A user of the non-custodial Trust Wallet lost 915.49 USDT and publicly accused Binance of inaction. According to his claim, the stolen stablecoins ended up at an exchange deposit address, but the recipient's account was never frozen.

The incident gained publicity after a trader under the nickname Crypto Arun published a detailed breakdown of the transactions and attached a response from Trust Wallet support describing how the funds left the wallet.

How the stolen USDT reached Binance

An analysis of on-chain operations showed that a malicious smart contract or a token approval was not involved here. The USDT was withdrawn through ordinary transfers signed from the owner's own address. This means the sender had access to the seed phrase or private key — the secret data that grants full control over the wallet.

Trust Wallet reminded that the service is non-custodial: the seed phrase and keys are stored only on the user's device, and the company has no access to them. The further route of the funds looked like this:

  • from the owner's address on the BNB Smart Chain network, the coins went to someone else's address in two transactions;
  • the recipient converted them to USDT on the Tron network via the Bridgers cross-chain service, which exchanges assets between blockchains;
  • on Tron, the funds were split into two parts, and one of them ended up at an address linked to OkPay;
  • the second part was distributed across several more addresses;
  • part of this money, via an intermediate wallet, arrived at a Binance deposit address.

One of the screenshots shows a transfer of 140,000 USDT to this deposit address — many times more than the amount the victim lost.

What the victim demands

Crypto Arun stated that he filed an official cybercrime complaint and cited his case number. He insists that the deposit address is linked to an account that has passed KYC, i.e., identity verification. In his view, the exchange knows who received the money, and therefore should freeze the account itself and return the funds to the victims. The author of the post called the actions of Binance and Trust Wallet negligence.

Trust Wallet support noted that the owner of the deposit address might be identifiable, since part of the funds reached Binance. At the same time, exchanges act only on official requests from law enforcement. The user was advised to contact the police or a cybercrime authority as soon as possible and attach the full scheme of the funds' movement.

If the seed phrase fell into the hands of an outsider, the wallet service cannot cancel the transfer or return the coins. Even when the trail leads to Binance, freezing depends on a law enforcement request, not on a complaint from the victim.

Cryptalist analysis: The case clearly demonstrates the structural gap between blockchain transparency and the real ability of exchanges to respond to fraud: on-chain traces are public, but freezing funds requires a legal procedure, not a technical capability. For the market, this is a signal of growing demand for more prompt compliance response mechanisms and stronger accountability for centralized platforms in the chain of laundering stolen assets.