SEOUL/WASHINGTON — North Korea has rejected US allegations that it was responsible for a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency theft involving Binance, calling the FBI’s accusation “absurd rhetoric” and a political provocation against Pyongyang.
Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and a senior ruling-party official, issued the response on Tuesday, November 3, through the country’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
Her statement followed an announcement by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on October 31 that North Korea was responsible for stealing more than US$6 billion in virtual assets from Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges.
The FBI attributed the incident to a North Korean-linked hacking operation known as TraderTraitor.
Kim rejected the accusation, arguing that Washington repeatedly associates North Korea with major international cybercrime incidents without sufficient justification.
She also warned that Pyongyang would reconsider unspecified issues in response to what she described as the United States’ hostile attitude.
The denial comes as investigators continue examining the reported Binance security breach, which has raised concerns about cryptocurrency security, international cybercrime and the possible use of stolen digital assets to generate revenue for North Korea.
Kim Yo Jong Calls US Allegations ‘Absurd Rhetoric’
In a statement published by KCNA, Kim Yo Jong criticised the FBI’s decision to publicly identify North Korea as responsible for the Binance incident.
She said the United States was attempting to portray the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea’s official name, as a cybercriminal state.
Kim argued that Washington repeatedly links Pyongyang to international cybercrime whenever major digital attacks occur.
She described the latest accusation as an attempt to mislead international public opinion.
Her statement also referred to previous US allegations involving North Korean-linked hackers and cryptocurrency theft.
Kim said the accusation demonstrated Washington’s continued hostile attitude towards North Korea.
She added that Pyongyang was closely monitoring what it considered persistent US provocations and had issues to reconsider in response.
The statement did not specify what measures North Korea might reconsider or announce any concrete policy change.
It nevertheless adds another point of tension between the two governments as Washington continues investigating the Binance incident.
FBI Officially Attributes the Binance Theft to North Korea
The North Korean denial followed an FBI announcement published on October 31.
The US agency said North Korea was responsible for stealing more than US$6 billion in virtual assets from Binance on or around October 29.
The FBI identified the operation as TraderTraitor, a name used for a North Korean-linked cyber activity cluster.
According to the agency, investigators observed the suspected attackers converting stolen cryptocurrency primarily into Ether, the digital asset associated with the Ethereum blockchain.
The FBI warned that the funds could be moved through decentralised finance services and instant cryptocurrency exchange platforms as part of further laundering efforts.
The agency also released a list of cryptocurrency addresses it said were operated by or closely connected to TraderTraitor actors.
It urged cryptocurrency service providers, blockchain infrastructure operators and other industry participants to block transactions connected to the identified addresses.
The announcement represents a formal public attribution by US law enforcement.
However, North Korea has rejected the accusation, and the public statements from the two sides do not resolve the underlying dispute over responsibility.
Why the Binance Attack Matters
Binance’s security incident has become one of the most closely watched cryptocurrency investigations of 2026.
The exchange initially reported a potential security issue with an estimated impact of approximately US$6.3 billion.
Its preliminary investigation suggested that a compromised laptop belonging to a DevOps engineer may have allowed an attacker to access an internal service container and submit unauthorised withdrawal transactions.
Binance also said it had found no evidence that wallet private keys had been leaked.
The company worked with law enforcement agencies, blockchain intelligence firms and cryptocurrency partners to trace and restrict affected assets.
The FBI subsequently described the incident as a theft exceeding US$6 billion.
It is important to distinguish the two public descriptions: Binance’s initial US$6.3 billion figure was an estimate of the incident’s impact, while the FBI explicitly characterised the event as a theft of more than US$6 billion.
The final accounting of losses and recovered funds depends on the continuing investigation.
For more background, read WWC ONE MEDIA’s report, Binance Faces $6.3-Billion Security Crisis as Tether and Circle Freeze $2.38 Billion — But Can Customers’ Funds Be Protected?, which examines the exchange’s initial response and the efforts to restrict the movement of affected cryptocurrency.
