David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto czar, said the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) will enter the US Senate markup stage in January, marking a critical step toward final passage.

Sacks said Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman have confirmed the timeline, setting the stage for formal review and amendments before a full Senate vote.

We had a great call today with Chairmen @SenatorTimScott and @JohnBoozman who confirmed that a markup for Clarity is coming in January. Thanks to their leadership, as well as @RepFrenchHill and @CongressmanGT in the House, we are closer than ever to passing the landmark crypto…

— David Sacks (@davidsacks47) December 18, 2025

What Happens in January

The update signals growing momentum behind the bill after the House advanced it earlier in 2025. 

If the Senate process stays on schedule, lawmakers could finalize a reconciled version later in the year. This will position the CLARITY Act as the central market-structure law for US crypto markets.

During markup, Senate committees will review the House-passed text line by line. Lawmakers will propose amendments, debate policy trade-offs, and vote on changes before sending a revised bill to the Senate floor. 

The process will involve both the Banking Committee, which oversees securities regulation, and the Agriculture Committee, which supervises the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

🚨 The $CLARITY Act — the U.S. $crypto market structure bill — has been delayed until 2026 as Senate action stalls. This means federal regulatory clarity for digital #assets won’t happen this year, keeping the industry in limbo 📉

No law = more uncertainty
More delay = more… pic.twitter.com/gpuUTMQGUU

— COACHTY (@TheRealTRTalks) December 18, 2025

The goal is to resolve long-standing jurisdictional disputes between the SEC and the CFTC and to strengthen guardrails for spot crypto markets. 

Committee leaders have indicated they want a bill that can attract bipartisan support and avoid reopening enforcement-heavy approaches.

Likely Amendment Focus for the CLARITY Act

Amendments are expected to concentrate on three areas. 

First, asset classification, including tighter criteria for determining when a token qualifies as a digital commodity versus a security. 

Also, investor and consumer protections, such as disclosures, custody standards, and conflict-of-interest rules for exchanges and brokers. 

Lastly, implementation timelines, including how quickly platforms must register and how agencies coordinate supervision during the transition.

Senators may also refine preemption language to limit overlapping state rules without weakening state enforcement authority.

After years of talk, the CLARITY Act now has a real path forward.

The White House and key Senators have finally agreed to move the bill, and they’ve put an actual date on it.

January 2026 is when the Senate plans to formally debate it, amend it, and try to push it toward… https://t.co/Uq9BIOQGLx pic.twitter.com/251ij1zE5i

— Milk Road (@MilkRoad) December 18, 2025

How will the CLARITY Act Change US Crypto Markets in 2026?

If enacted, the CLARITY Act would reshape the US crypto market in 2026. It would place spot digital commodity markets under CFTC oversight, end years of regulatory ambiguity, and create a federal registration regime for exchanges, brokers, and dealers. 

For the industry, this would reduce legal uncertainty, support institutional participation, and shift compliance from courtroom battles to rule-based supervision.

For regulators, the law would replace fragmented enforcement with clearer mandates. 

Most importantly, for the market, it would mark the United States’ first comprehensive framework for crypto trading. This would potentially restore competitiveness with jurisdictions that already offer regulatory clarity.

The post US Crypto CLARITY Act Set for Senate Markup in January appeared first on BeInCrypto.

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has outlined its priorities for 2026, signaling a strong push to support growth, innovation, and technological adoption in the financial sector. In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the FCA emphasized plans to finalize rules for digital assets, advance UK-issued stablecoins, and strengthen the country’s digital finance infrastructure.

The letter details the regulator’s pro-growth agenda, including initiatives to:

• Oversee digital asset markets and provide clear guidance for crypto firms.
• Enable asset managers to tokenize funds and adopt faster, more efficient payment systems.
• Streamline authorizations for new and scaling firms, improving access to capital and supporting competition in payments and investment markets.

“This endorsement of stablecoins and digital finance infrastructure reflects a broader transition toward a more accessible, real-time, and interoperable financial system,” said Will Beeson, co-founder of UK challenger bank Allica and former head of Standard Chartered’s digital asset platform. “Clear regulatory guidance will help UK firms compete globally and support real-world crypto use cases, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.”

The FCA’s 2026 plans also include overseeing the launch of variable recurring payments, supporting SME lending through open finance, and advancing the tokenization of funds. These measures are part of a wider strategy to maintain the UK’s position as a leading financial hub while keeping pace with rapid technological change.

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves and Treasury officials have welcomed the FCA’s approach, which aims to provide clarity for firms while fostering innovation and maintaining market integrity.

