Grinex Exchange: A Suspected Rebrand of Sanctioned Garantex Crypto Platform

A new cryptocurrency exchange, Grinex, has emerged under scrutiny as analysts suspect it to be a rebrand of Garantex, a Russian crypto platform previously sanctioned by U.S. authorities. The exchange’s sudden appearance, coupled with technical and operational overlaps, suggests an attempt to circumvent sanctions and continue operations under a new identity. This development raises concerns about the effectiveness of regulatory measures against illicit crypto activities.

Key Findings and Background

Garantex, a Moscow-based exchange, was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in 2022 for facilitating over $100 billion in illicit transactions, including ransomware payments and darknet market dealings. In March 2025, U.S. authorities seized its domains, arrested an administrator, and froze $28 million in Tether holdings. Days later, Grinex surfaced, promoted through Telegram channels historically linked to Garantex. Blockchain analysis reveals liquidity migration from Garantex wallets to Grinex, including the use of A7A5, a ruble-backed stablecoin issued by Kyrgyz firm Old Vector.

Technical Evidence Linking Grinex to Garantex

Investigations by firms like TRM Labs and Crystal Intelligence highlight several technical indicators tying Grinex to its predecessor. The exchange’s user interface mirrors Garantex’s design, and its domain was registered in 2024—months before Garantex’s shutdown—suggesting premeditation. On-chain data shows funds moving between wallets associated with both platforms, with A7A5 used to obscure transaction trails. Additionally, Grinex operates under Kyrgyz jurisdiction, exploiting regulatory arbitrage to evade U.S. enforcement.

Operational and Enforcement Challenges

Grinex’s rapid deployment underscores broader challenges in crypto regulation. The rebranding tactic allows sanctioned entities to maintain operations while complicating tracking efforts. Analysts note that decentralized platforms and stablecoins enable such evasion by masking ownership and fund flows. Despite OFAC sanctions, jurisdictional limitations hinder direct action against Grinex, which now processes over $30 million in transactions, per Global Ledger reports.

Relevance to Security Professionals

For threat intelligence teams, Grinex’s case highlights the need for real-time blockchain monitoring and cross-border collaboration to detect rebranding attempts. Indicators such as wallet overlaps, UI similarities, and sudden liquidity shifts can help identify such operations. Compliance teams should scrutinize transactions involving lesser-known stablecoins like A7A5, which may serve as vehicles for sanctions evasion.

Conclusion

The emergence of Grinex illustrates the adaptability of illicit crypto networks in response to sanctions. While regulatory actions disrupt operations temporarily, gaps in enforcement persist. Strengthening international coordination and advancing blockchain analytics tools are critical to mitigating these risks. Future measures may need to target not only platforms but also stablecoin issuers and hosting providers facilitating such rebrands.