- Major banking groups warn new stablecoin rules may weaken AML and sanctions oversight.
- FinCEN itself says most illicit stablecoin activity occurs in secondary markets.
- Many US crypto exchanges operate as money transmitters without formal ID rules.
Two major banking trade groups are warning that new stablecoin rules could leave real gaps in how money laundering and sanctions risks get policed, right as multiple federal agencies race through overlapping rulemaking deadlines.
What the Bank Groups Are Saying
The Bank Policy Institute and The Clearing House Association filed a comment letter on August 4 responding to the FDIC’s proposed Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and sanctions compliance rule for stablecoin issuers. They broadly support the FDIC’s approach, including requirements that issuers meet the same customer ID and sanctions standards already set by FinCEN and the Treasury.
Their real concern is where the rules stop short:
- FinCEN itself says most illicit stablecoin activity occurs in secondary markets, meaning trading and transfers after a coin is first issued.
- Current rules mostly govern issuers, not the exchanges, custodians, and platforms where that trading actually happens.
- Many US crypto exchanges operate as money transmitters without formal ID rules, a gap that sits awkwardly next to the strict verification banks must follow.
Are They Right?
Yes. This isn’t speculation; it’s pulled straight from FinCEN’s own filings, which openly acknowledge that most illicit stablecoin activity happens after issuance while the rules mainly target issuers. Whether it becomes a real problem depends on whether regulators actually tighten secondary market rules later, which is exactly what the bank groups are asking for.
Why Now?
The filing comes while multiple stablecoin-related rules remain open for public comment, giving industry groups a limited opportunity to influence the final framework.
- FinCEN, OFAC, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve have all issued related proposals within months of each other in 2026.
- Several rules carry standard 60-day comment windows that overlap.
- Bank groups say GENIUS Act comment periods have been too short and overlapping, making it harder to spot inconsistencies before rules get finalized.
The banking groups are not opposing the new stablecoin framework. Instead, they argue that extending anti-money laundering and sanctions oversight beyond issuers to the broader crypto ecosystem will be essential if the final rules are to address the risks regulators themselves have identified.
Related: Will the GENIUS Act Split the Stablecoin Market?
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