Building on the FCA’s 2026 initiatives, the UK government is preparing to bring all cryptocurrency firms under the existing financial regulatory framework from October 2027, with legislation expected to be introduced in Parliament shortly.

According to Reuters, the bill will largely follow draft legislation published in April, which outlines rules covering crypto exchanges, custody providers, and stablecoin issuers. A Treasury spokesperson confirmed that the legislation is intended to extend the UK’s current financial services rules to the crypto sector, rather than creating an entirely new regulatory regime.

If passed, the legislation would represent a major milestone for the UK’s digital asset industry, providing long-awaited regulatory clarity for both domestic and international firms.

---

UK Aligns With US-Style Regulatory Approach

By integrating crypto firms into its existing financial services framework, the UK is adopting an approach similar to the United States. This diverges from the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime, which was designed specifically for the crypto industry and came into force earlier this year.

Under the proposed framework, crypto businesses will need to comply with standards already applied to traditional financial institutions, including governance, consumer protection, and market integrity rules.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves emphasized that the legislation aims to provide “clear rules of the road” for the industry while keeping “dodgy actors” out of the market.

Industry insiders have welcomed the clarity provided by both the FCA’s 2026 priorities and the upcoming 2027 legislation. However, experts warn that over-regulation could push innovative firms to other markets.

“These measures are positive steps to strengthen the UK’s position in global digital finance,” said Will Beeson. “But regulators must balance oversight with flexibility to avoid deterring growth in a fast-evolving market. Proportionality and pace will be key to ensuring firms can adapt without being forced into an ‘overnight upgrade.’”

The post How the UK Could Make Stablecoins a Core Part of Payments in 2026 appeared first on BeInCrypto.

President Donald Trump said he would consider pardoning Keonne Rodriguez, the CEO of privacy-focused Bitcoin wallet Samourai, who was sentenced to five years in federal prison last month for money laundering charges.

The statement reignited debate over the privacy technology of cryptocurrencies. It also raised questions about whether other convicted developers, including Tornado Cash’s Roman Storm, might receive similar presidential clemency.

Calls for More Pardons Meet Market Frustration

During a press briefing on Dec. 15, a reporter asked Trump about Rodriguez’s case, noting it began under the Biden administration but continued under his Department of Justice. Trump responded, “I’ve heard about it. I’ll look at it.” The President added that he would review the matter after the reporter mentioned widespread support for clemency within the crypto community.

Rodriguez, 37, and co-founder William Lonergan Hill, 67, were convicted of operating a cryptocurrency mixing service. The prosecutors say the two facilitated the laundering of over $237 million in criminal proceeds. Rodriguez received five years, while Hill received four years, with both ordered to pay $250,000 in fines.

The announcement drew varied responses. Some supporters expressed hope that the decision would provide momentum for crypto-friendly policies. One X user even called for extending clemency to Do Kwon, the embattled founder of the collapsed Terra/Luna ecosystem.

However, critics pointed to broader market performance under Trump’s presidency. Since he took office, there have been significant declines across major cryptocurrencies, with some tokens down more than 70%.

Prosecution’s Case Against “Simple Developer” Narrative

The Department of Justice presented evidence that challenges the portrayal of Rodriguez and Hill as mere privacy tool developers. According to the Nov. 19 sentencing announcement, prosecutors demonstrated that the founders actively promoted their services to criminal users.

Hill allegedly marketed Samourai on Dread, a darknet forum, directly responding to a user seeking “secure methods to clean dirty BTC” by recommending Whirlpool as a superior option. Rodriguez reportedly encouraged Twitter hackers in 2020 to funnel stolen proceeds through the mixing service. He even expressed disappointment when they chose a competitor.

Most damaging was Rodriguez’s own description of mixing as “money laundering for bitcoin” in WhatsApp messages. At the same time, the company’s marketing materials acknowledged targeting “Dark/Grey Market participants” moving proceeds from “illicit activity.”

Prosecutors said criminal funds processed through Samourai originated from drug trafficking, darknet marketplaces, cyber intrusions, fraud, sanctioned jurisdictions, murder-for-hire schemes, and a child pornography website.

Broader Implications

The case has reignited debate over developer liability for user actions on decentralized platforms. Privacy advocates argue that the prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for open-source software development, while law enforcement maintains that actively promoting criminal use crosses legal boundaries.

Online discussions have expanded to question whether Roman Storm, the Tornado Cash developer convicted on similar charges in August, might also be considered for clemency. Storm was found guilty of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. The jury deadlocked on more serious money laundering and sanctions violation charges.

