COMPLaiNCE

LinkedIn Insights

Stay informed with our latest analysis on regulatory developments, compliance trends, and industry insights across crypto, fintech, and iGaming sectors.

COMPLIANCE

FinCEN's Data-Driven AML Offensive - When Analytics Become Enforcement

The era of reactive AML compliance is over. FinCEN just launched a sweeping data-driven operation that should make every financial institution rethink their approach to suspicious activity monitoring. Using advanced analytics across millions of Suspicious Activity Reports and Currency Transaction Reports, FinCEN is now proactively identifying money laundering patterns tied to cross-border activity. The result? Investigations, IRS referrals, and targeted compliance outreach based on what the data reveals, not what institutions voluntarily report. Here's the uncomfortable truth: if this approach yields enforcement actions, regulators won't just ask why you missed the red flags. They'll question whether your entire AML program is fit for purpose in an era where the government can see patterns you apparently cannot. This marks a fundamental shift in the regulatory playbook. Instead of waiting for SARs to arrive, FinCEN is mining the data it already has to find gaps in industry surveillance. If your transaction monitoring system isn't catching what their analytics can detect, you're not just non-compliant—you're provably behind the curve. The implications are stark. Financial institutions must move beyond checkbox compliance toward genuinely intelligent monitoring. That means investing in advanced analytics, machine learning capabilities, and cross-border transaction expertise that can match or exceed what regulators are now deploying. The question isn't whether your AML program meets minimum requirements. It's whether your surveillance can withstand comparison to what FinCEN's data scientists are finding in the same transaction flows. Welcome to enforcement by analytics. The bar just moved, and it moved significantly. 🔗 Source: https://www.finscan.com/post/regulatory-roundup-february-2026-tighter-enforcement-delayed-rules-and-new-risks-across-aml

Source

Read original article

February 13, 2026

COMPLIANCE

FINRA Fines Osaic $650K - A Reminder That AML Program Design Still Matters

On the surface, a $650,000 FINRA fine might not seem like headline news. But the enforcement action against Osaic Institutions reveals something more fundamental: regulators are still finding firms whose AML programs fail the most basic test of reasonable design. FINRA's findings were damning. Osaic's AML program was not reasonably designed to detect and report suspicious activity. The firm failed to conduct risk-based ongoing customer due diligence. Surveillance was inconsistent. Red flags were reviewed inadequately. This isn't about cutting-edge financial crime or sophisticated evasion tactics. It's about foundational compliance failures—the kind that suggest an AML program exists on paper but not in practice. The penalty underscores a critical point often lost in discussions about AI-powered transaction monitoring and advanced analytics: before you optimize your AML program, you need one that actually works. That means effective policies and procedures, consistent customer due diligence, robust monitoring, proper reporting, regular training, and a designated AML officer with real authority. For firms subject to 31 CFR Chapter X, this case is a reminder that regulatory expectations haven't softened just because the industry has moved on to more complex challenges. The basics still matter, and regulators are still checking whether you've got them right. In an environment where FinCEN is deploying advanced analytics to find patterns across millions of SARs, having an AML program that can't even consistently flag red flags at the firm level is indefensible. The lesson from Osaic isn't about what went wrong at one firm. It's about what regulators expect from every firm: an AML program that is genuinely designed to work, not just designed to exist. 🔗 Source: https://www.finscan.com/post/regulatory-roundup-february-2026-tighter-enforcement-delayed-rules-and-new-risks-across-aml

Source

Read original article

February 13, 2026

COMPLIANCE

India's FIU Rewrites Crypto Compliance - Privacy Takes a Backseat to Enforcement

On January 8, 2026, India's Financial Intelligence Unit issued revised guidelines for crypto platforms that fundamentally reshape what compliance means in one of the world's largest retail crypto markets. The new requirements read like a surveillance wish list. Platforms must now deploy selfie verification with liveness detection, requiring users to perform random actions like blinking or head movements to prove physical presence. They must capture latitude and longitude data, IP addresses, and device identifiers at onboarding, allowing regulators to cross-check whether a user's location matches their declared address. Transactions involving mixers or tumblers? Prohibited outright. Initial Coin Offerings and Initial Token Offerings? Strongly discouraged. Unhosted wallet transfers? Treated as inherently high-risk, with platforms expected to obtain sender and receiver information or restrict such transactions entirely. The message is clear: crypto activity without transparency is unacceptable under Indian AML law. The FIU has backed this up with enforcement muscle. In FY 2024-25 alone, penalties totaling nearly Rs. 28 crore were imposed. Binance was fined Rs. 18.82 crore, KuCoin Rs. 34.5 lakh. Offshore platforms that refuse to register have been blocked entirely through Ministry of Electronics takedown orders. The guidelines also mandate that the Principal Officer be a full-time, India-based AML professional with deep expertise in crypto-specific money laundering typologies. This isn't a box-ticking role anymore—it's a senior compliance function with real accountability. For global crypto platforms, India presents a stark choice: invest heavily in AML infrastructure tailored to Indian requirements, or exit the market. There's no middle ground. The regulatory perimeter is tightening, and the cost of entry is rising sharply. India is betting that tighter controls will reduce illicit finance without killing innovation. Whether that balance holds will determine if other jurisdictions follow this model. 🔗 Source: https://www.mondaq.com/india/fintech/1744166/fintales-february-2026-crypto-clampdown-and-privacy-push

Source

Read original article

February 13, 2026

REGULATION

SEC Chair Atkins Puts Numbers Behind the IPO Crisis - And Crypto Gets a Bridge

On February 11, 2026, SEC Chair Paul Atkins delivered testimony to the House Financial Services Committee that should concern anyone tracking US capital markets. He didn't just talk about regulatory burden—he quantified it with precision that demands attention. The cost of being a public company in the US: $2.7 billion annually just to file reports. The result? A 40% collapse in listed companies since the mid-1990s, from over 7,800 when Atkins first left the SEC to just 4,761 as of September 2025. Atkins is now ordering a comprehensive review of the Consolidated Audit Trail, the market surveillance system whose 2025 budget hit $249 million in operating costs before the SEC cut $92 million. The original 2016 estimate? Around $55 million per year. The cost creep speaks for itself. But here's where it gets interesting for crypto. Atkins backed the CLARITY Act and announced that the SEC and CFTC will use their joint Project Crypto as a regulatory bridge while Congress works through legislation. The focus? Token taxonomy and exemptions for on-chain transactions. This matters because it signals a shift from enforcement-first to framework-first. Instead of regulating crypto through Wells notices and litigation, the SEC is acknowledging that digital assets need purpose-built rules, not retrofitted securities law. For fintechs planning IPOs, expect tighter scrutiny around what truly counts as material disclosure. For crypto firms, expect token classification and on-chain compliance to become the first trust test before any regulatory clarity arrives. The SEC is simultaneously trying to lower the cost of going public while building a taxonomy for tokens. Whether it can deliver on both fronts will define US capital markets for the next decade. 🔗 Source: https://ncfacanada.org/atkins-testimony-targets-ipo-burden-and-crypto-rules/

Source

Read original article

February 13, 2026

REGULATION

FCA Takes HTX to Court - First Crypto Marketing Enforcement Sends Clear Signal

The UK Financial Conduct Authority just fired a warning shot heard across the global crypto industry. On February 10, 2026, the FCA launched legal proceedings against HTX (formerly Huobi), marking the first enforcement action against a crypto firm for illegal marketing to UK customers. This isn't about operational failures or security breaches. It's about promotion. HTX continued publishing financial promotions on its website and social media despite previous warnings, in direct breach of the crypto promotion rules that took effect in October 2023. The FCA's response reveals how seriously UK regulators are taking marketing compliance. They've requested social media companies block HTX's accounts for UK-based consumers and issued a stark public warning: customers dealing with HTX won't have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and are unlikely to recover funds if the platform fails. While HTX has taken steps to restrict new UK registrations, existing customers can still access unlawful promotions, and the FCA has noted these measures may not be permanent. The regulator clearly views half-measures as insufficient. For crypto platforms eyeing the UK market, the lesson is unambiguous. Marketing compliance isn't a soft requirement you can address later. It's a hard gate that, if breached, triggers public enforcement, reputational damage, and potential market exclusion. The FCA has shown it will use every tool available, from social media takedowns to court proceedings, to enforce its crypto promotion framework. This case establishes a clear precedent: access to UK retail investors is conditional on full compliance with financial promotion rules, and warnings will eventually give way to action. The crypto industry has been put on notice. Marketing violations will be prosecuted, not just cautioned. 🔗 Source: https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2026/02/fsr-financial-services-matters---february-2026

Source

Read original article

February 13, 2026

REGULATION

SEC-CFTC Joint Event Today - The Crypto Harmonization We've Been Waiting For?

Today at 2:00 PM ET, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins and CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig will hold a joint event titled "SEC – CFTC Harmonization: U.S. Financial Leadership in the Crypto Era." This may be the clearest indication yet of how the two agencies plan to coordinate oversight of digital assets. **Why this matters:** For years, market participants have been caught in a regulatory no-man's land, forced to navigate unclear boundaries between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. The agencies' joint statement acknowledges this problem directly: "For too long, market participants have been forced to navigate regulatory boundaries that are unclear in application and misaligned in design." **The timing is significant:** This event comes as the GENIUS Act has passed and the Clarity Bill is progressing through the Senate. President Trump has promised to make the United States "the crypto capital of the world," and regulatory harmonization between the SEC and CFTC is essential to delivering on that promise. **What to watch for:** The event includes opening remarks from both chairmen followed by a fireside chat moderated by Eleanor Terrett. Key questions include: How will the agencies divide responsibility for crypto oversight? Will there be a clear test for determining whether a digital asset is a security or commodity? What happens to existing enforcement actions and no-action letters? **The broader context:** This joint event represents a dramatic shift from the adversarial relationship between the SEC and CFTC during the previous administration. Under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the SEC took an aggressive enforcement-first approach to crypto regulation, often clashing with the CFTC's more collaborative stance. **What's at stake:** The United States is in a global race for crypto leadership. The EU has implemented MiCAR, the UK is finalizing its crypto framework, and jurisdictions from Singapore to Dubai are competing to attract digital asset firms. Without regulatory clarity and coordination, the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge. For compliance professionals, today's event is required viewing. The path forward for U.S. crypto regulation may finally be coming into focus. 🔗 Source: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-14-sec-cftc-reschedule-joint-event-harmonization-us-financial-leadership-crypto-era

Source

Read original article

January 29, 2026

REGULATION

UK Sets Crypto Framework Go-Live Date - October 25, 2027

The countdown has officially begun. The United Kingdom just set October 25, 2027, as the go-live date for its comprehensive crypto regulatory framework, giving firms less than two years to prepare for one of the most significant expansions of financial services regulation in recent history. On December 15, 2025, HM Treasury published the final text of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025, which will bring currently unregulated cryptoasset and stablecoin activities within the scope of the UK financial services regime. The legislation has now been laid before Parliament, with parliamentary approval expected in 2026. **What's being regulated:** The new regime introduces six new regulated activities: (1) issuing qualifying stablecoin, (2) safeguarding of qualifying cryptoassets, (3) operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform, (4) dealing in qualifying cryptoassets as principal or agent, (5) arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets, and (6) making arrangements for qualifying cryptoasset staking. **Extraterritorial reach:** Firms offering cryptoasset or stablecoin-related services to UK customers will generally be caught by the new rules even if they operate from overseas. A tailored licensing regime for stablecoin issuance will only be available to UK-established firms, but activities involving offshore-issued stablecoins will still require licensing under other categories. **Market abuse regime:** A crypto-specific market abuse regime will apply to relevant qualifying cryptoassets admitted or seeking admission to trading, mirroring familiar concepts: inside information, insider dealing, unlawful disclosure, and market manipulation. **The FCA's next moves:** On December 16, 2025, the FCA published three consultation papers on regulating cryptoasset activities, admissions and disclosures and market abuse, and a prudential regime for cryptoasset firms. Consultations close February 12, 2026, with final rules expected later in 2026. **Transitional relief:** Firms that apply to the FCA for a license ahead of the regime's start date can continue providing services in the UK while their applications are being considered. **Why this matters globally:** The UK is positioning itself as a leader in crypto regulation, and this framework will likely influence regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions. For firms operating internationally, understanding the UK regime is essential—even if you're not based there, you may need a license to serve UK customers. The clock is ticking. October 25, 2027, may seem far away, but building a compliant crypto business takes time. Firms should start planning now. 🔗 Source: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/financial-services-horizon-report-2026/fintech-and-digital-assets