TraderTraitor and North Korea’s History of Crypto Theft Allegations
The FBI’s identification of TraderTraitor has drawn attention because North Korean-linked hacking groups have previously been accused of targeting cryptocurrency exchanges and financial institutions.
One of the most prominent earlier incidents was the February 2025 attack on cryptocurrency exchange Bybit, involving approximately US$1.5 billion in digital assets.
The FBI attributed that theft to North Korean cyber actors.
North Korean-linked groups have also been associated by US authorities with other major cyber incidents, including the 2017 WannaCry malware attack and the 2014 Sony Pictures hack.
These cases have contributed to international concerns about the country’s alleged use of cyber operations to generate foreign currency.
However, each incident requires its own investigation. North Korea’s history of cybercrime allegations does not, by itself, establish responsibility for every new cryptocurrency attack.
In the Binance case, the FBI has publicly attributed the theft to TraderTraitor, while Pyongyang has rejected the allegation.
Could Cryptocurrency Theft Help Fund North Korea’s Weapons Program?
One reason the Binance investigation has attracted international attention is the potential connection between cybercrime and North Korea’s efforts to obtain foreign currency.
The country faces extensive international sanctions related to its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
These restrictions limit its access to parts of the global financial system and international markets.
US officials and cybersecurity researchers have repeatedly warned that cryptocurrency theft can provide North Korean-linked actors with a way to obtain funds outside conventional banking channels.
Digital assets can move across international networks, making it difficult for authorities to identify the individuals controlling funds and prevent every transfer.
Outside experts have also raised concerns that money obtained through cybercrime could support the country’s economy and weapons-related activities.
The Associated Press cited a 2022 estimate from South Korea’s National Intelligence Service that North Korean hackers had stolen approximately 1.5 trillion won, equivalent to about US$1.1 billion at the time, in cryptocurrency and other virtual assets over the preceding five years.
That figure reflects an earlier estimate and should not be confused with a confirmed total for North Korea’s current cryptocurrency holdings or revenue.
There is also no public evidence establishing that the entire amount involved in the Binance incident has reached North Korea or been used to finance its weapons programmes.
Trump Says Investigators Have Not Yet Established North Korea’s Responsibility
The FBI’s announcement has also drawn attention because President Donald Trump appeared more cautious when asked about the alleged North Korean connection.
Speaking to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump said investigators were still learning about the incident.
When asked whether North Korea was responsible, he responded that the United States did not yet know.
His comments introduced an important distinction between the FBI’s formal public attribution and the president’s remarks about the continuing investigation.
The FBI has stated that North Korea was responsible for the theft.
Trump, meanwhile, indicated that the investigation was still being assessed.
The difference does not erase the FBI’s announcement, but it highlights why the evidence and conclusions behind the attribution remain important.
The public has not been given a complete technical account of the investigation.
North Korea’s Denial Could Complicate US Diplomatic Efforts
The exchange of accusations comes at a time when Washington and Pyongyang have both signalled interest in the possibility of renewed diplomacy.
Trump has previously expressed interest in restoring direct engagement with Kim Jong Un.
The president’s comments about potentially meeting the North Korean leader have attracted attention because relations between the two countries remain strained over nuclear weapons, sanctions and regional security.
Kim Yo Jong’s latest statement suggests that North Korea views the FBI’s public accusation as part of a broader pattern of US pressure.
Her warning that Pyongyang has issues to reconsider did not specify whether the country intends to change its diplomatic position or take any particular action.
The statement nevertheless introduces another issue that could complicate efforts to rebuild communication between the two governments.
Cybersecurity allegations are increasingly becoming part of wider international security disputes, particularly when governments accuse other states of using digital operations to obtain financial resources.
The Binance case now sits at the intersection of financial crime, national security and US-North Korea relations.
Binance Customers Withdraw Billions as Exchange Works to Restore Confidence
The incident has also created uncertainty among cryptocurrency customers.