Congress continues to debate cryptocurrency regulation. The lawmakers are introducing multiple bills to clarify the legal status of privacy-enhancing technologies, though none have passed into law.

Trump has previously pardoned several crypto figures, including former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao and Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, establishing a pattern that fuels speculation about future clemency decisions in the sector.

The post Trump Hints at Samourai Wallet Pardon — Another After CZ, Ulbricht appeared first on BeInCrypto.

In response to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent investor bulletin on crypto custody, BitGo CEO Mike Belshe has positioned his firm as the only provider offering all the custody options described by the SEC.

It comes only days after BitGo secured regulatory approval to operate as a bank, effectively expanding its institutional services.

BitGo Claims It Can Do What No Other Crypto Custodian Can

In a post on X (Twitter), Belshe emphasized that the BitGo exchange enables institutions to combine self-custody and third-party custody into a single hybrid strategy, creating custom risk profiles that no other provider can replicate.

“BitGo stands alone as the only provider delivering an institutional-grade platform for every option described by the SEC,” Belshe wrote. “Our clients no longer have to choose between security and control—they can have both.”

The SEC bulletin, released on December 12, 2025, outlined the basics of crypto custody for retail investors, defining two primary models:

• Self-custody, where investors hold their private keys, and
• Third-party custody, where a qualified custodian manages assets.

While most providers require clients to pick one model, BitGo allows institutions to utilize both simultaneously.

Under BitGo’s framework, 90% of client assets can be stored in BitGo Trust cold storage, meeting standards of regulatory compliance, insurance, and security.

The remaining 10% can reside in self-custody hot wallets, enabling real-time transactions and operational flexibility.

This hybrid approach mitigates single points of failure. If self-custody keys are lost, assets in the trust remain safe, while traditional exchanges would risk freezing all funds in the event of insolvency.

BitGo Bank & Trust, NA, a federally chartered national bank, underpins the platform’s third-party custody solution. Subject to regular SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 audits, the bank supports more than 1,400 coins and tokens under segregated accounts, backed by a $250 million insurance policy from Lloyd’s of London syndicates.

Curious about crypto wallets and how to store and access crypto assets? Check out our Crypto Asset Custody Basics Investor Bulletin.https://t.co/x4HMYMHLAe pic.twitter.com/bSbP25nzOc

— U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (@SECGov) December 13, 2025

According to Belshe, BitGo does not rehypothecate, lend, or commingle client assets, maintaining strict 1:1 custody standards.

For self-custody, BitGo provides wallets with 2-of-3 Multi-Sig or MPC threshold security. Clients retain two keys while BitGo holds one for co-signing, enabling policy controls without compromising autonomy.

Together with the third-party trust, these options are consolidated on a single dashboard, providing clients with full transparency, flexibility, and control across various custody models.

BitGo Aligns with SEC Questions While Offering Full Custody Flexibility

BitGo also addresses the seven questions the SEC recommends investors ask when selecting a custodian. These include:

• Background verification
• Asset coverage
• Storage protocols
• Use of assets
• Privacy protections, and
• Fee structures.

By answering these questions, BitGo demonstrates that institutions can manage their crypto assets securely, compliantly, and efficiently.

As regulators increasingly scrutinize crypto custody, BitGo’s model sets a new industry benchmark: one that combines compliance, operational control, and insurance coverage on a unified platform.

Belshe’s assertion highlights the growing demand from institutions seeking both the security of qualified custody and the autonomy of self-custody. Such a combination was previously unavailable in a single interface.

The assertions come only days after BitGo received a conditional approval to become a national trust bank. Others include Ripple, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos.

We're pleased to announce that BitGo has met the conditions for full approval and is now a federally chartered bank for digital assets.

Hear more from BitGo CEO @mikebelshe on Bloomberg News 👇 pic.twitter.com/jf4f9MzPAK

— BitGo (@BitGo) December 12, 2025

In a sector where asset security and regulatory compliance often conflict, BitGo’s hybrid model may represent the next evolution of institutional crypto custody.

The post Mike Belshe Claims BitGo Outsmarts the SEC’s Custody Rules appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Terraform Labs co-founder Do Kwon was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison on Thursday for orchestrating a $40 billion cryptocurrency fraud—a sentence notably lighter than the 25 years handed to FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) last year, despite Kwon’s fraud causing nearly four times the financial damage.

