Kim Yo-jong Personally Rebuts the Binance Hack Allegation: The Meaning of ‘Reexamination’

[THUMBNAIL: A split visual concept showing a large digital dollar coin splitting apart and a formal diplomatic microphone on a podium]

When suspicions of cryptocurrency hacks arose in the past, North Korea’s established practice was to offer a brief denial through a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson. However, the circumstances were different this time. Kim Yo-jong, a Department Director of the Workers’ Party of Korea who has directly delivered messages to the United States and South Korea, issued a lengthy statement personally, forcefully dismissing the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement as an “absurd rumor” ¹².

Kim’s unusual direct involvement is not merely viewed as an emotional reaction. The statement contains a warning that if the United States continues to pursue North Korea for hacking responsibility, it could negatively impact the formation of North-U.S. relations. With substantial frozen funds posing a real blow to the regime, Kim’s direct engagement itself is interpreted as a negotiation signal sent to the Trump administration ²³.

Kim Yo-jong’s Lengthy Statement Bypassing the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson

The incident occurred on the night of October 29, 2026 (early morning of October 30, Korean time) at Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. In approximately 20 minutes, assets worth $6.3–6.4 billion (approximately 8.6 trillion won), including Bitcoin and Ethereum, vanished, marking the largest hacking incident in cryptocurrency history ²³.

Two days after the incident, on October 31, the U.S. FBI officially identified “TraderTraitor,” a hacking organization under North Korea’s Reconnaissance General Bureau, as the mastermind behind the hack ³⁴. The scale of the damage, which exceeds four times that of the 2025 Bybit hack (approximately $1.5 billion), drew significant international attention ¹².

Unlike in the past, North Korea skipped the customary response by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson. The Korean Central News Agency reported on November 3 that Kim Yo-jong, in a statement on November 2, characterized the FBI’s announcement as a “grave political provocation” and an “act of infringement against the Republic’s sovereignty” ³. Kim also issued a counter-message suggesting that the United States might be the mastermind behind the incident. This argument claimed that the U.S. was attempting to secure its own interests by turning the recovered cryptocurrency into a national strategic reserve, employing logic that seeks to reverse suspicion based on the beneficiary of the funds ²³.

$2.8 Billion Frozen: An Immediate Blow to Regime Funding

Behind the decision by a key figure in North Korea’s power circle to issue a lengthy statement personally is the issue of funds that have become stuck. Alex Zebric, Senior Manager of Global Services at blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, told the BBC that at least $6.4 billion was stolen in this incident, of which approximately$2.8 billion has already been frozen ². He explained, “The amount of funds the North Korean regime can actually utilize decreases in proportion to the frozen assets” ².

The fact that a significant portion of the stolen amount is held by the international community leads to an immediate decline in the regime’s fund utilization. The hackers launched a second round of laundering by dividing assets into multiple wallets and changing coin types to avoid freezing, but they had to accept substantial losses in the process. It is estimated that the hackers incurred costs and losses of approximately $22 million due to transaction fees and unfavorable exchanges while moving approximately$242 million through various channels ². Moon Jong-hyun, Center Director at Genians Security, analyzed to the BBC that the hackers are employing a typical tactic of “saving even half” rather than “losing 100%,” even if it means a “50% loss” ².

Complex international judicial procedures remain before the frozen funds are formally released. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury seeks to recover these funds into the U.S. Treasury after undergoing complex procedures such as the Department of Justice’s confiscation ruling and judicial cooperation, it could escalate into a tedious international litigation battle ³. In other words, the state of the funds being neither completely lost nor fully returned, but “tied up,” continues.

The Negotiation Structure Embedded in the Phrase “A Matter to Consider”

Facing the realistic loss of $2.8 billion in frozen funds, Kim Yo-jong warned at the end of her statement that there would be “matters to consider in various aspects” ³. The context of this remark includes the situation on October 31, immediately following the FBI’s identification, where President Trump left room for discussion by stating, “I don’t know if it’s North Korea’s doing,” and adding, “If it is confirmed to be North Korea’s doing, I will discuss it with North Korea” ²⁵. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also suggested readiness for dialogue ⁵.

Professor Nam Sung-wook noted in an interview with YTN that the unusually lengthy nature of Kim’s statement and its repetition of the same arguments suggest it may be an attempt to create a pretext to “find some kind of point of contact with President Trump” ⁵. This constitutes a conditional warning that North-U.S. relations could also be negatively impacted if the U.S. continues to pursue hacking responsibility and seeks to recover the frozen funds to the national treasury ²³.

Experts interpret that both the United States and North Korea are utilizing the awkward hacking issue as a medium for dialogue rather than a hindrance. The analysis suggests that President Trump is waiting for North Korea to react and come to the table for dialogue, while North Korea is creating a pretext through the hacking suspicion to raise the stakes for setting relations with the U.S. ⁵.

Therefore, it is premature to definitively interpret Kim’s “outburst” and the “matters to consider” remark as a declaration of complete severance in North-U.S. relations. They are interpreted as a diplomatic signal from the regime, indicating that improving relations may be delayed if the U.S. presses harder on hacking responsibility, in order to resolve the frozen fund issue and secure direct engagement with the United States ²⁵. Whether this signal will lead to an actual North-U.S. summit will be determined by the subsequent actions of both sides ⁵.