Binance has warned users about an unusual scam attempt that turns the typical fraud narrative on its head — not by tricking victims into sending funds, but by fabricating an entire scam story to pressure the exchange itself into paying compensation.
The incident was disclosed publicly by Binance staff, who described the case as a “new type of scam” aimed at exploiting customer support processes rather than users directly.
Key takeaways:
The scam targeted Binance’s internal support and investigation workflows rather than end users.
Fake chat logs and manipulated transfer records were used to construct a false victim narrative.
The goal appears to have been extracting compensation or forcing a public response through pressure tactics.
A Complaint Built on Fabricated Evidence
According to Binance, the case began when a user contacted customer support claiming they had been defrauded by a supposed Binance executive. The complainant alleged that the executive had promised to help resolve an issue, requested a transfer, and then disappeared once the funds were sent.
What initially appeared to be a familiar impersonation scam quickly unraveled under scrutiny. When investigators requested live chat logs, the user claimed the conversation had vanished due to “privacy mode,” offering only screenshots of a later confrontation as evidence. That explanation immediately raised suspicion.
Blockchain analysis added another major red flag. The wallet address the user said belonged to the scammer was found to have initiated the transaction itself — strongly suggesting it was controlled by the complainant. Further review revealed that the transfer documentation had been sourced from an escrow platform and altered to support the false narrative.
Attempting to Bait Binance Into a Response
The investigation uncovered a multi-step effort to manufacture credibility. According to Binance staff, the user created fake chat logs and falsified transfer records, then contacted an actual Binance executive’s account to provoke a response. Screenshots from that real interaction were later mixed with fabricated material to produce two separate sets of “executive” conversations.
The user then submitted those records to customer support, demanding an internal investigation and threatening to escalate the issue publicly on social media if Binance did not intervene. Binance ultimately classified the case as an attempted fraud against the platform itself rather than a legitimate victim claim.
Scams Remain a Persistent Industry Problem
While the case is unusual in structure, it arrives against a backdrop of rising crypto-related fraud. The industry continues to grapple with phishing, wallet compromises, and increasingly sophisticated social engineering attacks. According to data from CertiK, more than $1 billion was lost across nearly 300 incidents in 2024, with phishing ranking among the most common attack vectors.
*Updated to include the incident involving Yearn Finance ? pic.twitter.com/NX0a93Emgn
— CertiK Alert (@CertiKAlert) December 1, 2025
One particularly damaging trend is address poisoning, where attackers send small transactions from wallet addresses that closely resemble legitimate ones. Victims who later copy addresses from their transaction history may unknowingly send large sums to fraudulent wallets. In one high-profile case covered by Cryptopolitan, a trader lost roughly $50 million through such a scheme.
Calls for Industry-Wide Countermeasures
Following that loss, Changpeng Zhao — widely known as CZ — urged coordinated action across the crypto ecosystem. He argued that wallets should automatically flag addresses linked to poisoning activity and block risky transfers by default, a safeguard Binance already employs. CZ also pushed for shared, real-time blacklists of malicious addresses that platforms could access collectively.
As crypto markets mature, Binance’s latest disclosure highlights a shifting threat landscape. Scams are no longer limited to deceiving users into sending funds; they increasingly target trust systems, support teams, and public perception. For exchanges, that means fraud prevention now extends beyond blockchain analysis into verifying the authenticity of the claims themselves — and for users, it underscores the importance of skepticism not only toward messages asking for money, but also toward sensational allegations circulating online.