Source

Read original article

January 29, 2026

COMPLIANCE

FinCEN's Real Estate Reporting Rule - The $0 Transaction That Could Cost You $250,000

Starting March 1, 2026, a new federal reporting requirement will transform how residential real estate transactions are documented in the United States—and the penalties for noncompliance are severe. FinCEN's Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule requires certain professionals involved in closings and settlements to file a "Real Estate Report" for any "reportable transfer"—defined as a non-financed transfer to an entity or trust of an ownership interest in residential real property. **Here's what catches people off guard:** Even a $0 transfer, such as a quitclaim deed conveying property to an LLC for no consideration, triggers the reporting obligation. Transfers financed only by private lenders or seller-financing (like installment contracts) are treated as "non-financed" and may require reporting. **Who must report?** The rule establishes a seven-tier "cascade" of potential reporting persons based on their role in the transaction, starting with the closing or settlement agent and extending to those who prepare deeds, disburse funds, or provide title services. Filing responsibility falls to the first person involved in the transfer, though parties can enter into a designation agreement to assign responsibility. **The compliance timeline:** Reports must be filed on FinCEN's online portal by the later of (1) the final day of the month following the month when the closing occurred, or (2) 30 calendar days after the date of closing. **The stakes:** Noncompliance carries civil penalties for negligent violations, and for willful violations, potential imprisonment of up to five years and fines up to $250,000. The civil penalty alone can reach $279,937. **Why this matters:** This rule is designed to combat money laundering by increasing transparency in non-financed residential real estate transfers involving legal entities and trusts. It's part of a broader effort to close loopholes that have allowed illicit funds to flow into U.S. real estate markets. For anyone participating in residential real estate transactions—title companies, attorneys, real estate agents, lenders—the message is clear: understand the rule's provisions now, or risk severe consequences later. 🔗 Source: https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/january/28/new-fincen-real-estate-reporting-rule

Source

Read original article

January 29, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Australia's AML/CTF Overhaul - The Risk-Based Revolution Begins March 31

Australia is about to experience its most significant anti-money laundering transformation in nearly two decades, and current reporting entities have just two months to prepare. On March 31, 2026, sweeping AML/CTF reforms take effect, fundamentally changing how financial institutions approach compliance. The shift? From a prescriptive, tick-the-box regime to a "risk-based, outcomes-oriented approach" that demands strategic thinking over mechanical rule-following. **What's changing:** The new regime introduces proliferation financing as a third risk category alongside money laundering and terrorism financing. Governing bodies now have formalized oversight responsibilities, and independent evaluations are required at minimum every three years. The two-part AML/CTF program structure is being replaced with a flexible framework built around ML/TF risk assessments and tailored AML/CTF policies. **The real challenge:** This isn't just about updating policies—it's about transforming compliance culture. The new approach requires reporting entities to design procedures that achieve specified outcomes while having "appropriate regard" to their unique ML/TF risks. That means no more copying templates from larger institutions and hoping for the best. **Why the urgency?** Australia is racing to align with FATF standards ahead of the 2026-2027 mutual evaluation review. The 2015 FATF review exposed significant gaps in Australia's AML/CTF regime, and the government is determined to avoid "grey listing" by the international watchdog. **Coming next:** On July 1, 2026, tranche two designated services—real estate professionals, trust and company service providers, accountants, lawyers, and dealers in precious metals—will be brought into the AML/CTF regime for the first time. For Australian compliance professionals, the message is clear: the old playbook is obsolete. Success in the new regime requires genuine risk assessment, tailored controls, and a culture that prioritizes substance over form. 🔗 Source: https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/january/29/current-reporting-entities-gear-up-for-imminent-aml-ctf-reforms

Source

Read original article

January 29, 2026

REGULATION

CFPB Reverses Course on Personal Financial Data Rights Rule

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just made a significant U-turn on one of its most controversial regulations—and credit unions are claiming victory. After months of pushback, the CFPB announced it will go through a full rulemaking process on Section 1033 instead of issuing an interim final rule to revise the Personal Financial Data Rights (PFDR) rule. This is a major win for America's Credit Unions, which represents 5,000 credit unions serving 145 million Americans. **What's at stake?** The original PFDR rule, finalized in 2024, raised serious compliance and privacy concerns across the financial services industry. By forcing the CFPB to follow proper rulemaking procedures, stakeholders will finally have a meaningful voice in shaping data-sharing requirements that affect millions of consumers. **Why this matters for compliance professionals:** This reversal demonstrates the power of coordinated advocacy and highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in financial regulation. When rules are rushed through without proper notice and comment, the result is often unworkable compliance requirements that create more problems than they solve. The CFPB issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in October 2025, signaling the start of a more deliberative process. For those of us in the compliance trenches, this is a reminder that regulatory outcomes aren't predetermined—persistent, evidence-based advocacy can change the trajectory of even the most entrenched regulatory initiatives. **Key takeaway:** The fight over data rights is far from over, but at least now it will be fought on more level ground. Credit unions and their members will have a real opportunity to shape rules that balance innovation with privacy and security. 🔗 Source: https://www.americascreditunions.org/news-media/news/credit-union-win-cfpb-start-new-rulemaking-process-personal-financial-data-rights

Source

Read original article

January 29, 2026

REGULATION

The Compliance Transformation of 2026 - From Fragmented Tools to Unified Platforms

Star Compliance's latest Quarterly Executive Brief makes one thing clear: 2025 reshaped global compliance expectations, and 2026 will separate the prepared from the overwhelmed. The report identifies a decisive shift in how regulators view digital assets and tokenisation. These are no longer experimental technologies operating in regulatory gray zones. They have moved into the mainstream, and supervisors expect firms to apply the same conduct and surveillance standards to crypto as they do to traditional securities. Market-abuse supervision is tightening, particularly around shadow trading. Regulators are broadening how they interpret insider-trading risk, focusing on behaviours that exploit informational advantages even when classic definitions of inside information are harder to prove. This means surveillance programmes must expand beyond traditional alerts and scenarios, and policies should reflect a wider understanding of how suspicious trading activity can manifest. The UK's Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) reforms remain a key issue, even amid uncertainty around timing and scope. Rising expectations around accountability regimes mean that compliance leaders must prepare for more personal responsibility and clearer lines of oversight. Perhaps most significant is the technology shift. The brief highlights a move towards unified compliance platforms, the growing importance of real-time analytics, and deeper integration of compliance tooling across the enterprise. Fragmented point solutions are struggling to keep pace with the speed of regulatory change and the demand for consistent controls across business lines and geographies. The message for 2026 is clear: compliance programmes built on disconnected systems and reactive processes will face increasing scrutiny. Firms that invest in integrated, real-time, and enterprise-wide compliance infrastructure will be better positioned to meet the intensifying oversight ahead. 🔗 Source: https://fintech.global/2026/01/27/what-is-the-outlook-for-regulation-in-2026/

Source

Read original article

January 27, 2026

REGULATION

The Era of Regulatory Waiting is Over - CLOs and GCs Must Lead Crypto Strategy in 2026

Foley & Lardner's latest report for corporate legal leaders carries a blunt message: the digital asset revolution is no longer a distant possibility. It is here, reshaping how companies manage money and transact with vendors. The era of waiting for regulatory clarity is over. In 2026, Chief Legal Officers and General Counsels must pivot to the center of their company's digital asset strategy. The regulatory environment is no longer ambiguous. The GENIUS Act has passed. The Clarity Bill is progressing through the Senate with bipartisan support. Europe has implemented MiCA. The UK is amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to incorporate crypto asset regulatory provisions. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan are advancing their own frameworks. This is not a time for caution. It is a time for strategic action. Legal leaders are being asked: "How do we safely and strategically buy, hold, and use stablecoins, bitcoin, and other digital assets?" The answers are nuanced, but the imperative is clear. Legal must lead, not follow. The report focuses on stablecoins, bitcoin, and tokenization. Stablecoins are projected to reach a $1 trillion market by 2026, driven by their utility in cross-border payments, treasury management, and programmable money applications. Bitcoin is increasingly viewed as a strategic reserve asset, with institutional adoption accelerating. Tokenization is enabling new forms of asset ownership, fractional investment, and liquidity provision. For legal departments, this means understanding not just the regulatory framework, but the operational, tax, and risk implications of digital asset adoption. It means evaluating custody solutions, assessing counterparty risk, and ensuring that internal controls align with emerging best practices. It means working with treasury, finance, and operations to build a coherent digital asset strategy that balances innovation with compliance. The report emphasizes that legal departments can no longer afford to wait and see. The regulatory environment is clarifying. Institutional adoption is accelerating. Companies that move decisively will gain competitive advantages. Those that hesitate will find themselves playing catch-up in a market that rewards early movers. 🔗 Source: https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2026/01/crypto-asset-strategy-for-corporate-legal-leaderswhat-clos-and-gcs-should-know-and-do-in-2026/

Source

Read original article

January 27, 2026

COMPLIANCE

USMCA Review Transforms AML Enforcement into a Trade Policy Tool

The 2026 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement review was expected to evaluate trade progress and regional economic integration. Instead, it has become a pointed assessment of national AML enforcement capabilities, with US officials tying trade benefits directly to compliance performance. North America now exchanges goods and services worth $1.8 million per minute. Alongside this economic integration, regulators are focusing more closely on how institutions prevent and report financial crime. US tariff threats are increasingly tied to AML enforcement, and Canada and Mexico face pressure to demonstrate that their AML frameworks produce consistent, high-quality results. Canada has responded with systemic reform. In late 2025, it passed Bill C-2, which expanded enforcement powers and enabled real-time data sharing between FINTRAC, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The law also established the Integrated Money Laundering Intelligence Partnership (IMLIP), an operational body responsible for intelligence fusion, SAR prioritization, and proactive typology detection. Canadian financial institutions now operate under stricter timelines. They must show that case handling decisions are well-documented and that escalation triggers reflect active risk monitoring. The government has also proposed new audit protocols to ensure that reports filed by institutions align with actual enforcement follow-up. Mexico's response has been uneven. The Mexican Financial Intelligence Unit has made public commitments to align more closely with US and Canadian expectations, including pilot programmes for real-time SAR data sharing. While enforcement seizures rose by more than 50% in 2025, enforcement actions often lag in documentation and follow-up. US agencies have warned that unless Mexico closes these gaps, it may face trade penalties or tighter US market restrictions. The USMCA review has made it clear that AML performance now influences trade relationships, supervisory trust, and institutional credibility. Financial institutions in the US, Canada, and Mexico are expected to show real-time effectiveness, not just policy adherence. Compliance programmes built on fragmented systems and reactive processes will face increasing scrutiny as AML enforcement becomes a geopolitical tool. 🔗 Source: https://lucinity.com/blog/managed-aml-services-responding-to-u-s-and-canadian-regulatory-monitoring-in-2026/

Source

Read original article

January 27, 2026

COMPLIANCE

FINRA's $1.1M Fine Reveals the True Cost of AML Surveillance Gaps

In January 2026, FINRA levied a $1.1 million fine against Cetera Firms for AML compliance program deficiencies that allowed 800 million shares of low-priced securities to be sold without adequate monitoring for suspicious activity. The enforcement action reveals how seemingly technical compliance failures can create systemic blind spots. From March 2019 to August 2021, Cetera's AML programme was not sufficiently designed to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions. While the firm had policies requiring monthly reviews of low-priced security deposits and transactions prior to December 2019, those reviews did not specifically assess suspicious activity or provide guidance on identifying suspicious transactions. After December 2019, the firm conducted daily report reviews, but they still lacked historical information to identify patterns of suspicious activity. This meant that red flags such as customers accounting for 40% to 88% of daily market volume, or unrelated customers opening accounts simultaneously and liquidating the same low-priced security, went undetected. In one instance, three unrelated customers opened accounts, collectively deposited over 100 million shares of a single security, and immediately began liquidating those shares, generating proceeds of $375,000. The firm failed to identify or investigate this activity. Cetera also failed to oversee and retain tens of thousands of consolidated reports that representatives shared with customers via internal systems or third-party platforms, leading to additional violations of Books and Records requirements under FINRA Rules 3110, 2010, and 4511. FINRA also barred Jay Zornes, a former securities representative, for refusing to provide information related to an investigation into whether he used unapproved channels to communicate with customers. This action underscores FINRA's intensifying focus on individual accountability, not just institutional failures. The enforcement actions carry a clear message: AML compliance is not a checklist exercise. It requires systems that can identify patterns, retain complete records, and escalate suspicious activity in real time. Firms that rely on manual processes, incomplete data, or employee self-reporting are playing Russian roulette with regulatory compliance. 🔗 Source: https://www.globalrelay.com/resources/thought-leadership/1-1-million-finra-fine-for-aml-compliance-failings/