After Binance temporarily restricted some deposits and withdrawals while conducting security checks, customers began moving substantial amounts of digital assets off the platform once withdrawals resumed.
According to figures reported by the Associated Press, Binance processed approximately US$4.649 billion in withdrawals between 6 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. UTC on November 1.
It also processed approximately US$1.01 billion in deposits during the same period.
That resulted in a net outflow of approximately US$3.64 billion.
Binance said market conditions were stable and that its team was continuing to test the remaining networks and assets.
The company also said it had recovered or secured approximately 90% of the affected assets using company funds, according to reporting by ABC News.
The exchange has maintained that customer funds are safe and that it will cover relevant losses.
However, customer withdrawals demonstrate how quickly confidence can be affected when a major cryptocurrency platform experiences a security crisis.
The final extent of the financial impact will depend on the investigation, asset recovery and the company’s subsequent disclosures.
Tether and Circle Help Restrict the Movement of Affected Funds
The response to the Binance incident has involved more than the exchange itself.
Stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle reportedly froze significant amounts of digital assets associated with the incident.
The Associated Press reported that Circle had frozen more than US$800 million in related currency, while Tether said it had frozen more than US$1.5 billion.
These actions formed part of a broader effort involving law enforcement agencies, blockchain intelligence firms and cryptocurrency service providers.
Freezing digital assets can prevent some funds from being transferred or converted through certain services.
However, freezing does not automatically mean that the assets have been returned to Binance or their rightful owners.
The recovery process depends on the type of cryptocurrency involved, the controls available to its issuer and the ability of investigators to trace and restrict the relevant transactions.
For more on the industry’s response, WWC ONE MEDIA previously reported on Binance’s $6.3-Billion Crypto Heist and the Security Measures Being Considered by Coinbase and Kraken.
What the Binance Case Means for the Global Cryptocurrency Industry
The reported theft has renewed questions about how cryptocurrency exchanges protect billions of dollars in customer assets.
Major platforms rely on complex digital infrastructure, employee access controls, transaction systems and security procedures.
Even when wallet private keys are not compromised, attackers may attempt to exploit weaknesses elsewhere in an exchange’s internal systems.
The Binance incident has highlighted the importance of protecting employee devices, restricting access to sensitive systems and monitoring unusual withdrawal activity.
It has also demonstrated the value of cooperation between exchanges, stablecoin issuers, blockchain intelligence companies and law enforcement agencies.
However, the ability to freeze certain assets does not apply equally to every cryptocurrency.
Some digital assets can be restricted by their issuers, while others operate without a central authority capable of blocking transactions.
This difference can make recovery efforts more difficult when stolen assets move across multiple networks.
WWC ONE MEDIA also examined the wider recovery challenge in $1.4 Billion in Bitcoin Stolen From Binance May Be Gone for Good, Expert Warns — But Can the Exchange Still Protect Its Customers?.
The report explains why identifying stolen cryptocurrency does not always guarantee that it can be recovered.
What Happens Next?
The investigation now faces several important questions.
US authorities will continue examining the evidence behind the FBI’s attribution to TraderTraitor.
Blockchain analysts will attempt to trace the movement of affected assets and identify funds that can still be restricted.
Binance will need to provide further information about the suspected security breach, the amount of cryptocurrency affected and the recovery process.
North Korea, meanwhile, has publicly rejected the accusation and has not indicated that it intends to cooperate with the US investigation.
The case could also influence future discussions about cryptocurrency regulation, international cybercrime enforcement and the security responsibilities of major digital-asset exchanges.
For now, the competing positions remain clear: the FBI says North Korea was responsible, while Pyongyang calls the accusation politically motivated and false.
The central question is whether investigators will eventually release enough evidence to establish how the attack happened and who was behind it.
Until then, the Binance incident remains both a major cryptocurrency security investigation and another source of tension between Washington and Pyongyang.
