately listed Top PC Technician Inc., which operates as Amin Exchange Toronto, and B Galaxy Inc., which also uses the C Exchange or Cryptoyal branding. Neither appears separately under its legal name in Bithumb’s notice.
That difference should not be read as proof that transfers involving the two omitted names are permitted. Some operating names overlap between legally distinct businesses, particularly those associated with Amin Exchange and Cryptoyal. Bithumb has not explained whether its transaction-screening systems also identify the other designated companies through aliases, beneficial ownership, associated wallets or internal risk rules.
The six-business restriction is not a cryptocurrency delisting. Bithumb did not announce that it was stopping trading in Bitcoin, Ether, USDT or any other token because of this action. Instead, it is restricting transfers with named counterparties, potentially affecting cross-border asset movement regardless of which supported cryptocurrency a customer wishes to send or receive.
How Did U.S. Sanctions Lead to Restrictions in South Korea?
OFAC designated the eight Canadian money services businesses on November 6 under Executive Order 13902 as part of Operation Economic Outcast. Treasury alleged that the firms helped exchange Iranian rials and other currencies into digital assets, interacted with sanctioned Iranian exchanges or addresses associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and in some cases facilitated transfers linked to drug-trafficking proceeds.
DaveFinances previously detailed the eight Canadian designations and the overlap with earlier warnings from investigator ZachXBT. The latest Bithumb restriction is a separate event: it shows how one Asian exchange has responded operationally after the U.S. additions to its sanctions list, rather than announcing fresh sanctions or a new finding of criminal guilt.
The legal distinction matters. OFAC rules generally block property involving designated persons that falls under U.S. jurisdiction and restrict transactions involving U.S. persons, subject to applicable exemptions or licences. Bithumb is a Korean company; its November 10 statement grounds its own action in South Korean anti-money-laundering and virtual-asset user-protection requirements, specifically referring to Article 17(4) of the enforcement decree under the user-protection framework.
The notice does not establish that South Korea formally adopted every OFAC designation as a separate domestic sanctions listing. It instead records Bithumb’s decision to impose counterparty-specific restrictions in response to the U.S. designations while citing its Korean compliance obligations. Those are different legal mechanisms, even though their practical result can be similar for affected transfers.
Sanctions exposure can also pass through counterparties and payment rails. As DaveFinances explained in its analysis of sanctions risks for payment fintechs, identifying an adverse relationship may lead to screening, holds, transfer rejection or a legally required block, depending on the entity, transaction and jurisdiction. Those outcomes should not be described interchangeably.
What Happens to Incoming Transfers From the Six Firms?
Bithumb’s wording explicitly covers both deposits and withdrawals. For outbound transactions, the operational implication is relatively straightforward: a customer attempting to send crypto to a counterparty identified as one of the six businesses can face an exchange-level rejection or other restrictions. The notice does not reveal how Bithumb identifies the counterparties in every case, or what happens when an intermediary wallet is used.
Inbound transfers are more complicated. A public blockchain can register a transfer to an exchange-controlled deposit address even when the exchange does not intend to credit the corresponding customer account. Blocking an incoming transaction at the exchange’s application or compliance layer is therefore not necessarily the same as stopping its confirmation on-chain.
Bithumb’s existing deposit-crediting guidance explains that incoming funds from unverified sources may require review and supporting documentation, with some unsuccessful crediting requests proceeding to a return application. Its general asset-return guidance describes additional checks, transaction evidence and limitations on permissible destinations.
However, those standing instructions are not a case-specific policy for the six newly sanctioned businesses. The November 10 announcement does not say whether inbound transfers from those firms will be automatically rejected, held pending investigation, or eligible for return to a different destination. A routine return procedure should not be assumed to override sanctions restrictions or other legal requirements on where funds can be sent.
Customers contemplating transfers involving one of the named businesses would therefore need current written instructions from Bithumb before sending assets. If a deposit was already broadcast, its on-chain confirmation, the appearance of a pending exchange credit and the right to reclaim the funds could be separate questions. No verified statistics on blocked transfers, held deposits or returned customer assets accompanied the announcement.
Have Upbit, Korbit or Coinone Announced Similar Restrictions?
A review of publicly searchable Korean exchange notices on November 10 did not identify a matching new announcement from Upbit, Korbit or Coinone naming the same six businesses. This is a reporting limit, not evidence that those exchanges have chosen to permit transfers to sanctioned counterparties. They may already apply internal screening rules or take account-specific actions without issuing a public notice using the same wording.
Coinone has an older and distinct public restriction list for unregistered overseas virtual-asset service providers, updated on October 30, 2026. It prohibits relevant deposits and withdrawals under Korean rules concerning unregistered service providers, but does not list Darvish Exchange or Million Exchange in that published notice. The existing Coinone policy should not be presented as confirmation that it implemented Bithumb’s November 10 response to the U.S. sanctions.
No comparable company-specific statement from Upbit or Korbit was confirmed in the material reviewed. A full comparison would require responses or updated notices from each exchange, including the precise legal entity names, aliases and destination addresses they screen. An announcement by one platform does not necessarily describe the risk controls used by all South Korean exchanges.
The broader issue is whether sanctions screening reaches the real parties behind transfers, not just a familiar exchange name. U.S. officials have linked several of the designated Canadian companies to Iranian platforms and intermediaries. A separate DaveFinances investigation into Shelbit’s alleged $4 billion in Iran-linked crypto flows illustrated the difficulty of identifying commercial relationships when funds travel through intermediaries and exchange-hosted wallets. That is relevant context, not evidence that Shelbit is involved in the Bithumb restrictions.
For now, Bithumb has made the clearest publicly documented operational move: an immediate, two-way transfer block covering six named Canadian businesses following the November 6 U.S. sanctions. Its scope, the treatment of disputed inbound deposits and whether other Korean exchanges issue equivalent notices remain the next questions for customers and compliance teams.
Johan Shamshad is Editor-in-Chief at Dave Finances, covering financial markets, digital assets, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, payments and regulation. Since 2023, he has also worked as an editor at Gulf News, the UAE English-language newspaper published by Al Nisr Publishing LLC. His work focuses on market-moving developments, company disclosures, regulatory changes and trading infrastructure, with an emphasis on primary-source verification and practical context for traders and investors.