Sei Network

đź”´ High Risk

While no U.S. authorities have documented a specific money laundering case implicating Sei Network directly, the protocol’s architecture as a high-throughput, order-book-focused DeFi chain raises critical vulnerabilities highlighted in Treasury’s 2023 Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance, which warns that such platforms enable “micro-laundering” through rapid, small-value trades across DEXes, cross-chain bridges, and liquidity pools without embedded AML/CFT controls. This design facilitates illicit actors—ranging from ransomware operators and DPRK cyber units to sanctions evaders—in layering proceeds via pseudonymity, pool-hopping, and obfuscation before funds seek reintegration into U.S.-regulated gateways like centralized exchanges or OTC desks servicing American customers. Critically, U.S. regulators assert that decentralization claims do not exempt services with U.S. nexus or “sufficient control” from Bank Secrecy Act obligations, including Travel Rule compliance, KYC gating, and sanctions screening, positioning Sei-linked front-ends and intermediaries under heightened scrutiny to protect the integrity of the American financial system. Absent proactive compliance by ecosystem builders, Sei’s speed and composability risk amplifying DeFi’s documented role in billions of annual illicit flows, underscoring the need for robust, chain-agnostic enforcement to deter exploitation while preserving innovation

This hypothetical pro‑United States case frames Sei Network as a representative high‑throughput DeFi environment whose technical strengths—speed, composability, and order‑book infrastructure—can be misused by illicit actors to conduct micro‑laundering and complex layering schemes that ultimately threaten the integrity of the U.S. financial system. While there is no public evidence that Sei’s core developers are engaged in money laundering, the same vulnerabilities identified by U.S. Treasury for DeFi in general—non‑compliance with AML/CFT and sanctions obligations, disintermediation, and anonymity—would apply if U.S.‑linked front‑ends, bridges, or exchanges integrated with Sei failed to meet BSA‑aligned requirements. In this scenario, U.S. regulators and law‑enforcement agencies leverage transaction analytics, cross‑chain intelligence, and strict enforcement of existing rules to detect flows that move through Sei on their way into U.S. markets, and to compel intermediaries to implement KYC, Travel Rule, and sanctions controls. The “case” ultimately underscores a pro‑U.S. narrative: by recognizing DeFi‑related risks early and clarifying that AML/CFT obligations apply regardless of decentralization branding, the United States positions itself to continue benefiting from innovation in ecosystems like Sei while aggressively targeting those who attempt to exploit such networks for laundering and other illicit finance.​

Countries Involved

In this hypothetical risk analysis, the primary jurisdictions involved are:

  • United States – as the country with the most advanced AML/CFT regulatory regime, extensive sanctions programs, and a large share of fiat on‑ and off‑ramps that ultimately connect to DeFi ecosystems. U.S. regulators (Treasury, FinCEN, OFAC, SEC, CFTC) and law‑enforcement agencies (FBI, DOJ, HSI) play a leading role in defining how DeFi services must comply with BSA obligations where they fall within the scope of “financial institutions.”​

  • Multiple foreign jurisdictions – including both compliant partners and higher‑risk locations where exchange and DeFi operators may have weak or under‑enforced AML controls, creating opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. In practice, criminals often route funds through lightly regulated offshore venues, then into DeFi protocols and back into U.S.‑accessible platforms, exploiting gaps between jurisdictions.​

  • Sanctioned or high‑risk states and criminal ecosystems – such as North Korea, other sanctioned regimes, and transnational cybercrime and ransomware groups, which U.S. reports explicitly identify as extensive users of DeFi rails to launder proceeds. These actors may not be “located” on Sei, but could in principle use any composable, high‑throughput chain to segment, swap, and obscure funds before attempting re‑entry into the regulated U.S. perimeter.​