Source

Read original article

January 27, 2026

REGULATION

SEC and CFTC Signal Crypto Harmonization Push - Joint Event Rescheduled to January 29

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have rescheduled their joint event on crypto regulation harmonization to January 29, 2026. The event, featuring SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins and CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, will focus on delivering President Trump's promise to make the United States the crypto capital of the world. In a joint statement, the chairmen acknowledged a long-standing problem: "For too long, market participants have been forced to navigate regulatory boundaries that are unclear in application and misaligned in design, based solely on legacy jurisdictional silos." This event represents more than a policy discussion. It signals a coordinated effort to resolve the regulatory fragmentation that has plagued the US crypto industry for years. The SEC and CFTC have historically operated with overlapping but distinct mandates, creating confusion about which assets fall under which agency's jurisdiction. This ambiguity has driven innovation offshore and created compliance nightmares for firms trying to operate within US law. The event will include opening remarks from both chairmen and a fireside chat moderated by Eleanor Terrett, co-founder and host of Crypto in America. The agenda suggests a focus on practical harmonization efforts rather than abstract policy goals. The timing is significant. The GENIUS Act has already passed, and the Clarity Bill is progressing through the Senate. Europe has implemented MiCA, and Asia is advancing its own frameworks. The US is no longer debating whether to regulate crypto, but how to do so in a way that preserves American competitiveness while protecting investors and consumers. For compliance officers and legal teams, this event may provide the clearest indication yet of how the SEC and CFTC plan to coordinate oversight, define jurisdictional boundaries, and establish consistent enforcement standards. The era of regulatory ambiguity is ending. The question now is whether US agencies can deliver a framework that supports innovation while maintaining market integrity. 🔗 Source: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-14-sec-cftc-reschedule-joint-event-harmonization-us-financial-leadership-crypto-era

Source

Read original article

January 27, 2026

REGULATION

The CLARITY Act's Second Delay - When Housing Policy Trumps Crypto Regulation

The Senate Banking Committee just postponed the CLARITY Act markup for the second time in a month, pushing critical cryptocurrency regulation discussions into late February or March. The reason? Housing policy takes priority at the Trump administration's request ahead of November's midterm elections. This isn't just a scheduling hiccup. It's a signal that comprehensive crypto regulation remains a political football, not a legislative priority. The CLARITY Act—formally titled the Crypto-Asset Regulatory Framework and Investor Transparency Act—represents one of the most ambitious attempts to create functional regulatory structure for digital assets in the United States. Its core mission: define clear jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, establish consumer protection standards, mandate exchange registration, and create surveillance mechanisms to prevent market manipulation. The first postponement came January 15, citing "additional review time." This second delay reveals deeper political complexities. Committee members must now balance urgent housing policy demands with the long-term need for digital asset regulation. Meanwhile, regulatory agencies continue operating under existing, sometimes inadequate, frameworks—leading to enforcement actions that market participants view as unpredictable or overly aggressive. The competitive implications are stark. The European Union implemented its comprehensive MiCA regulation in 2024. Several Asian financial hubs have established clear regulatory regimes. The United States, by contrast, is still debating foundational legislation while the Treasury Department issues updated DeFi guidance and the Federal Reserve researches a digital dollar. Industry representatives express mixed reactions. Some advocate for swift action. Others emphasize getting the details right. "A deliberate process is preferable to a rushed one, especially for foundational legislation," noted one major exchange CEO. "However, prolonged ambiguity hinders innovation and pushes development to jurisdictions with clearer rules." The lesson? Cryptocurrency regulation must compete with other legislative priorities for attention and floor time. And right now, housing affordability is winning. 🔗 Source: https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/24f0d-senate-crypto-bill-delay-clarity-act

January 22, 2026

REGULATION

UK Banking Regulation Overhaul - PRA Finalizes Basel 3.1 and Simplified Capital Regime

On January 20, 2026, the UK's Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) released a suite of policy statements that fundamentally reshape the country's banking regulatory landscape. The centerpiece: final rules implementing Basel 3.1, retiring the refined Pillar 2A methodology, restating Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) requirements for 2027, and establishing a simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs). This isn't incremental reform. It's a comprehensive overhaul designed to balance financial stability with regulatory proportionality. Basel 3.1 implementation brings the UK into alignment with international capital standards, ensuring British banks maintain sufficient buffers to absorb losses during stress periods. The reforms revise how banks calculate risk-weighted assets, particularly for credit risk, market risk, and operational risk. For large banks, this means more sophisticated modeling requirements. For smaller banks, it means simpler standardized approaches. The retirement of the refined Pillar 2A methodology simplifies how the PRA sets bank-specific capital requirements beyond minimum standards. Previously, the PRA used a complex, model-driven approach to calculate additional capital buffers for individual banks. The new framework relies on simpler, more transparent methodologies that reduce compliance burden while maintaining prudential rigor. Perhaps most significant is the Strong and Simple Framework for Small Domestic Deposit Takers. This regime recognizes that community banks and building societies don't pose systemic risk and shouldn't face the same regulatory intensity as global systemically important banks. SDDTs will benefit from simplified capital calculations, reduced reporting requirements, and streamlined supervisory processes—provided they maintain simple business models focused on traditional deposit-taking and lending. The PRA's approach reflects a broader post-Brexit regulatory philosophy: maintain high standards while tailoring requirements to firm size and risk profile. It's a middle path between the EU's harmonized approach and the United States' more fragmented system. For UK banks, 2026 and 2027 will be transition years. Large banks must upgrade risk modeling systems and recalibrate capital planning. Small banks must assess whether they qualify for the simplified regime and adjust business models accordingly. All banks must navigate the restatement of CRR requirements, ensuring internal policies align with the new framework. The message from the PRA is clear: strong regulation doesn't require one-size-fits-all complexity. Proportionality can coexist with prudence. 🔗 Source: https://www.paulhastings.com/en-GB/insights/ph-fedaction-financial-regulatory-updates-homepage/daily-financial-regulation-update-wednesday-january-21-2026

January 22, 2026

COMPLIANCE

FINRA's Triple Threat - AML, Supervision, and Recordkeeping Failures in One Complaint

On January 21, 2026, FINRA filed a complaint with its Office of Hearing Officers accusing three investment banking firms of a trifecta of compliance failures: violating anti-money laundering rules, failing to supervise employees, and falling short on electronic communications recordkeeping. This isn't just another enforcement action. It's a roadmap of how regulators are connecting the dots between seemingly separate compliance failures. The complaint highlights a critical reality: AML, supervision, and recordkeeping aren't isolated functions. They're interconnected systems. When one fails, the others often follow. Consider the logic. Effective AML compliance requires monitoring customer transactions, identifying suspicious activity, and filing timely Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). But monitoring depends on capturing and retaining complete transaction records—including electronic communications where deals are discussed, instructions are given, and red flags emerge. If a firm fails to archive WhatsApp messages, Telegram chats, or personal email, it creates blind spots in its AML surveillance. Those blind spots become supervision failures when managers can't review what they can't see. FINRA's enforcement approach reflects this interconnected reality. The agency isn't just citing firms for missing a few emails. It's arguing that recordkeeping failures undermine the entire compliance infrastructure—making it impossible to conduct effective AML monitoring or meaningful supervision. For compliance officers, the implications are clear. First, electronic communications archiving must be comprehensive. Every business-related message, regardless of platform, must be captured and retained. Second, AML surveillance systems must integrate communications data, not just transaction data. Third, supervisory procedures must include regular audits of communications archiving to ensure completeness. The complaint also serves as a warning about the cost of compliance shortcuts. Firms that rely on employees to self-report business communications or manually forward messages to archiving systems are playing Russian roulette. The only defensible approach is automated, platform-agnostic capture that doesn't depend on employee cooperation. FINRA's message is unambiguous: compliance is a system, not a checklist. When one component fails, the entire structure collapses—and regulators will hold firms accountable for the cascade of failures that follow. 🔗 Source: https://www.grip.globalrelay.com/finra-files-complaint-against-firm-for-aml-ecomms-recordkeeping-and-more/

January 22, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Europe's AML Authority Transition - AMLA Takes the Reins from EBA

On January 19, 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) completed the transfer of all AML/CFT mandates and functions. This marks a significant milestone in the EU's fight against financial crime—and a fundamental shift in how Europe approaches money laundering supervision. AMLA isn't just a rebranded EBA. It's a purpose-built authority with a singular focus: coordinating and enhancing the effectiveness of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism across the European Union. The EBA, by contrast, had a broader banking supervision mandate that sometimes competed for resources and attention with AML enforcement. This consolidation reflects lessons learned from high-profile money laundering scandals that exposed gaps in the EU's fragmented AML framework. Danske Bank's €200 billion Estonian branch scandal. The Troika Laundromat. Wirecard. Each case revealed how criminals exploited jurisdictional seams and inconsistent enforcement across member states. AMLA's mandate is comprehensive: directly supervise the riskiest cross-border financial institutions, coordinate national Financial Intelligence Units, develop a centralized AML/CFT database, and harmonize supervisory practices across the EU. It will also have the power to conduct investigations and impose penalties—a significant upgrade from the EBA's advisory role. For financial institutions operating in Europe, this transition means three things. First, expect more consistent AML standards across member states. Second, prepare for more intrusive supervision of high-risk entities. Third, anticipate stricter enforcement and higher penalties for non-compliance. The creation of AMLA is part of a broader EU regulatory consolidation trend. Just as the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) centralized securities oversight and MiCA unified crypto regulation, AMLA centralizes AML supervision. The message is clear: Europe is moving from fragmented national oversight to integrated, EU-level enforcement. For compliance officers, the transition period is critical. Understanding AMLA's priorities, building relationships with new supervisors, and aligning internal controls with evolving expectations will define success in 2026 and beyond. 🔗 Source: https://www.paulhastings.com/en-GB/insights/ph-fedaction-financial-regulatory-updates-homepage/daily-financial-regulation-update-wednesday-january-21-2026

January 22, 2026

REGULATION

House Financial Services Committee Markup - The Battle Lines on AI, Crypto, and Deregulation

On January 22, 2026, the House Financial Services Committee held a markup session that crystallized the competing visions for financial regulation in the Trump era. On the table: a resolution on artificial intelligence, a bill expanding crypto crime investigation authority, and a suite of deregulatory measures targeting everything from securities disclosures to community bank compliance thresholds. Public Citizen, representing over one million members, offered a clear-eyed assessment: support the AI resolution and crypto crime bill, oppose everything else. The AI resolution (Res. 1007) reflects the committee's Bipartisan AI Working Group efforts, recognizing both the potential benefits and dangers of artificial intelligence in financial services and housing. It rejects industry-favored regulatory "sandboxes" or "safe harbors" that act as liability shields and opposes preemption of state-level AI regulations. This measured approach acknowledges that AI can enhance efficiency and expand access while also creating risks of discrimination and consumer manipulation. The Combating Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act (H.R. 5877) expands Secret Service authority to investigate crimes involving digital assets. Given that a major use case of certain cryptocurrencies involves illicit finance, expanded enforcement authorities are welcome. This isn't anti-crypto. It's pro-accountability. The deregulatory bills, by contrast, raise red flags. The Community Bank Regulatory Tailoring Act (H.R. 7056) would increase compliance thresholds based on nominal GDP growth, potentially exempting more banks from capital standards, mortgage disclosures, the Volcker Rule, and executive compensation safeguards. The regional banking crisis of 2023—when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed after Congress raised supervision thresholds from $50 billion to $250 billion—should serve as caution. Other bills would allow small issuers to raise $250,000 without investor disclosures (H.R. 4171), preempt state securities oversight (H.R. 7127), and repeal conflict minerals disclosure requirements (H.R. 7085). Each measure prioritizes corporate convenience over investor protection. Public Citizen's testimony highlights an uncomfortable truth: the committee is debating micro-adjustments to securities exemptions while the White House assaults Federal Reserve independence, pursues unprecedented corruption through cryptocurrency, and decimates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The markup reveals the fundamental tension in financial regulation: balancing innovation and efficiency against stability and consumer protection. The committee's choices will signal whether 2026 is a year of thoughtful reform or reckless deregulation. 🔗 Source: https://www.citizen.org/news/comment-on-house-financial-services-committee-mark-up-for-jan-22-2026/

