HTX denies role in Kraken-linked poisoning transfers

$HTX denied authorizing a series of disputed cryptocurrency microtransfers on Aug. 20 after some users alleged that funds originating from $HTX-linked addresses caused compliance restrictions at Kraken and other exchanges.

An $HTX representative using the @$HTX_Molly account said an internal review found no activity from official company accounts. The representative suggested that affected users could have initiated transfers independently while trying to protest or test Kraken’s restrictions.

The same representative claimed that funds frozen at Kraken included cases worth as much as $4.2 million. $HTX did not publish account records, transaction hashes or communications from Kraken supporting that figure. Kraken has not publicly confirmed the alleged maximum.

$HTX says it found no official transfer activity

The reports began after users identified small unsolicited $USDT transfers from addresses labeled as connected to $HTX. Some commentators described the transfers as address poisoning intended to trigger compliance systems at other platforms.

$HTX said its internal checks found no evidence that an official account initiated a coordinated campaign. Justin Sun separately called reports that $HTX deliberately sent the transfers “made up,” while the exchange said it was examining address labels and the transfers’ sources.

Available onchain reporting has not established who controlled every sending address. One community review found that a batch of 7.5 $USDT transfers from an $HTX-labeled hot wallet went to addresses attributed to Kraken.

Wallet labels alone do not prove that $HTX authorized a transfer. Exchange deposit addresses, payment processors, intermediaries and user-controlled withdrawal activity can complicate attribution. Public transaction hashes would be needed to test the findings independently.

As crypto.news previously reported, $HTX’s initial investigation found no verified connection between disputed transfers and subsequent account freezes. The exchange has not released a complete address list or final investigation report.

Kraken confirms restrictions tied to U.K. sanctions

Kraken has confirmed a broader policy of restricting transfers associated with Huobi or $HTX. The exchange said U.K. government sanctions require it to restrict funds transferred from Huobi into Kraken customer accounts.

Kraken has not said that every incoming transfer from an $HTX-labeled address produces a full account freeze. It has also not confirmed that the recent microtransfers caused specific customer restrictions.

The policy followed the U.K.’s May 26 designation of Huobi Global S.A. under its Russia sanctions regime. The government said it had reasonable grounds to suspect that the company was involved in making funds or economic resources available to entities in Russia’s financial sector.

$HTX disputed the designation’s application to its exchange. In its May statement, $HTX argued that Huobi Global S.A. was distinct from the online platform and said its operations remained unaffected.

The U.K. Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation rejected that distinction. Its official guidance says the designation applies to the $HTX exchange because OFSI considers Huobi Global to own it under U.K. sanctions rules.

Kraken’s restrictions therefore have a confirmed regulatory basis. Whether each affected customer’s transaction legally requires an extended freeze depends on the ownership, source, timing and sanctions exposure involved in that case.

The $4.2 million claim remains unverified

The @$HTX_Molly representative said $HTX had researched Kraken restrictions during the previous two days and found that some users remained unable to access funds. The representative cited $4.2 million as the highest known amount.

No evidence accompanying the statement established whether that amount belonged to one account, several linked accounts or a transfer under a specific legal hold. It is also unclear whether the restriction followed the recent microtransfers or earlier direct dealings with $HTX.

The representative said $HTX had created a group for affected Kraken customers to collect cases and seek the release of funds. $HTX characterized those efforts as voluntary user activity rather than exchange-directed transfers.

Kraken advises restricted customers to respond to requests for documentation and contact its support team. The exchange may impose restrictions for sanctions compliance, account security, payment reversals or other reviews. These categories are separate from temporary withdrawal holds routinely applied after certain purchases or account changes.

The incident resembles compliance poisoning

Classic address poisoning usually involves sending small transfers from lookalike addresses. The attacker hopes a victim will later copy the fraudulent address from their transaction history and send funds to it.

The reported $HTX transfers present a different scenario. The alleged objective would be to associate a recipient with a sanctioned or compliance-sensitive address, potentially triggering automated screening. “Compliance poisoning” is therefore a more precise description if intentional conduct is eventually established.

The current evidence does not establish intent. Receiving an unsolicited transfer also does not, by itself, show that a recipient knowingly dealt with a sanctioned entity.

$HTX’s next step is to publish its final review, including verified sending addresses and transaction hashes. Kraken may also clarify how it evaluates unsolicited transfers and what documentation affected users need to restore access.

Until then, the official record supports three narrower findings: the U.K. sanctions apply to $HTX, Kraken restricts affected transfers, and $HTX denies authorizing the disputed microtransactions. The alleged $4.2 million freeze and any coordinated poisoning campaign remain unverified claims.