lbank.com Unapproved

LBank.com entered my notebook as a mid-tier, offshore-operated crypto exchange that has tried to burnish its credibility with “proof-of-reserves” claims and marketing, yet keeps surfacing in regulatory mentions, user complaints, and liquidity/withdrawal pauses. What follows is an evidence-driven review of the most salient risks I found, distinguishing what’s verified from what’s merely alleged.

Offshore Structure and Corporate Opacity

LBank states in its own materials that the platform is operated by LBK Blockchain Co., Limited, registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Its Law Enforcement Guide lists the operator and gives a BVI mailing address, confirming an offshore corporate base outside major financial centers. Offshore registration isn’t proof of wrongdoing, but it typically means less rigorous public reporting and limited recourse for users in disputes.

Regulatory Exposure in Japan

On 14 June 2024, Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) publicly warned that LBank was conducting crypto exchange business for Japanese residents without the requisite registration. Multiple trade and policy trackers recorded the warning, which places LBank on a regulatory radar in a G7 jurisdiction with strict VASP rules. An FSA warning is a concrete red flag: it can trigger geo-blocking measures, banking friction, and customer impact in that market.

Claimed Licenses vs. Independent Verification

LBank-affiliated pages and company blurbs frequently refer to MSB/VASP-type registrations (e.g., Canada MSB) as a marker of legitimacy. While MSB/VASP registrations do exist in many jurisdictions, they vary greatly in rigor and do not equal prudential supervision by a top-tier securities or banking regulator. I reviewed official FINTRAC (Canada) guidance and registry resources and could not independently confirm an LBank entity from those public datasets during this review window. Absence from a particular registry isn’t definitive proof of non-registration (names and corporate shells vary), but users should treat sweeping “licensed globally” claims as marketing unless they map to verifiable government registries.

Founder Transition Amid “Controversy”

In September 2024, LBank’s co-founder Eric He publicly stepped down in the midst of what the outlet described as internal “controversies,” with the company pitching governance changes and a new focus on “community.” Leadership churn alone isn’t misconduct, but paired with other stress signals, it suggests a period of strategic instability that users should factor into counterparty risk.

Frequent Token-Specific Withdrawal Pauses

LBank’s own support center shows a pattern of token withdrawal suspensions—some recent (e.g., LINEA, CUDIS-SOL, TAO in September 2025), others stretching back years for different assets. Exchanges do suspend withdrawals for upgrades or chain issues, but repeated, rolling pauses across unrelated tokens raise operational questions about wallet management, integrations, and communications—especially when reopen times are vague.

User Complaints: Account Freezes and Withdrawal Friction 

Across consumer forums and review sites, I found recurring allegations that profitable trading or “abnormal arbitrage” triggers account restrictions and that withdrawals can be delayed or conditioned. These are unverified claims from individual users, but they recur often enough to matter in risk assessment. LBank’s own help articles explain multiple scenarios in which the platform automatically freezes accounts or suspends withdrawals after security changes—policy that can look like “stonewalling” to retail users when support queues are slow. Treat these as allegations, counter-balanced by the company’s stated security protocols.

Listing & Market Integrity Concerns Around Pi Network

In early 2025, LBank announced listing steps for Pi Network (PI), then delayed deposits, trading, and withdrawals amid “abnormal price” conditions, later offering compensation to affected users and shifting to pre-market mechanics. Exchanges experiment; what matters is how cleanly they manage volatile listings. The halts and reversals here underscore execution risk around thin-liquidity assets and the potential for end-user loss or confusion when communications shift in real time.

“Proof-of-Reserves” Promises Without a Current, Audited Delivery

After the 2022 exchange failures, LBank pledged a Merkle-tree proof-of-reserves and published messaging about transparency and security. I did not find a current, independently audited proof-of-reserves report with signer details and liability offsets during this review. Many exchanges announced PoR plans in 2022; only a subset now provide ongoing, auditor-attested snapshots. Until LBank publishes and maintains a verifiable, third-party-assured PoR (including treatment of liabilities), its transparency posture remains claimed, not demonstrated.

Brand Misuse and Phishing—A Separate (But Relevant) Risk

Regulators have warned about fraudulent sites impersonating LBank, which is common for crypto brands. This isn’t necessarily LBank’s fault, but it complicates attribution when victims say “LBank” held their funds. For diligence teams, it’s a reminder to verify the exact domain and corporate entity; for users, it’s a signal to treat unsolicited “LBank” investment pitches as presumptive scams.

Evidence of Censorship or Takedowns

I searched for credible evidence that LBank engaged in content suppression, legal takedowns, or aggressive review manipulation beyond standard platform moderation. Aside from general Trustpilot moderation mechanics (platform-wide) and the company’s routine announcement edits, I found no reliable documentation tying LBank to systematic censorship of critics or legal takedowns of unfavorable coverage. If such actions exist, they were not visible in public records during this review.

Conclusion

On balance, LBank presents with meaningful risk flags typical of offshore, mid-tier centralized exchanges: an opaque corporate base (BVI), a documented regulatory warning in Japan, recurrent token-specific withdrawal pauses, and unresolved questions around the delivery and assurance level of “proof-of-reserves.” User allegations about freezes and withdrawal friction are unverified but sufficiently recurrent to merit caution; at minimum, they’re consistent with the platform’s own freeze policies following security events. At the same time, the exchange has maintained operations for years, publishes law-enforcement guidance, and communicates security-oriented rationales for pauses and account holds—factors that complicate a simple “scam” label. My professional read: elevated counterparty risk relative to top-tier, fully regulated exchanges; proceed only with funds you can afford to immobilize, avoid reliance on illiquid listings, and require a current, auditor-attested proof-of-reserves (plus clear regulatory status) before treating LBank as a long-term primary venue.