January 22, 2026

REGULATION

Europe's Stablecoin Paradox - MiCA's Unintended Consequences

MiCA was supposed to be Europe's moment. The world's first comprehensive stablecoin regulation, enacted in June 2024, promised to create a unified framework that would protect consumers, ensure financial stability, and—most importantly—position Europe as a cryptocurrency hub. Two years later, the results tell a different story. Tether and Circle, both American firms, still control 85% of the global stablecoin market. Stablecoins remain overwhelmingly pegged to the USD. The best-known European stablecoin, Société Générale-FORGE's EURCV, has a market cap of just $76.35 million—ranking 332nd globally, well behind Circle's euro coin. What went wrong? MiCA's compliance-first approach may have inadvertently stifled the very innovation it aimed to foster. The regulation requires stablecoin issuers to hold 30% of reserves in bank deposits (60% if deemed "significant"). A Visa study found these reserve requirements "could impair the ability of stablecoin issuers to maximize revenue from interest earned on assets, thus potentially hindering growth." Meanwhile, the digital euro—positioned as Europe's answer to USD stablecoins—aims to be the digital equivalent of cash, not a tool for efficiency gains or global scalability. As the Association of German Banks notes, "The digital euro does nothing to counter dollar hegemony and therefore misses the opportunity to position the euro as an attractive digital currency beyond Europe." There is hope. In September 2025, nine major European banks (including ING, UniCredit, and CaixaBank) formed a consortium to launch a euro-denominated stablecoin. Time is of the essence. If Europe slow-walks this initiative, it may resign itself to many more decades of dollar dominance in the global financial system. The lesson? Regulation alone doesn't create innovation. Sometimes, the best intentions create the biggest barriers. 🔗 Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/20/why-europe-is-slow-walking-stablecoins-despite-mica/

January 21, 2026

REGULATION

The Compliance Paradox - When Regulation Becomes a Barrier to Innovation

Here's an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, the best-intentioned regulations create the biggest barriers to the innovation they're meant to protect. Europe's MiCA framework is a case study. Designed to foster stablecoin innovation through consumer protection and unified oversight, it has instead entrenched USD dominance. American firms Tether and Circle control 85% of the market. No up-and-coming stablecoin issuers are European. The digital euro, positioned as Europe's answer, focuses on being the digital equivalent of cash—not on efficiency, innovation, or global scalability. The UK's approach to AI in financial services reveals a similar pattern. The Treasury Committee's January 20 report concluded that regulators are not doing enough to manage AI risks. Despite the FCA's AI Consortium and testing services, efforts remain "limited to a small group of firms." Neither the BoE nor FCA conduct AI-specific stress testing. The Critical Third Parties Regime, established in 2024, has yet to designate a single major AI or cloud provider. Meanwhile, the UK Serious Fraud Office is taking the opposite approach: proactive, fast, and unambiguous. Dawn raids on crypto fraud schemes. Deferred Prosecution Agreements that incentivize self-reporting. Commitments to contact organizations within 48 hours and provide investigation decisions within six months. The message is clear: compliance is non-negotiable, but the path to it can be streamlined. The lesson across all three stories? Effective regulation requires balance. Too much compliance-first thinking stifles innovation. Too little oversight invites fraud and instability. The sweet spot is proactive frameworks that incentivize good behavior, provide clear guidance, and move quickly when enforcement is needed. In 2026, the jurisdictions that get this balance right will attract capital, talent, and innovation. Those that don't will watch from the sidelines. 🔗 Sources: - https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/20/why-europe-is-slow-walking-stablecoins-despite-mica/ - https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/eu/house-of-commons-treasury-committee-report-on-ai-in-financial-services/ - https://www.workfusion.com/blog/serious-fraud-office-boosts-enforcement-in-2026/

January 21, 2026

COMPLIANCE

UK Serious Fraud Office Gets Serious About Enforcement

The UK Serious Fraud Office has long been criticized for slow, inconsistent enforcement. In 2026, that's changing—fast. SFO Director Nick Ephgrave's message is blunt: "Time is running short for corporations to get their house in order or face criminal investigation. Come September, if they haven't sorted themselves out, we're coming after them. We can't sit with the statute books gathering dust, someone needs to feel the bite." The SFO is backing up the rhetoric with action. In late November 2025, it executed coordinated dawn raids on "Basis Markets," a fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme, working alongside local police and supported by Solicitor General Ellie Reeves. Reeves made clear the government's stance: "I will resolutely support the Serious Fraud Office to tackle the scourge of cryptocurrency fraud and protect consumers." The SFO has also introduced new Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) that allow organizations to self-report, admit guilt, and limit fines and penalties—while avoiding brand damage and costly court battles. To qualify, companies must have strong corporate controls for discovering and escalating suspicion of fraud. The SFO has made specific commitments to streamline case handling: contact self-reporting organizations within 48 hours, provide an investigation decision within six months, and conclude DPA negotiations within an additional six months. Perhaps most significant: the SFO will now return recovered proceeds directly to victims without requiring a criminal conviction. On January 12, 2026, the SFO returned £400,000 to nine victims of a Lebanese banker's £4.4 million fraud from 24 years earlier. Previously, such funds went to HM Treasury. This shift means organizations now face risk in asset-holding structures, historic exposure, sanctions risk, and long-term financial crime liability—even without a conviction. For any bank's financial crime compliance team, gaining closer familiarity with the SFO's more proactive enforcement regime is a "Must Do" in 2026. 🔗 Source: https://www.workfusion.com/blog/serious-fraud-office-boosts-enforcement-in-2026/

January 21, 2026

COMPLIANCE

AI Literacy Is No Longer Optional for AML Teams

Artificial intelligence has moved from science fiction to the operational core of modern compliance. For AML teams in 2026, the question is no longer whether to use AI, but whether your team truly understands how it works. According to RelyComply, the priority for regulatory leaders is developing genuine AI literacy—a practical grasp of how these systems function, their value, and the risks they carry. This isn't about learning to code algorithms. It's about understanding model behavior, data quality, inherent biases, and generative constraints well enough to make defensible compliance decisions. Financial institutions are already embedding AI into perpetual KYC updates and continuous transaction monitoring. Around 90% of AI applications in financial services focus on extracting analytics to enhance operational efficiency. But efficiency means nothing if compliance officers can't validate the outputs. The industry is moving away from opaque "black box" algorithms. Explainable AI (XAI) is becoming a regulatory expectation, not an optional upgrade for well-resourced institutions. XAI enables compliance teams to document model development, track how systems evolve, interpret outputs against risk variables, record decision pathways, and set controls to prevent bias or drift. Here's the reality: no matter how advanced AI becomes, compliance officers remain indispensable. They navigate governance requirements, balance budgets, protect customer data, and shape onboarding experiences—all while maintaining the trust required for business growth. AI may accelerate investigations, but the responsibility for final decisions remains firmly with human leaders. The compliance function of 2026 is evolving into cross-functional teams combining AI specialists, data engineers, and compliance experts. This hybrid skillset—understanding how AI models analyze AML risks, maintaining clean datasets, challenging AI assumptions with human logic, prioritizing explainability—will define the future of financial crime prevention. AML is a delicate balance of machine-driven speed and human intuition. The full potential of automation depends on professionals who understand both the power and the limitations of AI. 🔗 Source: https://fintech.global/2026/01/20/why-ai-literacy-matters-in-2026-aml-operations/

January 21, 2026

REGULATION

UK Treasury Committee Delivers Harsh Verdict on AI Financial Services Oversight

The House of Commons Treasury Committee just published a damning assessment: UK financial regulators are not doing enough to manage the risks AI poses to consumers and financial stability. Published on January 20, 2026, the report follows a year-long inquiry that collected 84 written submissions and correspondence from six major AI and cloud providers. The findings are stark. While the FCA and PRA insist the current regulatory framework offers sufficient protection, stakeholders painted a very different picture. They raised concerns about lack of transparency in AI-driven credit and insurance decisions, financial exclusion for disadvantaged consumers, unregulated AI financial advice, and increased fraud risk. The Committee's most pointed criticism? Regulators are taking a reactive approach—"dealing with the impact of situations related to AI when they occur"—rather than proactively managing risks before they materialize. Despite the FCA's AI Consortium, periodic surveys with the Bank of England, and new AI Live Testing service, the report notes these efforts remain "limited to a small group of firms." More troubling: neither the BoE nor FCA conduct AI-specific cyber or market stress testing. The Critical Third Parties Regime, established in 2024 to tackle dependence on AI and cloud services, has yet to designate a single major provider. The Committee's recommendations are clear and time-bound: by the end of 2026, the FCA must publish comprehensive guidance on applying existing rules to AI use and clarify senior manager accountability under SM&CR for AI-caused harm. HMT must designate major AI and cloud providers as critical third parties. The FCA and BoE must conduct AI-specific stress testing. The message is unambiguous: the current wait-and-see approach is insufficient. Financial services AI governance needs to shift from reactive to proactive—now. 🔗 Source: https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/eu/house-of-commons-treasury-committee-report-on-ai-in-financial-services/

January 21, 2026

REGULATION

MiCA's Transition Deadlines Create Service Shakeout Across Europe

Europe's crypto market is exiting its transition phase, and 2026 is the filter year. MiCA's stablecoin rules took effect June 30, 2024, and the main regime for Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) applied from December 30, 2024. Now the transitional periods—which differ dramatically by country—are determining which services remain available and where. The deadlines vary widely under Article 143 of MiCA. France, Spain, Luxembourg, Italy, and Malta allow 18 months for providers to secure authorization while continuing to serve clients. Germany, Austria, and Ireland give 12 months. The Netherlands, Poland, and Finland allow just 6 months. Sweden splits the difference at 9 months. For users, the practical question isn't about regulatory theory—it's about which platforms will still accept their business, where KYC/AML will get stricter, and why banks in some countries are suddenly asking more questions. The tightest bottleneck is often banks and fiat rails. As providers prove their regulatory "cleanliness" to secure MiCA authorization, banks and payment partners are imposing stricter Source of Funds and Source of Wealth checks, especially for regular cashouts or large amounts. P2P and alternative rails won't disappear, but platforms are tightening risk controls—lower limits, delays, extra verification steps. In countries with short transition windows (like the Netherlands' 6 months), some providers may temporarily restrict services until authorization is secured. Where windows are longer (like France's 18 months), compliance pressure still ramps as deadlines approach, but there's more time to adapt. The market is consolidating around providers that can pass compliance and maintain stable banking relationships. Once a provider is authorized in one EU country, it can use MiCA's passporting rules to offer services across the entire EU—but only if it meets ongoing requirements. ESMA has published supervisory expectations emphasizing consistent application and early preparation. For users who rely on crypto for payments or cash management, the key in 2026 isn't "where fees are lowest"—it's who has resilient banking relationships and clear regulatory status. 🔗 Source: https://hexn.io/local-updates/europe-and-mica-casp-deadlines-licensing-those-who-make-it-stay-rt0yfmuc31f79si4uxtc2j1w

January 20, 2026

REGULATION

US Crypto Regulation Stalls as Banking Lobby Pushes Back

The Senate Banking Committee canceled its scheduled markup of comprehensive crypto legislation last week, stalling what many considered the best chance for market structure reform in years. The reason? A fundamental conflict between crypto innovation and traditional banking interests. At the center of the dispute is a provision in the recently passed GENIUS Act that allows stablecoin holders to earn "rewards"—essentially interest. Banks worry this threatens their deposit business, as stablecoin yields could exceed traditional savings account rates. They've pushed lawmakers to remove this provision, even though President Trump just signed it into law. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong appeared on Capitol Hill after the cancellation to explain his opposition to the current draft: "We'd rather have no bill than a bad bill. I felt a responsibility to speak up for our customers and the 52 million Americans who use crypto." The stakes are high. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), whose 2024 victory over Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown was heavily funded by crypto-backed superPACs ($40 million), argues that old-style banking rules are behind the times: "They have to come to consensus with the innovation community. If they can't, then they're going to have to live with the status quo." The delay has real consequences. Blockchain Association CEO Peter Smith warns that failure to pass legislation now means "two more years of delay" after midterms, during which "the U.S. is not leading the way in terms of the crypto market globally." The irony is that while Congress debates, the free market moves ahead. The New York Stock Exchange just announced a platform to trade tokenized securities on blockchain—instantaneous settlement, 24/7 trading, no next-day delays. Capitol Hill remains an analog place trying to regulate a digital world. For crypto firms and users: the regulatory uncertainty continues. The question is whether lawmakers can find compromise before the midterm calendar makes progress impossible. 🔗 Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-crypto-regulation-stalls-lawmakers-warn-falling-behind-global-competitors-years

