US authorities have sanctioned crypto platforms Shelbit and Aban Tether, exposing a $6.3 billion blockchain network allegedly used to move funds between Iran, Russia, and other sanctioned entities, raising new compliance and enforcement risks
US regulators have sanctioned two crypto platforms, Shelbit and Aban Tether, alleging they facilitated billions of dollars in transactions for Iranian and Russian entities under international sanctions. The action, announced by the US Treasury Department, targets not only the platforms but also Shelbit's founder Siavash Kayvanpour and several affiliated companies operating in Georgia, Poland, and the United Arab Emirates. The Treasury alleges that wallets linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sent over $1 million to Shelbit, with more than $2 million moving in the opposite direction. Additional funds reportedly flowed from Kayvanpour-controlled wallets to Nobitex, Iran's largest crypto exchange.
Settlement Network Structure
While Shelbit presented itself as a crypto exchange, blockchain analysis by TRM Labs indicates it operated more like a settlement network, relaying payments rather than holding customer assets. Over a 23-month period from May 2024 to March 2026, more than $6.3 billion in crypto assets moved through Shelbit-linked wallets. Activity accelerated sharply in late 2025, with monthly volumes exceeding $600 million for six consecutive months and peaking at $735 million in November. Unlike typical exchanges, Shelbit's wallets showed almost no residual balances, with incoming and outgoing amounts matching within 0.1%-a pattern consistent with payment relay rather than custodial trading.
Shelbit frequently rotated its high-volume wallets, cycling new addresses into use every one to four months. About 30% of Tron addresses attributed to the operation never transacted, suggesting advance provisioning and systematic cycling. The network relied overwhelmingly on the Tron blockchain and Tether's USDT stablecoin, with $5.56 billion-88% of traced activity-moving via USDT-TRC20. Ethereum, Bitcoin, and BNB Smart Chain accounted for smaller shares. Despite the scale, only about $370,000 in transactions touched mixing services, indicating Shelbit relied on address rotation and intermediary wallets to obscure flows rather than traditional privacy tools.
Exposure to Russian Sanctions Evasion
TRM Labs also traced Shelbit's activity into Russian-linked payment networks. The platform processed approximately $318 million in transactions involving Russia's A7 payment network, which the US sanctioned in August 2025 for facilitating sanctions evasion and supporting the Russian crypto exchange Garantex. A7 is partly owned by sanctioned Russian lender Promsvyazbank and operates a ruble-backed stablecoin, A7A5, for cross-border settlement. Shelbit's Russian exposure extended to Grinex, a successor to Garantex, and other regional services, with TRM identifying $16.3 million in related flows. While the data does not prove direct coordination between Iranian and Russian actors, it demonstrates that Shelbit's infrastructure was used by multiple parties seeking to move funds outside traditional financial channels.
Regulatory and Market Implications
The US Treasury's action requires US persons to block and report any covered property linked to the sanctioned entities, while foreign financial institutions risk secondary sanctions for significant continued dealings. The case highlights how stablecoins and public blockchains can be leveraged for cross-border settlement outside the conventional banking system, but also how issuers and regulators can intervene. In late 2025, US authorities used Tether's controls to freeze nearly $475 million in USDT linked to Iran, demonstrating the reach of sanctions enforcement even on decentralized networks. The European Union has also expanded its sanctions toolkit, enabling it to restrict crypto transactions with providers in entire third countries if they are found to facilitate Russian sanctions evasion.
According to TRM Labs, the average Shelbit Tron transaction was about $54,500, while Bitcoin transfers averaged $249,000, both more consistent with business settlement than retail trading. The network's design-rapid wallet cycling, minimal balances, and reliance on stablecoins-enabled billions to move without accumulating the large holdings typical of exchanges. For context, a recent EgonCoin analysis of US Treasury reserve trends noted that shifts in global dollar liquidity can have ripple effects on crypto market flows, especially when alternative rails like stablecoins are used to bypass traditional banking.
Aban Tether, which is not affiliated with the stablecoin issuer Tether, was separately accused of processing millions of dollars for sanctioned Iranian exchanges including Nobitex, Wallex, Bitpin, and Ramzinex. The US action underscores the growing focus on crypto settlement infrastructure as a vector for sanctions evasion, rather than targeting only individual exchanges or wallets.
TRM Labs' findings suggest that as enforcement tightens, actors seeking to move funds across borders may increasingly rely on complex settlement networks that combine stablecoins, address rotation, and cross-chain transfers. The ability of regulators and issuers to freeze assets at the token level remains a key limitation for those attempting to use stablecoins to circumvent sanctions.
TRM Labs reported that between May 2024 and March 2026, Shelbit-linked wallets processed over $6.3 billion in crypto transactions, with $5.56 billion routed through Tron's USDT-TRC20. The busiest period occurred in the second half of 2025, when monthly volumes exceeded $600 million for six straight months. Only a small fraction of these flows-about $370,000-touched mixing services, highlighting the network's reliance on address cycling and intermediary wallets for obfuscation rather than traditional privacy tools.
Stablecoins like USDT have become a preferred vehicle for cross-border settlement due to their dollar-denominated value and rapid settlement times. However, their reliance on centralized issuers means that regulatory intervention remains possible, as demonstrated by recent US actions freezing assets linked to sanctioned entities. For users and institutions, this underscores the importance of understanding both the technical and regulatory risks associated with stablecoin-based settlement networks.