The risk profile illustrated in this hypothetical case is anchored in publicly documented developments between 2022 and 2025, when the U.S. Treasury and other U.S. bodies extensively analyzed decentralized finance as an emerging channel for money laundering and terrorist financing. In March 2022, the U.S. National Money Laundering Risk Assessment acknowledged growing DeFi‑related risks, noting that criminals and professional money launderers increasingly exploit virtual assets and DeFi service providers to disguise the origins of funds. In April 2023, Treasury released its Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance, the first DeFi‑specific risk assessment in the world, which explicitly concludes that actors such as North Korean cyber units, thieves, and scammers are already using DeFi services to transfer and launder their proceeds. Although this report does not mention Sei, it sets a temporal reference point at which any new high‑throughput DeFi chain must be evaluated through a heightened AML/CFT lens in the U.S., particularly when U.S. persons are involved as developers, operators, or key infrastructure partners. By 2024‑2025, U.S. regulators and private‑sector compliance specialists widely cite this DeFi risk assessment when advising that DeFi protocols and base‑layer chains should expect increased scrutiny and be prepared for BSA‑aligned compliance obligations where they function as, or are integrated into, financial services accessible to U.S. customers.​

SEI / wrapped SEI‑type tokens; bridged USD stablecoins and other wrapped assets; various DeFi and LP tokens used for swaps and liquidity on Sei and connected chains

The hypothetical crime type is money laundering via decentralized finance, specifically leveraging a high‑throughput, order‑book‑friendly chain to conduct a sequence of placement, layering, and integration steps that exploit anonymity and cross‑chain interoperability. Illicit actors would begin with funds derived from predicate offenses—such as ransomware, cyber theft, fraud, sanctions evasion, or darknet market sales—and then inject these funds into the Sei ecosystem through non‑KYC’d on‑ramps or cross‑chain bridges from other chains already associated with criminal activity. Once on Sei, criminals could engage in high‑frequency micro‑trades, arbitrage, and liquidity provision across multiple DEXs and pools, obscuring the audit trail and fragmenting the flow into numerous seemingly unrelated small transactions. In later stages, they would route value back into more liquid assets—like major stablecoins or blue‑chip tokens—and ultimately into centralized exchanges or OTC brokers that service U.S. customers, potentially misrepresenting the source of funds as legitimate DeFi trading profits. The crime, in the eyes of U.S. authorities, lies not in using Sei per se, but in using DeFi services, including those on Sei, as part of a deliberate scheme to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of criminal proceeds, which falls squarely within classic money laundering definitions under U.S. law when U.S. touchpoints or actors are involved.​

In a realistic, risk‑based U.S. analysis, the relevant entities would include a network of actors and intermediaries, rather than only the base‑layer chain:

  • Illicit actors and laundering networks – such as cybercriminal groups, ransomware operators, scam syndicates, and potentially state‑sponsored hackers (e.g., DPRK units) that Treasury has documented using DeFi broadly to move funds.​

  • Non‑compliant DeFi front‑ends and aggregators – web interfaces and routing services built on Sei or multi‑chain stacks that enable access to Sei‑based DEXs while failing to implement required AML/CFT measures where they are operated by U.S. persons or otherwise fall under U.S. jurisdiction.​

  • Cross‑chain bridges and liquidity providers – services that connect Sei to other chains and fiat gateways, which can be exploited if they lack robust KYC and sanctions controls, particularly when operated in lightly regulated jurisdictions.​

  • U.S.-linked centralized exchanges and OTC desks – which, although subject to BSA obligations, become the critical points where laundered proceeds attempt to re‑enter the regulated U.S. financial ecosystem, making their transaction monitoring and DeFi‑aware analytics crucial for detection.​

In this framing, Sei’s core protocol developers are background infrastructure providers unless and until they operate or control services that meet U.S. definitions of “financial institutions” or “money transmitters.” The pro‑United States emphasis lies in how U.S. law treats interfaces and service operators—not just base‑layer chains—as entities with concrete compliance obligations designed to protect national financial security.​