January 20, 2026

COMPLIANCE

The 2026 US-EU Compliance Split: Why Periodic Reviews Are Dead

A quiet but fundamental shift is happening in global compliance: the US and EU are diverging on how they approach KYC and customer due diligence, and 2026 is the year that divergence becomes operationally significant. Traditional periodic reviews—the practice of re-verifying customer information at fixed intervals (annually, every two years, etc.)—are becoming obsolete. They're being replaced by Perpetual KYC (pKYC), a dynamic, continuous monitoring approach that updates risk assessments in real time as customer behavior changes. The reason for the shift is straightforward: periodic reviews are backward-looking snapshots. They tell you what a customer looked like at a specific moment, but provide no visibility into what's happening between reviews. In a world where financial crime moves at digital speed, that lag creates unacceptable risk. The US-EU split reflects different regulatory philosophies. US regulators have historically emphasized risk-based approaches with flexibility in how firms implement controls. EU frameworks, particularly under MiCA and the upcoming AMLD6 reforms, are more prescriptive about baseline requirements and real-time monitoring expectations. The creation of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will further tighten oversight for high-risk, cross-border groups. For multinational firms, this creates operational complexity. A compliance program designed for US expectations may not satisfy EU supervisors, and vice versa. Firms operating across both jurisdictions need systems that can adapt to different regulatory standards while maintaining consistent risk management. Perpetual KYC addresses this by treating compliance as a continuous process rather than a periodic event. Customer data is monitored constantly, risk scores update dynamically, and alerts trigger when behavior deviates from established patterns—regardless of when the last "official" review occurred. The practical benefit: faster detection of suspicious activity, more efficient use of compliance resources, and better alignment with regulatory expectations on both sides of the Atlantic. The challenge: implementing technology and workflows that support real-time monitoring at scale. For compliance officers: if your program still relies primarily on periodic reviews, 2026 is the year to rethink that approach. The regulatory environment is moving toward continuous monitoring, and the gap between periodic and perpetual is widening fast. 🔗 Source: https://kyc-chain.com/us-eu-compliance-split-2026/

January 20, 2026

COMPLIANCE

20 US States Now Have Privacy Laws—And Corporate Cash Flow Feels It

By January 2026, 20 US states have comprehensive privacy laws in effect, each with its own rules on consumer rights, data handling, and security requirements. For corporations operating across multiple states, this patchwork creates significant compliance costs that are starting to show up in cash flow and operational efficiency. The challenge isn't just the number of laws—it's the lack of uniformity. California's CCPA/CPRA, Virginia's CDPA, Colorado's CPA, and 17 other state frameworks each define key terms differently, impose different obligations, and create different enforcement mechanisms. What counts as "sensitive data" in one state may not in another. Opt-in versus opt-out requirements vary. Data retention and deletion timelines differ. For companies that operate nationally, this means building compliance programs that can adapt to multiple overlapping requirements simultaneously. A single customer interaction may trigger obligations under several state laws, each with its own technical and procedural requirements. The result: higher compliance costs, more complex data architectures, and increased risk of inadvertent violations. The cash flow impact is real. Companies must invest in legal review, technical infrastructure, staff training, and ongoing monitoring to maintain compliance. For smaller firms, these costs can be prohibitive. For larger enterprises, they represent a meaningful drag on operational efficiency and profitability. There's also the enforcement risk. State attorneys general are increasingly active in pursuing privacy violations, and penalties can be substantial. Even without formal enforcement, the reputational risk of a privacy incident in today's environment can affect customer trust and business relationships. The broader question is whether the US will eventually move toward a federal privacy framework that preempts state laws and creates national standards. Industry groups have pushed for this for years, arguing that a single federal standard would reduce compliance costs and provide clearer expectations. Privacy advocates worry that federal preemption could weaken protections in states with stronger laws. For now, the patchwork persists, and 2026 is the year companies are feeling the full weight of multi-state compliance. For investors and stakeholders: privacy compliance costs are no longer a footnote—they're a material factor in operational planning and financial performance. 🔗 Source: https://www.ainvest.com/news/privacy-laws-impacting-corporate-cash-flow-investors-watch-2601/

January 20, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Coinbase's €21.5M Fine Shows MiCA Era Has Arrived

Coinbase Europe just received a €21.5 million penalty from Ireland's Central Bank—the largest AML fine the regulator has ever issued. The timing couldn't be more significant: it's the first enforcement action against a crypto firm in Ireland, and it arrives just as MiCA's full compliance requirements take effect across the EU. The facts are stark. Between April 2021 and March 2025, Coinbase's transaction monitoring system was misconfigured, leaving over 30 million transactions—valued at €176 billion—unmonitored for 12 months. When the firm discovered the problem, it took almost three years to retrospectively review the affected activity and submit 2,708 Suspicious Transaction Reports to authorities. Those delayed filings were linked to suspected money laundering, fraud, drug trafficking, cybercrime, and child exploitation. The Central Bank found that five out of 21 alert scenarios weren't functioning properly, creating blind spots that persisted because testing, tuning, and internal reporting weren't mature enough to detect failures quickly. This isn't an isolated incident. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority fined a Coinbase affiliate £3.5 million in 2024 for AML control failings. The Dutch central bank imposed a €3.3 million penalty in early 2023 for operating without registration. Binance has faced similar violations across multiple jurisdictions. The message for crypto firms is clear: "good enough" controls won't satisfy regulators under MiCA. The Central Bank described Coinbase Europe as an "entry point" into the wider platform, reflecting the reality that weaknesses in one jurisdiction create reputational and supervisory consequences everywhere. What's required now looks much closer to a bank-grade operating model: real-time transaction monitoring, dynamic risk scoring that updates as customer behavior changes, strong documentation to stay audit-ready, and proactive escalation when material control failures are identified—not quiet fixes over long periods. For compliance teams preparing for MiCA and the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA): this case is a warning shot. Regulatory expectations around consistency, timeliness, and demonstrable effectiveness are hardening fast. 🔗 Source: https://fintech.global/2026/01/19/mica-era-warning-coinbase-ireland-aml-failures-exposed/

January 20, 2026

FINTECH

SEON Launches Identity Verification That Actually Understands Risk

SEON has launched an AI-powered Identity Verification solution addressing a fundamental market gap: most IDV tools validate documents but lack risk context to determine whether a user should actually be approved. The problem is straightforward. Traditional IDV tools confirm a document is real, but can't tell you if the person presenting it is legitimate. High-quality fakes pass basic checks, and more importantly, legitimate documents can be used by fraudsters. A real passport doesn't mean a real customer. SEON's approach combines core KYC checks with real-time fraud intelligence from 900+ fraud signals. The solution supports identity document verification for global government-issued IDs, biometric liveness checks, proof of address verification, and optional government database checks. Crucially, it layers identity checks with behavioral and device signals that help determine actual risk. The practical benefit: organizations filter out low-risk users quickly through automated onboarding, while flagging high-risk users before they consume expensive KYC resources. Manual review of identity documents is costly—wasting that capacity on users who were never legitimate is operationally inefficient. Tamas Kadar, CEO and Co-Founder of SEON: "Organizations manage separate tools for fraud detection, identity verification and AML compliance—each with its own data, workflows and operational overhead. We built Identity Verification to bring those decisions together." The initial rollout focuses on Europe's demanding regulatory environment. SEON worked with gaming and betting operators to meet strict compliance requirements while maintaining operational efficiency. Filip Gvardijan, Head of Fraud Prevention at Superbet, notes the shift toward unified identity, fraud, and AML decisions "cuts out pointless and expensive KYC cycles on users who were never legitimate, and clears a faster path for legitimate users." This reflects a broader industry trend: convergence of fraud prevention, identity verification, and compliance into a single decision layer. For regulated industries like iGaming, fintech, and digital platforms, this convergence isn't optional. Regulatory pressure is increasing, fraud is becoming more sophisticated, and operational efficiency matters. 🔗 Source: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/01/19/3220705/0/en/SEON-Launches-Identity-Verification-Built-on-Real-Time-Fraud-Intelligence.html

January 19, 2026

REGULATION

The CLARITY Act Collapse: Why Stablecoin Yield Killed Crypto's Best Hope

Coinbase has withdrawn support for the CLARITY Act, stalling what many considered the best chance for comprehensive crypto market structure reform in the US. The reason? A provision prohibiting stablecoin issuers from paying yield to holders. On the surface, the prohibition might seem reasonable—regulators worry yield-bearing stablecoins could be classified as securities. But the practical effect puts US dollar stablecoins at a competitive disadvantage to alternatives like China's Digital Yuan, which is yield-bearing. As Anthony Scaramucci noted, this undermines the dollar's competitive position globally. The CLARITY Act, alongside its sister bill the GENIUS Act (passed July 2025), was designed to create regulatory clarity for digital assets. It sought to define the framework for tokenization, stablecoins, and risk-on assets, establishing clear lines between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. But Senate changes alarmed industry participants. Beyond stablecoin yield, concerns include how the bill addresses DeFi, SEC jurisdiction scope, and treatment of "ancillary assets"—a poorly defined category. Goldman Sachs highlighted these delays reflect deeper tensions about regulating digital assets without stifling innovation or pushing activity offshore. The withdrawal doesn't mean the bill is dead, but the path forward is unclear. Markup has been delayed, and the debate over US crypto market structure reform is being reshaped. For companies in the space, this creates continued uncertainty. The stablecoin yield issue is particularly frustrating because it reflects a misunderstanding of how these products work. Stablecoins are already used as medium of exchange and store of value. Prohibiting yield doesn't eliminate risk—it just makes US-issued stablecoins less competitive. Users wanting yield will migrate to offshore alternatives or DeFi protocols outside US jurisdiction. This is the CLARITY Act paradox: in trying to create certainty, it may push activity away from regulated US entities toward less transparent alternatives. The question is whether lawmakers can find a compromise addressing regulatory concerns without undermining US-based stablecoin issuers' competitiveness. For the crypto industry: legislative progress is fragile, and details matter enormously. A single provision can be the difference between industry support and opposition. The CLARITY Act was supposed to bring clarity. Instead, it's brought more questions. 🔗 Source: https://www.fintechweekly.com/news/coinbase-clarity-act-withdrawal-us-crypto-market-reform

January 19, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Spain's €30 Million AML Fine Shows Cost of Compliance Failures

Spain's Sepblac has hit CaixaBank with a €30 million fine for AML failings related to a real estate transaction from nearly a decade ago. The penalty, one of Spain's most significant AML fines, stems from the 2016 sale of the Torre Foster skyscraper in Madrid for nearly €500 million. The case shows how long the regulatory shadow extends. The transaction involved Bankia (acquired by CaixaBank in 2021) selling the building to Amancio Ortega, founder of Inditex. Authorities found Bankia failed to report suspicious activity even after an employee flagged money laundering concerns. The bank also failed adequate due diligence on high-risk clients and overlooked suspicious transaction alerts. The deal allegedly involved the former chairman of Cepsa, who utilized shell companies and offshore accounts to conceal illicit capital flows. That an employee raised concerns internally but the bank failed to act suggests not just a systems failure, but a cultural one. CaixaBank has appealed, but the case sends clear messages to European financial institutions: First, acquiring another institution means acquiring its compliance history and potential liabilities. M&A due diligence must include thorough review of AML controls and historical transactions. Second, internal escalation mechanisms only work if taken seriously. Having an employee flag concerns is meaningless if those concerns don't trigger action. Third, the time horizon for regulatory action can be long. This transaction occurred in 2016, but the full penalty is being imposed in 2026. Institutions can't assume historical compliance failures are no longer relevant. For compliance officers: robust transaction monitoring, effective escalation procedures, and thorough due diligence on high-risk clients—particularly those involving complex corporate structures, offshore entities, or large real estate transactions—are essential. The €30 million price tag reminds us the cost of getting it wrong far exceeds the cost of getting it right. 🔗 Source: https://thepaypers.com/fraud-and-fincrime/news/caixabank-gets-eur-30-million-fine-from-sepblac-over-aml-failings

January 19, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Compliance Consolidation Accelerates as Cosegic Acquires Fintrail

