# Circle details court role in $1.1 billion USDC freeze Author: Abdullah Özkurt Language: English Published: 2026-11-05T23:59:52+03:00 Updated: 2026-11-05T23:59:52+03:00 ![A blue USDC disc inside a clear protective shell with steel mesh and a ceramic latch, illustrating restrictions on selected transfers.](https://kriptometa.com/uploads/circle-dan-milyar-usdc-lik-blokeye-aciklama-798c5fe6b14a_article.webp) ## Key takeaways - Circle says it froze about $1.1 billion in USDC linked to the Binance attack. - A freeze under a valid court order prevents USDC from moving into or out of the affected address. - The company wants faster cross-border information sharing and clearer legal conditions for intervention. Circle’s November 5 response to the Binance attack explains how it stops USDC transfers under court orders. The company is asking authorities and crypto firms to cooperate more quickly across borders. Circle says it has frozen approximately **$1.1 billion in USDC linked to the attack on Binance**, the [crypto exchange](https://kriptometa.com/en/best-crypto-exchanges). In a [November 5 statement](https://www.circle.com/blog/the-binance-incident-collective-defense-must-move-at-machine-speed), Dante Disparte, Circle’s chief strategy officer and head of global policy and operations, explained the role of court orders and called for faster cooperation across borders. ## What changes when USDC is frozen? The company says it acted in coordination with law enforcement and continues to help identify affected funds and support the investigation. USDC is a [stablecoin](https://kriptometa.com/en/glossary/stablecoin) designed to track the US dollar. Under the procedure Circle describes, law enforcement obtains a valid court order and the company freezes the specified [wallet address](https://kriptometa.com/en/glossary/wallet-address). That stops USDC from moving into or out of the address. Circle describes a restriction on USDC, not an order stopping other tokens or the blockchain itself. Circle does not decide who owns the funds, whether they should be frozen or subject to forfeiture, or whether a crime occurred. Disparte says those determinations belong to law enforcement and the courts. The issuer’s role is to implement valid legal instructions promptly and assist investigators and recovery efforts. **Frozen USDC is not money already repaid to customers.** A freeze restricts the movement of the tokens; changing ownership and distributing funds to their rightful owners require separate decisions and actions. Circle did not provide a network-by-network breakdown, an address count, court case details or a customer repayment timetable. It also did not specify when the freeze was first imposed. [Circle’s November 5 post](https://x.com/circle/status/2118342575631323323) introduces Disparte’s response to the Binance incident and his call for companies and authorities to act together more quickly. ## A late-October attack and a November 5 statement The statement follows the attack in late October. In its [October 31 alert](https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/alerts/2026/north-korea-responsible-for-6-billion-binance-attack), the FBI said more than $6 billion in digital assets had been stolen from Binance on or about October 29. The bureau attributes the theft to North Korean actors and calls the activity “TraderTraitor.” The investigation remains ongoing. Working with the US Secret Service and IRS Criminal Investigation, the FBI said it had observed attackers converting stolen assets mainly into Ether. The bureau warned that the attackers could next use [decentralized finance](https://kriptometa.com/en/glossary/defi) and instant swap services to disguise the trail of the money. The agencies asked service providers to block transactions with, or derived from, the addresses listed in the alert. Binance’s [initial October 30 loss and service update](https://kriptometa.com/en/binance-6-3-billion-hack-withdrawals-halted) concerned the exchange’s estimate of the overall attack and its withdrawal pause. Circle’s November 5 article instead explains the USDC issuer’s freeze, the legal limits on its role and its proposals for joint action. Circle is describing its earlier intervention on November 5, rather than announcing another attack or an additional freeze that day. CEO Jeremy Allaire also discussed Circle’s regulatory tools for restricting asset movements in the [section beginning at 2:00 of his November 4 CNBC interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF25ozhmSN4&t=120s). Allaire argued that comparable intervention was unavailable in the correspondent banking system. That was his assessment of banking capabilities; the following day, Disparte stressed that Circle implements decisions made by the authorities. ## What rules does Circle want to change? Disparte argues that open blockchains helped investigators examine transactions and trace assets after the theft. Networks kept operating while exchanges, stablecoin issuers, analytics firms, custodians and law enforcement coordinated to limit laundering. He also acknowledges that transparent transaction records cannot prevent every attack. Three changes Circle proposed on November 5 | Who would act? | What does Circle propose? | |---|---| | Law enforcement agencies across jurisdictions | Establish real-time channels for urgent information and requests, with public-private partnerships prepared before an attack. | | Regulators | Set clear, consistent rules for responding quickly to credible threats while preserving due process and legal rights. | | Exchanges, custodians, issuers and infrastructure providers | Strengthen security controls, monitor systems continuously and share threat information rapidly. | Circle argues that a response taking days can miss the chance to contain losses when attackers move funds between systems within minutes. Disparte calls for conditional legal protection for responsible intervention, common arrangements for sharing threat information, and clearly defined legal steps for freezing and seizing crypto assets. Circle is asking for policy changes; it is not announcing a new law or unconditional powers for companies to intervene. Disparte says no single organization can see every threat and favors joint defense by companies and authorities while keeping networks open.