The sentencing disparity highlights how courtroom behavior, remorse, and cooperation with authorities can dramatically influence outcomes in high-profile white-collar cases.

The Verdicts

US District Judge Paul Engelmayer, presiding over Kwon’s case in the Southern District of New York, described the Terra-Luna collapse as “a fraud on an epic, generational scale.” He rejected both the prosecution’s recommendation of 12 years as “unreasonably lenient” and the defense’s request for five years as “utterly unthinkable and wildly unreasonable.”

“Your offense caused real people to lose $40 billion in real money, not some paper loss,” Engelmayer told Kwon, noting there may have been as many as one million victims worldwide.

By contrast, Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced SBF to 25 years in March 2024 for an $11 billion fraud, citing the defendant’s “exceptional flexibility with the truth” and “apparent lack of any real remorse.”

Why the Difference?

Guilty Plea vs. Trial

Kwon pleaded guilty in August 2025 to conspiracy and wire fraud charges, accepting responsibility for misleading investors about TerraUSD’s stability mechanisms. In a letter to the court, he wrote: “I alone am responsible for everyone’s pain. The community looked to me to know the path, and I, in my hubris, led them astray.”

SBF, on the other hand, went to trial and maintained his innocence throughout. He argued that FTX was merely experiencing a “liquidity crisis” rather than outright fraud. The jury took just four hours to convict him on all seven counts.

Courtroom Conduct

Judge Kaplan found that SBF committed perjury at least three times during his testimony. Kaplan called SBF’s performance on the stand the most “evasive” he had witnessed in nearly 30 years on the bench. “When he wasn’t outright lying, he was often evasive, hairsplitting, dodging questions,” Kaplan said.

The judge also found that SBF had attempted to tamper with witnesses before trial. He sent messages to former FTX general counsel Ryne Miller suggesting they “vet things with each other.”

Kwon, by contrast, listened to victim impact statements—315 letters submitted to the court—and apologized directly. “Hearing from victims was harrowing and reminded me again of the great losses that I have caused,” he told Judge Engelmayer.

Future Legal Exposure

A critical factor in Kwon’s sentencing was his pending prosecution in South Korea. He faces charges that could result in up to 40 additional years in prison. Judge Engelmayer explicitly considered this when crafting the sentence. Kwon will likely be extradited to face trial in his home country after serving his US term.

SBF faces no comparable foreign legal jeopardy, making his 25-year US sentence his primary punishment. However, he is actively fighting to overturn his conviction. In November 2025, SBF’s legal team filed an appeal, arguing that he was “presumed guilty” before his trial even began. His attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, claims the court blocked key evidence proving FTX’s solvency and allowed biased treatment throughout the proceedings. The Second Circuit is expected to take several months to issue a ruling.

	Do Kwon	Sam Bankman-Fried
Sentence	15 years	25 years
Estimated Loss	$40 billion	$11 billion
Plea	Guilty plea	Trial conviction
Remorse	Apologized to victims	No remorse shown
Perjury	None	3 counts found
Witness Tampering	None	Yes
Additional Charges	Up to 40 years in South Korea	None

The Bigger Picture

Both cases represent landmark moments in cryptocurrency enforcement. Prosecutors noted that Kwon’s losses exceeded those caused by SBF, OneCoin co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood, and former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky combined.

The sentencing outcomes send a clear message to the crypto industry: cooperation and genuine remorse can meaningfully reduce prison time.

Kwon has agreed to forfeit $19.3 million as part of his plea deal. He was also ordered to pay an $80 million fine and to receive a lifetime ban on cryptocurrency transactions as part of his 2024 SEC settlement.

His request to serve his sentence in South Korea was denied.

The post Do Kwon Gets 15 Years, 10 Less Than SBF—Here’s Why appeared first on BeInCrypto.

With 2026 on the horizon, uncertainty is mounting over whether the crypto market structure bill will sail through early in the year or become mired in a political fight that pushes its passage further down the calendar.

Key unresolved issues continue to slow momentum, including how the bill should address stablecoin yield, conflict-of-interest language, and the treatment of decentralized finance under federal law.

Path to Senate Vote Uncertain

The CLARITY Act cleared the House in July with broad bipartisan support, marking the strongest move yet toward a federal digital asset framework.

The bill now awaits action in the Senate, where the Banking and Agriculture committees are advancing parallel versions of a market-structure framework. The Senate’s split jurisdiction adds complexity, with the Banking Committee overseeing securities, while the Agriculture Committee handles commodities.