UK compliance firm Cosegic has acquired consultancy Fintrail, signaling continued consolidation in financial crime and regulatory risk management. The acquisition includes Fintrail's entire team and follows Cosegic's November acquisition of Waystone's UK compliance unit. Fintrail, launched in 2016, built a strong reputation in fintech compliance with clients like Monzo, Tide, Nubank, and Santander. The firm specializes in AML, fraud prevention, and controls design across banking, payments, fintech, and digital assets. The deal reflects a broader trend: as regulatory requirements become more complex and enforcement more aggressive, firms are consolidating to build deeper expertise. Cosegic itself formed through a 2023 merger of Portman Compliance and Compliancy Services. For financial institutions, this consolidation has practical implications. Larger compliance consultancies offer comprehensive services and deeper expertise across multiple regulatory domains. However, the shrinking number of independent specialists may reduce competitive pressure and limit options for specialized advice. The timing is significant. With recent enforcement actions—like CaixaBank's €30 million AML fine announced today—regulators are demonstrating willingness to impose substantial penalties for compliance failures. This creates strong demand for high-quality compliance advisory services, but raises the stakes for firms that get it wrong. Cosegic states the combined teams will help firms "strengthen culture, safeguard stakeholders and enhance operational resilience." Compliance is no longer just about checking boxes—it's becoming a strategic function touching culture, risk management, and operational design. For fintech and digital asset firms: compliance expertise is increasingly valuable, and the market is consolidating around firms that can deliver it at scale. 🔗 Source: https://www.fintechfutures.com/m-a/cosegic-acquires-compliance-consultancy-fintrail

January 19, 2026

REGULATION

Why Bitcoin Shouldn't Be Regulated Like Every Other Crypto

Bitcoin has operated as a decentralized network for over 15 years without an issuing entity, central governance, or discretionary monetary authority. Yet regulatory frameworks continue to lump it with thousands of cryptoassets that rely on development teams, ongoing issuance decisions, and intermediated systems. This one-size-fits-all approach creates real problems. When regulators treat a decentralized monetary network and a speculative meme coin as the same risk bucket, the effect is consumer confusion. The framework suggests all "cryptoassets" are interchangeable from a risk perspective—when they're fundamentally different. Recent UK policy consultations illustrate this challenge. Su Carpenter, Executive Director at CryptoUK: "A proportionate, 'same risk, same regulation' framework depends on regulators recognising these distinctions if the UK is to remain competitive." The tension becomes visible when rules designed for issuer-led assets are applied uniformly. Requirements for disclosures, governance, and compliance may suit tokens issued by companies, but struggle to map onto permissionless networks. Traditional financial regulation assumes accountability, control, and organizational responsibility—assumptions that don't apply when there's no central operator. Freddie New, Chief Policy Officer at Bitcoin Policy UK, points out that UK consumers see thousands of coins that—according to the regulator—are equally worthless. This includes both Bitcoin and every meme coin, arguably putting consumers at greater risk. The debate isn't about innovation versus regulation. It's about regulatory design. Effective regulation depends on accurate classification. Where classifications obscure meaningful differences, regulation becomes either overinclusive or ineffective. As digital asset systems diverge, whether the "cryptoasset" category remains fit for purpose has become a question of regulatory effectiveness, not ideology. 🔗 Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/19/why-bitcoin-shouldnt-be-regulated-like-crypto/

January 19, 2026

CRYPTO

The Bitcoin Reserve Race - US States Redefine Public Finance

Texas just made history as the first US state to fund a Bitcoin strategic reserve, and it's triggering a domino effect across the country that could fundamentally reshape how state governments think about treasury management. The move wasn't a reckless bet on volatility. Texas purchased roughly $5 million in BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the world's largest Bitcoin ETF with over $72 billion in assets. This is a calculated, institutional-grade allocation that treats Bitcoin as a legitimate treasury asset, not a speculative gamble. But Texas isn't alone. New Hampshire passed its crypto strategic reserve law back in May 2025, giving the state treasurer authority to invest up to 5% of state funds in crypto ETFs. Arizona followed with similar legislation, while Massachusetts, Ohio, and South Dakota have bills at various stages of committee review. This isn't a fringe movement—it's a coordinated shift in how states are thinking about diversification and inflation hedging. What makes Texas particularly interesting is its historical precedent with alternative assets. The state created the Texas Bullion Depository in 2015, the first state-administered precious metals depository in the nation. The legal framework that allowed Texas to custody gold was specifically adapted to apply to digital assets like Bitcoin. This wasn't a regulatory stretch—it was a logical extension of existing law. Christian Catalini, founder of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab, called this a "natural next step" for Texas. The state has spent years positioning itself as a Bitcoin mining hub, leveraging affordable and flexible power alongside a pro-crypto political environment. Once you've built that infrastructure and attracted that industry, adding Bitcoin exposure at the treasury level is strategic alignment, not speculation. The implications are significant. If multiple states begin allocating even small percentages of their treasuries to Bitcoin, it creates a new class of institutional demand that's fundamentally different from corporate or private investment. State treasuries operate on long time horizons, prioritize stability, and are subject to public accountability. Their participation legitimizes Bitcoin as a reserve asset in a way that private sector adoption alone cannot. The "Reserve Race" is just beginning, and the states that move first are positioning themselves not just as crypto-friendly jurisdictions, but as innovators in public finance. The question isn't whether more states will follow—it's how quickly they'll move and how much they'll allocate. 🔗 Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/17/texas-us-states-budgets-bitcoin-crypto-strategic-reserve.html

Source

Read original article

January 18, 2026

COMPLIANCE

When Compliance Becomes Competitive Advantage - Lessons from the Regulatory Front Lines

The regulatory landscape in 2026 is revealing a fundamental truth that many in the crypto and fintech industries are still learning: compliance is no longer just a cost of doing business. It's becoming a competitive moat. Look at the diverging paths of companies navigating the same regulatory environment. Ripple is securing licenses in Luxembourg and the UK, positioning itself for full MiCA compliance and passporting rights across the EU. Revolut, after years of regulatory scrutiny, finally secured full FCA registration for crypto asset services in the UK. Meanwhile, 90 crypto companies in France are facing shutdown in July if they don't obtain MiCA authorization. The pattern is clear: well-capitalized, professionally managed firms with robust compliance infrastructure are not just surviving—they're thriving. The companies struggling are those that treated regulation as an afterthought, assuming they could move fast and fix compliance later. This shift is playing out across multiple sectors. In the US, non-bank lenders are now being held to the same AML standards as traditional banks, regardless of charter. For years, these lenders operated in a regulatory grey zone, subject to some requirements but not the full weight of bank-level scrutiny. That era is over. The practical implication is that compliance is now a continuous process that evolves alongside customer behavior and risk exposure. For fintech lenders, this creates a significant cost burden. AML compliance requires sophisticated technology, trained personnel, and ongoing investment in systems and processes. Smaller players are going to struggle, and we're likely to see consolidation as a result. But for well-capitalized firms that have already invested in robust compliance infrastructure, this regulatory convergence is actually a competitive advantage. They're now competing on a more level playing field with traditional banks, and they can scale without the constant threat of enforcement action. The same dynamic is playing out in crypto. The Clarity Act debate in the US, MiCA implementation in the EU, and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction licensing requirements are creating a two-tier industry. Tier one: companies with the resources, expertise, and willingness to meet institutional-grade regulatory standards. Tier two: everyone else, operating in increasingly precarious legal positions. The message from regulators is consistent across jurisdictions: if you want to operate at scale, you need proper licensing, robust compliance infrastructure, and the capital to support both. The experimental phase of fintech and crypto is over. The "move fast and break things" mentality is being replaced by "build robust compliance and grow sustainably." For entrepreneurs and investors, this creates both challenges and opportunities. The barrier to entry is higher, but the competitive landscape is clearer. Regulatory compliance is no longer a defensive play—it's an offensive strategy that separates serious players from pretenders. The firms that will dominate the next decade of financial innovation aren't the ones fighting regulation. They're the ones that figured out how to make compliance a core competency. 🔗 Source: Multiple sources including https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/17/texas-us-states-budgets-bitcoin-crypto-strategic-reserve.html and https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2026/01/17/clarity-act-ripple-says-yes-coinbase-walks-away/

Source

Read original article

January 18, 2026

REGULATION

EU and UK Sign Historic Agreement on Digital Operational Resilience

European and British financial regulators just signed a memorandum of understanding that could become a blueprint for post-Brexit financial cooperation, and it's focused on one of the most critical risks facing modern finance: the operational resilience of ICT third-party service providers. The agreement involves the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) along with the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, and the Financial Conduct Authority. This isn't just a symbolic gesture—it establishes clear principles and procedures for cooperation, information sharing, and coordination of oversight activities between EU and UK authorities responsible for overseeing critical ICT providers. The legal basis for this agreement is the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), specifically Articles 36, 44, and 49, which cover oversight powers, international cooperation, and financial cross-sector exercises. Before signing, the European authorities conducted an assessment that confirmed the UK's confidentiality and professional secrecy regime is equivalent to that in the EU—a critical prerequisite for information sharing. Why does this matter? Because the financial sector's dependence on a small number of critical ICT third-party service providers creates systemic risk. Cloud computing providers, payment processors, and cybersecurity vendors are now essential infrastructure for banks, insurers, and investment firms. If one of these providers experiences a major outage or security breach, the ripple effects could destabilize multiple financial institutions across borders simultaneously. DORA, which came into force across the EU, requires financial entities to manage ICT risks, report incidents, and ensure operational resilience. But many of the critical ICT providers that EU financial institutions depend on are global companies with operations in the UK. Without cross-border cooperation, oversight would be fragmented and ineffective. This agreement is particularly significant in the context of Brexit. Since the UK left the EU, financial regulators have had to rebuild frameworks for cooperation that were once automatic. This MoU demonstrates that even in areas of high regulatory complexity, pragmatic cooperation is possible when the risks are systemic. For financial institutions operating across both jurisdictions, this agreement should provide greater clarity and consistency in how ICT third-party providers are overseen. For ICT providers themselves, it means they'll face coordinated scrutiny from both EU and UK regulators, reducing the risk of regulatory arbitrage but increasing the compliance burden. The agreement also sends a signal to other jurisdictions. As financial services become more digitized and dependent on third-party technology providers, international cooperation on ICT oversight will become essential. The EU-UK agreement could serve as a model for similar arrangements with other major financial centers. This is regulation catching up with the reality of modern finance: operational resilience is no longer a purely domestic concern, and effective oversight requires cross-border coordination. 🔗 Source: https://cyprus-mail.com/2026/01/18/european-and-british-regulators-sign-agreement-on-digital-resilience

Source

Read original article

January 18, 2026

COMPLIANCE

$1 Billion Money Laundering Scheme Exposes Tron's Dark Side

The US Department of Justice just charged a 59-year-old Venezuelan national with conspiracy to launder at least $1 billion in criminal proceeds, and the operation ran almost entirely on Tether's USDT stablecoin using the Tron blockchain. This case is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks crypto's AML problem is solved. Jorge Figueira allegedly received illicit funds in USDT, routed them through multiple crypto wallets, and converted them to US dollars via liquidity providers for deposit into American bank accounts. Court documents describe the operation as posing "a profound threat to financial systems and public safety" due to its massive scale. Federal investigators traced approximately $1 billion moving through digital wallets linked to Figueira's network, distributing funds to individuals and businesses worldwide—from Colombia to China. The scheme involved handling up to $700 million monthly, with Figueira reportedly boasting he could process $100 million in a single wallet transaction. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. But the real story here isn't just one bad actor—it's the infrastructure that enabled him. Tron emerged as the network of choice because of its faster transaction speeds and lower fees compared to Ethereum. Over $60 billion in USDT circulates on Tron, making it the second-largest stablecoin ecosystem after Ethereum. Figueira himself acknowledged in intercepted calls: "Let me be clear with you, [USDT] is used a lot for laundering money… It is used to transfer money in a quick way, even to make it get to jurisdictions that have some type of issues," citing China as an example. FBI Special Agent Stephen A. Walker testified that "the cryptocurrency ecosystem is often used by money launderers to receive money, and to launder it quickly, anonymously, and at scale." The patterns are clear: convoluted transactions, quick swaps between wallets and traditional accounts, and exploitation of high-speed, low-cost networks like Tron. To Tether's credit, the company has been proactive in freezing illicit funds. On January 11, 2026, Tether froze $182 million across five Tron wallets in coordination with the DOJ and FBI—one of its largest single-day actions. Tether's T3 Financial Crime Unit, partnering with Tron DAO and TRM Labs, has frozen over $126 million in six months as of late 2025. But the persistent association of Tron with large-scale money laundering raises uncomfortable questions. A UN report previously linked $17 billion in Tron USDT to underground exchanges. At what point does a network's speed and efficiency become a feature for criminals rather than users? This case will amplify calls for stricter oversight of stablecoins and high-speed blockchains. Regulators may intensify requirements for exchanges and issuers to implement real-time transaction monitoring and wallet blacklisting. For Tron and Tether, proactive freezes demonstrate compliance efforts, but persistent associations with crime could invite heightened scrutiny from bodies like the Treasury's FinCEN. The pseudonymous nature of public ledgers remains a vulnerability, and this case is a reminder that blockchain transparency alone isn't enough to stop sophisticated money laundering operations. 🔗 Source: https://amlnetwork.org/aml-news/usdt-on-tron-blockchain-central-to-1-billion-money-laundering-scheme-feds-allege/