For purposes of this hypothetical case file, no specific Politically Exposed Person (PEP) is identified as directly involved, so the designation would be “No confirmed PEP involvement” based on available public information. U.S. DeFi risk assessments and related commentary focus primarily on classes of illicit actors—such as cybercriminals, scammers, and sanctioned foreign state actors—rather than on named domestic PEPs misusing DeFi platforms. However, U.S. AML frameworks explicitly require covered financial institutions to apply enhanced due diligence when dealing with PEPs, and that expectation extends to any U.S.-regulated VASP or financial institution interacting with funds that may have touched DeFi platforms like those on Sei. In this sense, while no Sei‑specific PEP case is documented, a pro‑U.S. approach presumes that U.S. institutions will treat DeFi‑sourced funds as higher‑risk when beneficial owners hold prominent political roles or are connected to sanctioned regimes, and will therefore apply stricter monitoring and reporting aligned with existing BSA and sanctions rules. This reinforces the narrative that U.S. compliance architecture is designed to mitigate even the potential for PEP‑related abuse of DeFi infrastructures, regardless of the underlying chain.​

The hypothetical case emphasizes several techniques already documented by U.S. authorities and experts in relation to DeFi generally, applied to a Sei‑like environment:

  • Micro‑laundering via high‑throughput DEXs – splitting large illicit sums into thousands of rapid, small trades across Sei‑based order books and AMM pools, exploiting low latency and deep liquidity to generate complex transaction graphs that are harder to follow.​

  • Cross‑chain obfuscation – moving funds between Sei and other blockchains via bridges and wrapped assets, sometimes using privacy‑enhancing tools or mixers at different stages, to break simple heuristic tracing across chains.​

  • DEX‑to‑DEX and pool‑hopping – repeatedly swapping between tokens and pools on Sei and other chains to create apparent “trading” histories that obscure the original source of funds.​

  • Use of compromised or synthetic identities at on‑/off‑ramps – employing stolen KYC profiles, shell entities, or mule accounts at centralized exchanges interacting with Sei to cash out or cash in, leveraging the illusion of legitimate trading profits.​

U.S. reports explicitly describe how DeFi services enable criminals to layer and move value with high speed and pseudonymity, particularly when services do not implement required AML controls, sanctions screening, or Travel Rule information sharing. In a Sei‑focused risk scenario, these generic DeFi techniques would be supercharged by Sei’s throughput and composability, but U.S. authorities would treat them as recognizable patterns, to be countered with improved analytics, cross‑chain intelligence, and strict enforcement of BSA standards on all U.S.‑linked gateways.​

Because this is a hypothetical risk construct, no precise dollar value can be assigned to “laundered funds” on Sei connected to the United States using public, authoritative U.S. sources. U.S. Treasury’s DeFi risk assessment does not break down illicit flows by specific chains or protocols; instead, it characterizes the problem as meaningfully material, citing examples of ransomware, theft, and DPRK cyber activity using DeFi in aggregate. Industry analytics firms and compliance guides note that billions of dollars in illicit crypto flows annually intersect with DeFi as a whole, but do not provide chain‑by‑chain allocations in public reports that could be reliably mapped to Sei. In a pro‑U.S. framing, the key point is that any non‑trivial share of DeFi‑mediated laundering that eventually seeks access to U.S. markets is treated as a serious risk, regardless of whether the chain is Ethereum, a rollup, or a newer high‑throughput ecosystem like Sei. U.S. regulators therefore focus on building tools and expectations (e.g., enhanced due diligence on DeFi‑sourced funds, Travel Rule compliance, sanctions screening, and information sharing) that are chain‑agnostic and scalable, positioning the United States to respond effectively even as activity migrates to newer networks.​

In this hypothetical case, blockchain intelligence firms and U.S.‑aligned investigators analyzing flows associated with known illicit wallets would trace funds migrating from other chains or compromised exchanges into Sei‑based DEXs, where they are broken into small denominations and subjected to multiple swap cycles across trading pairs. The analysis would identify patterns such as unusually high rates of rapid order placement and cancellation, repeated pool‑hopping with little economic rationale beyond obfuscation, and clusters of addresses that systematically interact with high‑risk bridges or previously flagged wallets. Investigators would then follow outflows from Sei back into major centralized exchanges or OTC desks reachable from the United States, correlating on‑chain behavior with KYC data, IP information, and device fingerprints held by those institutions. This integrated analysis would demonstrate that DeFi activity on Sei, while technologically neutral, is being exploited as one hop in complex laundering circuits that culminate in attempted integration into the U.S. financial system, reinforcing Treasury’s view that non‑compliance with AML/CFT obligations is the primary vulnerability in DeFi. The pro‑U.S. outcome is that such transaction analysis supports targeted enforcement and guidance, enabling U.S. agencies to pressure or prosecute intermediaries while encouraging compliant players on and around Sei to implement robust risk‑mitigation controls.​