Both committees have now published discussion drafts, but a unified package has yet to emerge. Lawmakers still need to reconcile differences before either committee can send a combined bill to the Senate floor.

One major technical dispute involves how the legislation should treat yield-bearing stablecoins.

Banks Push Broader Yield Restrictions

The GENIUS Act, passed earlier this year, bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying holders any form of interest or yield. 

However, the restriction is narrowly written. It applies only to direct payments from payment-stablecoin issuers and does not explicitly cover reward programs, third-party yield, or other digital asset structures.

The banks demanded the exclusion for yield-bearing stablecoins in the GENIUS Act. Now they're upset that the language they asked for doesn't screw over stablecoin holders hard enough.

Sorry you guys did a bad job negotiating your regulatory moat. Try lobbying better next time! https://t.co/3BbjUxmZlm

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) August 13, 2025

Banking groups argue these gaps could allow workarounds and are urging lawmakers to expand the prohibition in upcoming market structure legislation. They want a broader rule that covers all forms of yield associated with stablecoins. 

Several senators appear open to that approach, giving the issue significant weight in negotiations. Any expansion would influence how stablecoins compete with traditional bank deposits, which remains a central concern for the banking lobby.

Meanwhile, lawmakers remain divided over how the broader framework should address potential conflicts of interest.

Concerns Over Political Influence Intensify

The involvement of US President Donald Trump and his family members in crypto-related projects has prompted renewed scrutiny of potential ethical concerns. 

Some lawmakers, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, argue that new conflict-of-interest language is necessary to ensure that political figures and their relatives are prohibited from engaging in activities that could raise questions about their influence over digital asset policy.

Such measures would help insulate the legislation from perceptions of political interference.

However, the proposed language does not appear in the House-passed CLARITY Act, nor was it included in earlier Senate drafts. Its absence has become a point of debate, and the disagreement is contributing to ongoing hesitation.

Meanwhile, questions remain regarding how the bill should address decentralized finance (DeFi).

DeFi Oversight Remains Unresolved

The market structure bill is designed for centralized intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and custodial platforms. Yet the rapid rise of DeFi introduces questions the Senate has not fully resolved.

First Ken Griffin screwed over Constitution DAO

Now he's coming for DeFi, asking the SEC to treat software developers of decentralized protocols like centralized intermediaries

Bet Citadel has been lobbying behind closed doors on this for years

Okay thats all pretty bad, but… pic.twitter.com/ExoNhbhadu

— Hayden Adams 🦄 (@haydenzadams) December 4, 2025

Current drafts primarily focus on custodial activity. However, some traditional financial institutions are advocating for broader definitions that would classify developers, validators, and other non-custodial actors as regulated intermediaries.

Such an approach would significantly expand federal oversight and reshape the legal environment for open-source development.

Until lawmakers define that boundary, the bill is unlikely to advance. The DeFi question remains one of the key factors shaping when the market structure bill may finally move forward in 2026.

The post What Does the Market Structure Bill ‘CLARITY Act’ Need to Pass in 2026? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

A lawsuit against Binance is testing the extent to which crypto platforms can be held liable for real-world harm. Filed by families of victims of the October 2023 attacks against Israel, it arrives amid continued backlash over the recent presidential pardon of founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ).

More than a new legal headache, the lawsuit is being watched as a potential blueprint for a shift from regulatory fines to high-stakes private liability tied to terrorism financing.

Terror Financing Claims Hit Binance

The case, brought by more than 70 families in a US federal court last week, accuses Binance of knowingly enabling transactions for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other US-designated terrorist groups.

The plaintiffs, mostly relatives of those killed or injured in the October 7 attacks, argue Binance was not merely exploited. They say the platform structurally enabled terrorist financing at scale.

“For years, Defendants knowingly, willfully, and systematically assisted Hamas… and other terrorist groups to transfer and conceal the equivalent of hundreds of millions of US dollars through the Binance platform in support of their terrorist activities. This assistance directly and materially contributed to the October 7 Attacks and to subsequent terrorist attacks,” read the complaint.

Earlier government investigations have focused on Binance’s anti-money laundering failures. However, this lawsuit reframes the narrative, arguing that CZ’s stewardship of the platform has systemically contributed to real-world violence. 

The lawsuit also arrives at a consequential moment for the company.

Last month, US President Donald Trump granted Binance founder CZ a pardon after Binance participated in a multibillion-dollar deal tied to a crypto venture linked to the Trump family. 

The move cleared CZ’s criminal record and could allow him to take on a more direct role at the company.

Just posted: the pardon that Trump issued to @cz_binance on Tuesday.