Source

Read original article

January 18, 2026

REGULATION

The Clarity Act Showdown - Why Coinbase and Ripple Are on Opposite Sides

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (H.R. 3633) is the most serious attempt yet to give the US a coherent federal framework for digital assets, and it's exposing a fundamental divide in the crypto industry. Coinbase is walking away. Ripple is staying at the table. The reasons why reveal everything about where the industry's fault lines actually lie. The Clarity Act passed both House committees (Financial Services and Agriculture) in late 2025 and assigns the CFTC primary authority over "digital commodities" like Bitcoin and post-merge Ethereum, while preserving SEC oversight of primary market sales that still meet the Howey test. On paper, this is exactly what the industry has been asking for: regulatory clarity, a defined framework, and an end to enforcement-by-litigation. But Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took to social media this week to outline why his company can't support the bill as written. His concerns are specific: a de facto ban on tokenized equities, DeFi prohibitions that give the government unlimited access to financial records, erosion of the CFTC's authority, and—most critically—draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins. That last point is where the real tension lies. Coinbase earns roughly $300 million per quarter in distribution payments from Circle, revenue directly tied to stablecoin rewards. If those rewards are eliminated, Coinbase stands to lose around $1 billion in annual revenue. But it's not just about Coinbase's bottom line. The average reward for staking USDC on Coinbase is 3.5%, while leading banks like Chase or Wells Fargo offer less than 1% on deposits. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan warned this week that $6 trillion in deposits could move into stablecoins if rewards remain. This is where the banking lobby's interests collide with crypto innovation. The Clarity Act, in its current form, appears to prioritize protecting traditional banks from competition over enabling consumer choice. Coinbase's Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad emphasized that "the details matter," and he's right. StandWithCrypto has already generated 250,000 messages to Congress from consumers concerned about losing stablecoin rewards. Ripple, on the other hand, is staying engaged. Why? Because Ripple's business model doesn't depend on stablecoin rewards. Ripple's focus is on cross-border payments and institutional liquidity, and the Clarity Act's framework for CFTC oversight of digital commodities aligns with their strategic interests. Senator Tim Scott, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, stated that "everyone remains at the table working in good faith." But the reality is that not everyone has the same incentives. The Clarity Act will ultimately reveal whether US crypto regulation is designed to foster innovation or protect incumbents. 🔗 Source: https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2026/01/17/clarity-act-ripple-says-yes-coinbase-walks-away/

Source

Read original article

January 18, 2026

REGULATION

Moldova's Crypto Roadmap - EU Candidate Embraces MiCA Framework

Moldova just announced its plan to implement comprehensive cryptocurrency regulations by 2026, and it's a textbook example of how EU candidate countries are aligning with Brussels' regulatory vision even before formal membership. Finance Minister Andrian Gavriliță made it clear: as a candidate for European Union membership, Moldova is required to adhere to the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets framework. The forthcoming regulations will clarify the legality of holding, trading, and converting cryptocurrencies for citizens and authorize specific institutions to conduct related activities. But here's where Moldova's approach gets interesting. While the regulations will legalize crypto holding and trading, cryptocurrencies will explicitly not be permitted for payments of goods or services. This mirrors the EU's cautious approach to crypto as a medium of exchange, focusing instead on treating digital assets as investment vehicles subject to appropriate oversight. The tax treatment is straightforward and business-friendly: holding cryptocurrencies will not be taxed, but profits from transactions will incur a 12% income tax. That's a relatively low rate compared to many jurisdictions, and it creates clarity for investors and traders operating in Moldova. The regulations will also include stringent anti-money laundering and security risk management measures. Minister Gavriliță emphasized that the government's aim is to legalize the sector while preventing the use of cryptocurrencies for illegal financing and money laundering activities. That's the core tension every regulator faces: how do you enable innovation and legitimate use while closing the door on illicit activity? What makes Moldova's move significant isn't just the substance of the regulations—it's the timing and strategic positioning. By implementing MiCA-aligned rules now, Moldova is signaling to the EU that it's serious about regulatory harmonization. For a country seeking EU membership, demonstrating alignment with Brussels' priorities on emerging issues like crypto is smart politics. For the crypto industry, Moldova represents another jurisdiction moving from regulatory ambiguity to clarity. The global trend is unmistakable: countries are choosing regulation over prohibition, but they're doing so with frameworks that prioritize investor protection, AML compliance, and financial stability. The interesting question is whether Moldova's 12% tax rate on crypto profits will make it an attractive destination for crypto businesses and investors within the broader European market. If the regulatory framework is well-designed and efficiently implemented, Moldova could position itself as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction within the EU's regulatory perimeter. This is what the maturation of crypto regulation looks like: country by country, framework by framework, the industry is being integrated into the mainstream financial system. The wild west era is ending. The question now is which jurisdictions will create the most attractive balance between oversight and opportunity.

Source

Read original article

January 16, 2026

REGULATION

EU & UK Launch CARF - The End of Crypto Tax Ambiguity

The era of crypto tax ambiguity just ended. As of January 1st, 2026, the EU and UK officially rolled out the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, and the implications are massive for anyone operating in the digital asset space. CARF, developed by the OECD, fundamentally changes how crypto transactions are reported to tax authorities. Every crypto exchange, wallet provider, and digital asset service provider operating across the EU's 27 member states and the UK must now automatically report user account details and transaction data to domestic tax authorities. No more case-by-case requests. No more grey zones. This is automatic, comprehensive, and cross-border. Here's what makes this particularly significant: all 75 countries and jurisdictions that have committed to CARF will begin exchanging this information by September 30, 2027. That means tax authorities across Europe will have unprecedented visibility into crypto holdings and transactions, with data flowing seamlessly between jurisdictions. The UK's HMRC is already projecting this framework will recover £315 million in unpaid taxes by April 2030. That number alone tells you how much crypto activity has been flying under the radar until now. With approximately six to seven million crypto users in the UK—roughly 12% of the adult population—the scale of this reporting obligation is enormous. For users, the message is crystal clear: if you don't provide the required identity or account data to your exchange or service provider, you face penalties. If you intentionally conceal details to prevent reporting to tax authorities, the consequences are even more severe. But here's the interesting part: this isn't just about enforcement. CARF brings crypto assets into the global system for automatic tax information sharing, treating them with the same seriousness as traditional financial assets. For the industry, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it eliminates regulatory uncertainty and levels the playing field. On the other, it means the days of crypto operating in a parallel financial universe are definitively over. The EU's implementation through DAC8 is particularly comprehensive, requiring crypto asset service providers to collect identity information, account details, and transaction records on an ongoing basis. This isn't a one-time compliance exercise—it's a permanent shift in how crypto platforms operate. For crypto companies, the compliance burden is real. But for the industry's long-term legitimacy and integration into mainstream finance, this might be exactly what was needed. The question now is whether companies are ready for the operational and technical challenges of implementing these reporting requirements at scale.

Source

Read original article

January 16, 2026

REGULATION

ESMA's Digital Strategy 2026-2028 - Europe Bets on Tech-Driven Supervision

Europe's financial regulator just laid out its vision for the next three years, and it's all about smarter regulation through technology. ESMA has adopted its new Digital Strategy 2026-2028 alongside an updated Data Strategy, and the implications for financial services firms operating in the EU are significant. The core message from ESMA Chair Verena Ross is clear: "ESMA is committed to smarter regulation and supervision, and this drives our dual focus on digitalisation and simplification." That's not just regulatory rhetoric—it's a fundamental shift in how Europe approaches financial oversight. The Digital Strategy sets out four key objectives: building EU digital synergies, enhancing the digital capabilities of ESMA and the European System of Financial Supervision, bolstering operational efficiency, and establishing a secure and future-ready ecosystem. In practical terms, this means regulators are investing heavily in technology to make supervision more effective while simultaneously reducing the compliance burden on firms. The updated Data Strategy is where things get particularly interesting. ESMA is launching flagship initiatives focused on streamlining supervisory reporting, particularly around transaction data and in the funds domain. They're also expanding the capacity of the ESMA data platform to benefit both national and European authorities, and implementing the next phases of the MiCA joint supervisory tool for crypto-market monitoring. One of the most significant developments is the finalization of the European Single Access Point. ESAP is designed to create a centralized hub for accessing public financial and sustainability information about EU companies and investment products. For firms operating across multiple EU jurisdictions, this could dramatically simplify compliance and reporting. What makes these strategies noteworthy is their explicit focus on burden reduction. Regulators often talk about simplification, but ESMA is backing it up with concrete initiatives. By leveraging technology and better data management, they're aiming to create a system where compliance is less about paperwork and more about real-time, data-driven oversight. For financial services firms, this represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is that smarter, tech-enabled regulation should reduce duplication, streamline reporting, and create more consistency across the EU. The challenge is that firms need to invest in their own digital capabilities to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated regulatory expectations. The MiCA joint supervisory tool is a perfect example. As crypto markets mature under the new MiCA framework, ESMA is building real-time monitoring capabilities that will give regulators unprecedented visibility into digital asset markets. Firms that embrace this level of transparency and invest in robust data infrastructure will thrive. Those that don't will struggle. This is regulation entering its digital transformation era. The question for firms isn't whether to adapt, but how quickly they can build the capabilities to operate in this new environment.

Source

Read original article

January 16, 2026

CRYPTO

Ripple's Luxembourg Win - Strategic Positioning for EU Expansion

Ripple just secured preliminary approval for an Electronic Money Institution license in Luxembourg, and this is a much bigger deal than it might appear at first glance. This is Ripple's second major licensing victory in less than a week, following its UK FCA approval, and it positions the company for full MiCA compliance across the European Union. The license, granted by Luxembourg's Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier, enables Ripple to offer cross-border digital payment services across the entire European Economic Area. But the real strategic value lies in what comes next: this EMI license is a stepping stone toward obtaining a full Crypto-Asset Service Provider license under MiCA, which would give Ripple passporting rights across all EU member states. Luxembourg is positioning itself as a premier hub for MiCA compliance, and Ripple's decision to establish its EU regulatory base there is no accident. The country has a long history as a financial services center, sophisticated regulators who understand complex financial products, and a business-friendly environment. For a company like Ripple, which operates at the intersection of traditional finance and digital assets, Luxembourg offers the perfect regulatory home. What makes this particularly interesting is the timing. MiCA's full implementation in 2025 created a clear regulatory framework for crypto assets across the EU, but it also created a race among jurisdictions to attract the most innovative and well-capitalized crypto companies. Luxembourg is clearly winning that race, at least for institutional players like Ripple. The EMI license itself is significant because it allows Ripple to issue electronic money, process payments, and provide related services across the EEA. For a company whose core business is facilitating cross-border payments using blockchain technology, this is the regulatory foundation needed to scale operations across Europe. But let's be clear about what this means for XRP and Ripple's broader business model. Regulatory approval doesn't guarantee market success, and Ripple still faces intense competition in the cross-border payments space from both traditional players and other crypto companies. What the Luxembourg license does is remove regulatory uncertainty as a barrier to growth in Europe. For the broader crypto industry, Ripple's success in securing these licenses demonstrates that well-capitalized, professionally managed crypto companies can navigate even the strictest regulatory frameworks. The companies that are struggling with MiCA compliance are often those that lack the resources, expertise, or willingness to meet institutional-grade regulatory standards. This is the new reality of crypto in Europe: if you want to operate at scale, you need proper licensing, robust compliance infrastructure, and the capital to support both. Ripple is proving that it's possible, but it's also setting a high bar that many smaller players simply won't be able to clear. The question now is how quickly Ripple can convert this regulatory positioning into actual market share in European payment corridors. The license is the entry ticket. The real test is execution.

