Justin Sun is once again at the centre of controversy, as fresh allegations of market manipulation tied to TRX’s early trading years circulate widely across the crypto industry.
The claims come from a woman identifying herself as Sun’s former partner, who says she holds direct evidence of coordinated trading activity involving Binance accounts and internal staff.
While the accusations remain unverified, they closely resemble long standing allegations already raised by US regulators.
This situation reopens unresolved questions about early crypto market practices, regulatory consistency, and whether past behaviour continues to shape trust in today’s ecosystem.
Allegations Around TRX Trading and Coordinated Accounts
The latest claims focus on alleged actions taken during the 2017 to 2018 market cycle, a period marked by thin liquidity, rapid speculation, and limited regulatory oversight.
According to statements made publicly, Justin Sun, the founder of TRON, allegedly instructed employees to open multiple accounts on Binance using their personal identification and mobile numbers.
These accounts were then allegedly used in coordinated trading patterns designed to inflate the price and perceived demand for TRX.
The accuser claims that aggressive buy orders were placed in a synchronised manner, creating artificial upward pressure on price and market capitalisation. Once momentum was established and retail interest increased, large quantities of TRX were allegedly sold into the market.
This practice, if proven, would fall under classic market manipulation tactics that were common in loosely regulated markets at the time.
What gives these claims additional weight is their similarity to earlier allegations made by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2023, the SEC accused Justin Sun and related entities of engaging in wash trading and artificial volume creation.
The regulator alleged that hundreds of thousands of trades were executed between accounts under common control, creating the appearance of active markets without genuine changes in ownership.
While the new claims introduce personal details and alleged internal mechanics, the underlying behaviour being described is broadly consistent with what regulators have already outlined in formal complaints.
At the same time, it is important to note that no independent verification of the newly mentioned materials has been made public. References to WeChat messages, internal records, and employee testimony remain claims rather than established facts.
Allegations involving former partners also require careful handling, as personal disputes can colour narratives. From an analytical standpoint, the value of these claims lies less in who made them and more in how closely they align with existing regulatory findings and unresolved cases.
Regulation, Politics, and the Unfinished Legal Story
The broader context surrounding Justin Sun complicates the picture further. The SEC lawsuit filed in 2023 was not dismissed, but paused in early 2025 following a joint request from the regulator and Sun’s legal team.
A federal judge approved the stay, effectively freezing proceedings without resolving the underlying allegations.
This pause came at a politically sensitive moment, shortly after a change in US administration and amid reports of Sun’s financial involvement in crypto ventures linked to Donald Trump.
In early 2026, several US lawmakers publicly questioned the decision to halt enforcement actions, raising concerns about whether political influence had affected regulatory priorities. They pointed not only to Sun’s case, but also to paused or softened actions involving other major crypto firms.
While no formal finding of impropriety has been made, the optics have kept the issue alive and have drawn renewed attention to Sun’s legal exposure.
Beyond the SEC, reports indicate that the US Department of Justice has maintained a parallel investigation into Sun for several years.
Details remain scarce, but the existence of multiple lines of inquiry suggests that regulatory risk has not disappeared, even in the absence of active courtroom proceedings.
The resurfacing of detailed allegations, regardless of their source, adds pressure to a situation that was already unresolved.
From an industry perspective, this episode highlights a broader issue rather than a single individual.
Many early crypto projects emerged in an environment where market structure was immature, disclosure standards were weak, and enforcement was inconsistent. Practices that were tolerated or ignored during that period are now being reexamined through a much stricter regulatory lens.
The challenge for regulators is to apply standards consistently, while the challenge for the industry is to acknowledge past shortcomings without undermining present progress.
Conclusion
The allegations surrounding Justin Sun and early TRX trading are serious, but they remain allegations. What makes them notable is not just their detail, but their alignment with unresolved regulatory claims that have been on record for years.
The paused SEC case, political scrutiny, and reports of parallel investigations all suggest that this is not a closed chapter. At the same time, due process matters.
Evidence must be tested, claims verified, and conclusions reached through formal mechanisms rather than public discourse alone. Until that happens, the situation stands as a reminder of how crypto’s formative years continue to cast long shadows over its present and future.