It wipes away CZ's conviction for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, which prosecutors said allowed Hamas, Al Qaeda & ISIS to move money using @binance. https://t.co/ptbRCzxhd3 pic.twitter.com/1B9tKnZG6P

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) October 25, 2025

The case also arises two years after Binance’s 2023 settlement with US authorities, which included a $4.3 billion penalty. The company admitted to violating the Bank Secrecy Act and US sanctions laws. CZ pleaded guilty, stepped down as CEO, and served a four-month prison sentence.

While CZ’s pardon suggested Binance was in the clear, the lawsuit shows neither he nor the company is insulated from civil liability.

Despite Criminal Leniency, Civil Claims Intensify

The families’ lawsuit builds on facts already established by US criminal enforcement, giving the plaintiffs a strong legal foundation.

Because Binance has already admitted to sweeping violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and US sanctions laws, the burden of proof is significantly lower. The families argue Binance embedded these flaws in its core operations, not in isolated compliance failures.

Rather than leaning on broad allegations, the complaint reportedly names specific wallets, laundering intermediaries, and transaction flows tied to designated terrorist groups. 

In its structure, the case closely mirrors the way federal prosecutors assemble complex criminal indictments. The difference is that this same evidentiary framework is now being deployed by private plaintiffs under US anti-terrorism statutes.

Those laws allow victims of terrorism to pursue civil damages against entities accused of providing material support, even indirectly. This legal pathway transforms Binance’s past regulatory violations into the foundation of a potentially massive civil liability case.

For years, crypto enforcement followed a cycle: regulators investigated, companies paid fines, executives stepped aside, and markets moved on. Civil litigation tied directly to terrorism financing breaks that rhythm. 

Unlike regulatory settlements, which cap financial exposure and close legal chapters, terror-related civil cases can involve multiplied damages and years of continuing risk.

A New Enforcement Class?

For the crypto industry, the implications extend far beyond one exchange or one courtroom. If the case survives early dismissal and proceeds to discovery, it could lead to new scrutiny of how centralized platforms monitor, flag, and freeze high-risk activity. 

More significantly, a win for the families could establish that private plaintiffs—not just regulators—now pose one of the most serious financial threats to crypto businesses. 

In that scenario, compliance failures would no longer result in fines alone. They would become long-tail liabilities that follow platforms for years to come.

The post Why the Latest Binance Lawsuit Is More Dangerous Than Any Regulator appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Washington state regulators have ordered CoinMe to halt all money-transfer activity after accusing the crypto ATM operator of treating more than $8 million in customer funds as its own revenue. 

The Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) issued an emergency cease-and-desist order on December 1, citing “unsafe and unsound practices.”

Regulator Flags Misuse of Customer Money

DFI said CoinMe failed to safeguard money that consumers paid for crypto vouchers. Instead, the company allegedly counted unclaimed or expired voucher balances as income.

According to the filing, customers bought vouchers at CoinMe kiosks but never redeemed them. Washington law requires companies to hold those funds as consumer property or turn them over as unclaimed assets.

However, DFI says CoinMe treated the balances as corporate revenue. The regulator argues this harmed consumers and distorted the company’s financial condition.

Because of these findings, DFI ordered CoinMe to stop all money-transfer and kiosk-related operations in the state. The company cannot accept new funds from Washington consumers under the order.

Officials also said they will seek restitution for affected customers. The agency signaled plans to revoke CoinMe’s state money-transmitter license.

The cease-and-desist order lists several other violations. These include failing to maintain required net worth, keeping inaccurate records, and submitting incorrect filings.

DFI also noted that some CoinMe vouchers displayed a support phone number that no longer worked. The regulator said this contributed to poor consumer protection.

A Significant Blow to a Major Cash-to-Crypto ATM Network

This action marks one of the most serious state enforcement moves against a US crypto ATM operator. CoinMe operates one of the largest cash-to-crypto networks in the country.

The case highlights growing scrutiny of crypto on-ramps that handle physical cash. Regulators expect these companies to follow the same standards as traditional money-transmitters.

CoinMe can contest the order, but Washington regulators appear prepared to escalate the case. If the state revokes the company’s license, CoinMe will lose the ability to operate any money-transfer service in Washington.

Meanwhile, DFI urged affected customers to prepare claims for potential refunds. The agency’s priority, it said, is protecting consumers who rely on licensed firms to securely handle their money.

The post Washington Shuts Down Crypto ATM that Claimed $8 Million in User Funds as Income appeared first on BeInCrypto.