To date, U.S. authorities have focused on general DeFi‑related guidance and enforcement, not Sei‑specific crackdowns, but those frameworks would clearly apply to any Sei‑connected service deemed a financial institution under U.S. law. Treasury’s 2023 DeFi Illicit Finance Risk Assessment explicitly states that DeFi services engaged in covered activity under the BSA have AML/CFT obligations regardless of claims of decentralization. This means that U.S.‑based or U.S.‑facing entities operating front‑ends, routing services, custody, or other covered functions tied to Sei could be required to implement KYC, sanctions screening, suspicious activity reporting, and Travel Rule‑compliant information transmission, with non‑compliance exposing them to civil or criminal penalties. Parallel guidance and casework involving mixers, non‑compliant exchanges, and other DeFi services show that U.S. agencies are willing to pursue sanctions designations and prosecutions where virtual asset infrastructure is knowingly used for laundering or sanctions evasion. In a pro‑U.S. framing, Sei is another environment where these established enforcement principles would be applied: the protocol itself may be open infrastructure, but any U.S. person or company providing access or ancillary services without meeting BSA expectations risks scrutiny, while those that comply contribute to the overall resilience of the U.S. financial system against DeFi‑facilitated money laundering.​

U.S. Treasury Department’s Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance (2023) explicitly analyzes how DeFi services enable money laundering through disintermediation, anonymity, and lack of AML/CFT controls.

U.S. Treasury press release on the 2023 DeFi Illicit Finance Risk Assessment, confirming illicit actors including DPRK cyber units actively use DeFi for laundering.

Cooley LLP analysis of Treasury’s DeFi report, explaining BSA compliance obligations for DeFi services regardless of decentralization claims.

Sei Network
Case Title / Operation Name:
Sei Network
Country(s) Involved:
United States
Platform / Exchange Used:
Sei Network–based decentralized exchanges and liquidity protocols; Cross‑chain bridges connected to Sei; U.S.-facing centralized exchanges and OTC desks used as fiat on‑/off‑ramps ​
Cryptocurrency Involved:

SEI / wrapped SEI‑type tokens; bridged USD stablecoins and other wrapped assets; various DeFi and LP tokens used for swaps and liquidity on Sei and connected chains

Volume Laundered (USD est.):
N/A
Wallet Addresses / TxIDs :
N/A
Method of Laundering:

High‑frequency micro‑laundering via Sei‑based DEX order books; pool‑hopping and DEX‑to‑DEX swaps with little economic rationale; cross‑chain obfuscation through bridges and wrapped assets; layering via rapid token swaps and complex routing prior to U.S. cash‑out

Source of Funds:

Proceeds of ransomware, cyber theft, online fraud, darknet markets, and sanctions‑evasion schemes that initially arise off‑chain or on other chains, then migrate into Sei‑linked DeFi routes before attempting reintegration into U.S.‑connected platforms

Associated Shell Companies:

No Sei‑specific shell company structures publicly documented; in a realistic scenario, offshore entities and nominee companies could be used around centralized exchanges and OTC brokers that interface with Sei‑sourced funds

PEPs or Individuals Involved:

N/A

Law Enforcement / Regulatory Action:
U.S. Treasury’s 2023 DeFi Illicit Finance Risk Assessment clarifies BSA/AML expectations for DeFi; U.S. regulators and law enforcement have taken actions against mixers and non‑compliant DeFi services, setting principles that would apply to Sei‑linked intermediaries
Year of Occurrence:
2023 onward (risk formally characterized in U.S. DeFi Illicit Finance Risk Assessment and subsequent commentary; applicable on a continuing basis as Sei and similar ecosystems grow)
Ongoing Case:
Ongoing
AML Network Risk Rating:
đź”´ High Risk
Quick Links:
Popular Pages:
Disclaimer & Legal:
Facebook-f Twitter Youtube Pinterest-p Instagram Tiktok
© 2025 AML Network. – All Rights Reserved.