Source

Read original article

January 16, 2026

FINTECH

AML Expectations for Lenders Hit Bank-Level Standards

Non-bank lenders are facing a compliance reality check in 2026, and the message from regulators is unambiguous: if you're operating in the lending space, you're going to be held to the same anti-money laundering standards as traditional banks, regardless of your charter. This shift represents a fundamental change in how compliance is understood and enforced. For years, non-bank lenders operated in a regulatory grey zone, subject to some AML requirements but not the full weight of bank-level scrutiny. That era is over. What's driving this change? Two factors. First, non-bank lenders have grown to represent a significant portion of the lending market, particularly in consumer finance, small business lending, and specialized credit products. Their systemic importance has reached a level where regulators can no longer treat them as peripheral players. Second, and more importantly, the nature of financial crime has evolved. Money launderers and fraudsters are sophisticated actors who exploit regulatory arbitrage. If non-bank lenders face lighter AML obligations than banks, they become the path of least resistance for illicit funds. Regulators have figured this out, and they're closing the gap. The practical implication is that compliance is no longer viewed as a series of point-in-time checks. It's now understood as a continuous process that evolves alongside customer behavior and risk exposure. That means non-bank lenders need to invest in the same kind of transaction monitoring, customer due diligence, and suspicious activity reporting systems that banks have been building for decades. For fintech lenders, this creates a significant cost burden. AML compliance isn't cheap. It requires sophisticated technology, trained personnel, and ongoing investment in systems and processes. Smaller players are going to struggle with this, and we're likely to see consolidation in the non-bank lending space as a result. But here's the interesting part: for well-capitalized, professionally managed fintech lenders, this regulatory convergence could actually be a competitive advantage. If you've already invested in robust compliance infrastructure, you're now competing on a more level playing field with traditional banks. The regulatory moat that protected banks is eroding, but so is the compliance arbitrage that gave scrappy fintechs an unfair cost advantage. The bigger question is whether regulators have the resources and expertise to effectively supervise this expanded universe of AML-obligated entities. It's one thing to announce bank-level expectations for non-bank lenders. It's another thing to actually examine, supervise, and enforce those expectations across thousands of diverse entities with different business models, risk profiles, and technological capabilities. What we're seeing is the maturation of fintech regulation. The experimental phase is over. The "move fast and break things" mentality is being replaced by "build robust compliance and grow sustainably." For the industry, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. The companies that embrace this shift will thrive. Those that resist will find themselves on the wrong side of regulatory enforcement actions. The message to fintech lenders is clear: compliance is no longer optional, and it's no longer enough to do the bare minimum. If you want to operate at scale in 2026 and beyond, you need to think and act like a regulated financial institution, because that's exactly what you are.

Source

Read original article

January 16, 2026

REGULATION

EU and UK Sign Historic DORA Agreement on ICT Oversight

Brexit may have separated the UK from the EU politically, but when it comes to financial operational resilience, they're building bridges instead of walls. Yesterday, the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UK's Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority, and Financial Conduct Authority. This agreement establishes a formal framework for cooperation on overseeing critical ICT third-party service providers under the Digital Operational Resilience Act. Why does this matter? Because modern financial services run on technology infrastructure that doesn't respect borders. Cloud providers, payment processors, data centers—these critical service providers operate globally, and a disruption in one jurisdiction can cascade across multiple markets within minutes. DORA represents Europe's most comprehensive attempt to ensure financial institutions can withstand and recover from ICT disruptions. But here's the challenge: many of these critical service providers are global companies serving both EU and UK financial institutions. Without coordination between regulators, you'd have duplicative oversight, conflicting requirements, and gaps in supervision. Before signing this MoU, the ESAs had to conduct a formal assessment confirming that the UK's confidentiality and professional secrecy regime is equivalent to EU standards under DORA. They passed that test, which is significant given the post-Brexit regulatory divergence we've seen in other areas. This is what good regulation looks like: practical cooperation that enhances financial stability without creating unnecessary friction. It's a reminder that when it comes to systemic risk and operational resilience, regulators understand that collaboration beats isolation every time.

Source

Read original article

January 15, 2026

CRYPTO

France's MiCA Enforcement Showdown: 90 Crypto Companies Face July Deadline

France just dropped a compliance bombshell that should wake up every crypto company operating in Europe. The French regulator AMF has identified 90 cryptocurrency companies that are running out of time to get their house in order. These firms have until June 30, 2026 to secure MiCA authorization or they'll be forced to shut down operations on July 1st. No extensions, no second chances. Here's what makes this particularly interesting: 40% of these companies are outright refusing to apply for licenses, and another 30% haven't even bothered to respond to the regulator's warning letters sent back in November. That's 70% of unlicensed operators essentially playing chicken with one of Europe's strictest financial regulators. ESMA has made it clear that companies without authorization need to prepare orderly wind-down plans that protect their customers. They're also telling national regulators to scrutinize any last-minute applications extra carefully. Translation: if you're waiting until the last minute, expect a rough ride. The stakes couldn't be higher. Companies that successfully navigate MiCA compliance gain access to over 450 million potential customers across the entire EU with a single license. Those that don't lose access to one of the world's largest and wealthiest markets. This isn't just a French issue anymore. It's a litmus test for how serious Europe is about enforcing its new crypto framework. Every crypto company operating in the EU should be watching this closely and asking themselves: are we ready for July 1st? The transition period is ending. The compliance reckoning is here.

Source

Read original article

January 15, 2026

FINTECH

Fintech Compliance Enters the Accountability Era

After years of regulatory ambiguity, 2026 is shaping up as the year fintech compliance finally gets serious about accountability. The shift is visible everywhere. Last week, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services held hearings specifically focused on fintech innovations and regulations. The message was clear: the era of "move fast and break things" is over. Regulators want to see robust compliance frameworks before innovation, not after. In Europe, we're seeing ESMA move toward centralized supervision of fintech firms, ending the fragmented approach where companies could shop for the most lenient regulator. The EU's DAC8 directive, which kicked in this January, now mandates crypto asset reporting by July 2026, creating a comprehensive framework for tax compliance and cross-border cooperation. But here's what's really interesting: compliance is no longer being treated as a checkbox exercise. Sanctions screening, for example, is evolving from a discrete compliance checkpoint into a core intelligence function embedded across financial operations. Companies are realizing that good compliance isn't just about avoiding penalties—it's about building trust, managing risk, and creating competitive advantage. The rise of agentic AI in financial institutions is adding another layer of complexity. These systems can make autonomous decisions, which raises fundamental questions about accountability, auditability, and control. Regulators are starting to grapple with these questions, and fintech companies need to get ahead of the curve. What does this mean for fintech founders and compliance officers? The regulatory perimeter is expanding, enforcement is getting more aggressive, and the cost of non-compliance is rising. But companies that embrace this shift and build compliance into their DNA from day one will find themselves with a significant competitive advantage. Compliance is no longer a cost center. It's a strategic differentiator.

Source

Read original article

January 15, 2026

IGAMING

Alberta's $700M iGaming Opportunity Opens Up

Canada's iGaming market just got a lot more interesting. Alberta introduced its regulatory framework yesterday, setting the stage for commercial operators to enter what could become a $700 million annual market. Here's the context: right now, about 70% of Alberta's online gambling market is unregulated. PlayAlberta, the province's only legal option, generated $275 million in 2025 but captures somewhere between 23% to 32% of total market activity. The rest? Flowing to offshore operators with zero consumer protection and zero tax contribution to the province. Alberta is taking the smart approach by modeling its framework on Ontario, which has been called the "platinum standard of iGaming regulation" since launching in 2022. Ontario now has over 45 licensed operators and has proven that a well-designed regulatory framework can successfully channel players from the grey market into licensed, regulated environments. The Alberta framework includes some thoughtful features: a centralized self-exclusion system, strict advertising rules to protect minors and high-risk individuals, and a revenue split that dedicates 2% to First Nations and 1% to problem gambling treatment and research. Operators will go through a three-part application process with the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis commission before entering an agreement with the new Alberta iGaming Corporation. What makes Alberta particularly attractive? It has the youngest adult population in Canada, the highest per-capita GDP, and the highest per-capita gambling spend in the country. Minister Dave Nally says operators could be live "within a few months." For operators already established in Ontario, this is a natural expansion opportunity with a familiar regulatory structure. For Alberta residents, it means access to competitive, regulated options with real consumer protections. That's a win-win scenario.

Source

Read original article

January 15, 2026

CRYPTO

EU's DAC8 Directive Brings Crypto Tax Into the Light

Starting this month, the European Union's DAC8 directive is fundamentally changing how crypto assets are reported for tax purposes. And if you're operating in the crypto space, you need to understand what's coming by July. DAC8 stands for the Eighth Directive on Administrative Cooperation, and it extends the EU's existing tax reporting framework to cover crypto assets comprehensively. The directive requires crypto asset service providers to collect and report detailed information about their users' transactions to tax authorities across all EU member states. The reporting deadline is July 2026, which might seem far away but really isn't when you consider the operational changes required. Exchanges, wallet providers, and other crypto service providers need to implement systems to track user identities, transaction volumes, asset types, and cross-border flows. This information will then be automatically exchanged between EU tax authorities. Why is this significant? Because until now, crypto has operated in a relative tax reporting vacuum. Many users assumed their crypto activities were private or difficult for tax authorities to track. DAC8 ends that assumption. It creates a comprehensive, EU-wide framework for tax transparency that mirrors the systems already in place for traditional financial assets. For legitimate crypto businesses, this is actually good news. Clear tax rules create certainty, reduce compliance risk, and level the playing field by making it harder for bad actors to operate. It also signals that the EU is treating crypto as a mature asset class worthy of comprehensive regulation, not a temporary phenomenon to be ignored. For users, the message is simple: if you're trading or holding crypto assets through EU-based service providers, assume your tax authority will have visibility into your activities. Plan accordingly, report accurately, and work with tax professionals who understand crypto. The days of crypto operating in a regulatory grey zone are ending. DAC8 is another step toward full integration of digital assets into the regulated financial system. Whether you see that as progress or intrusion probably depends on which side of the compliance desk you sit on.

Source

Read original article

January 15, 2026

REGULATION

CLARITY Act Amendments Battle: The Fight Over "Solely"

The crypto market structure bill just got a lot more complicated. Over 75 amendments have been filed ahead of Thursday's Senate Banking Committee markup hearing, and the real battle is over a single word: "solely." Right now, the draft text says stablecoin issuers can't pay yield "solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin." Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks want to remove that word. Why does this matter? Because "solely" is the escape hatch that lets issuers pay rewards for other activities like staking, lending, or liquidity provision—not just holding. Multiple other amendments want to kill stablecoin yields entirely. This isn't just a technical debate. It's banks using Congress to eliminate competition from yield-bearing stablecoins that threaten their deposit monopoly. Other amendments tackle DeFi definitions, software developer protections, and ethics provisions related to Trump family crypto ties. Senator Van Hollen is pushing anti-corruption and anti-touting requirements. Senator Blunt Rochester is addressing quorum requirements since Trump hasn't nominated any Democrats to the SEC or CFTC. Most of these amendments will fail—that's how markup hearings work. But the sheer volume (75+) shows how far apart the two parties still are on key issues. The Senate Agriculture Committee already punted its hearing to January 27. Thursday's markup will be a masterclass in legislative sausage-making. The question isn't whether the bill will pass—it's what version emerges and whether it's worth passing at all. Are we watching regulatory clarity or regulatory capture?

Source

Read original article

January 14, 2026

IGAMING

Virginia and Maine Push Forward on iGaming—Momentum Builds

Virginia just introduced SB118, a bill that would legalize 15 online casino licenses. Meanwhile, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed iGaming legislation, making Maine the 8th state to legalize online casinos. The momentum is undeniable. Maine's model is interesting—it's tribal-exclusive, meaning only tribal operators can offer online casinos. This avoids commercial operator competition but may limit market size and tax revenue. It's a political compromise that prioritizes tribal sovereignty over market efficiency. Virginia's approach is different. SB118 would create a competitive licensing regime with 15 operators. This is the model most states are adopting—limited licenses, high barriers to entry, and strict regulatory oversight. It maximizes tax revenue while maintaining control. New York is also reintroducing iGaming bills. If New York legalizes, it would be the largest iGaming market in the U.S. by population. That would force other states to follow or risk losing tax revenue to cross-border operators. The iGaming legalization wave is driven by three factors: state budget deficits, the success of online sports betting, and the realization that prohibition doesn't work. People are gambling online anyway—states are just deciding whether to regulate and tax it or let offshore operators capture the revenue. For compliance professionals, this means more work. Each state has different licensing requirements, responsible gambling standards, and AML/CFT obligations. Multi-state operators need robust compliance programs that can adapt to 50 different regulatory regimes. The future of iGaming is state-by-state legalization, not federal regulation. That's messy, but it's the American way.

Source

Read original article

January 14, 2026

REGULATION

OCC Updates National Bank Chartering Standards—Why Fintech Should Care

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) just published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on national bank chartering standards. This might sound like bureaucratic housekeeping, but it's a big deal for fintech companies trying to escape the 50-state regulatory patchwork. Right now, if you want to offer banking services nationwide, you have two options: get a federal bank charter from the OCC, or get licensed in all 50 states. The second option is expensive, slow, and operationally complex. That's why fintech companies have been pushing for federal charters. The OCC is updating the evaluation criteria for new national bank applications. This could make it easier—or harder—for fintech companies to get federal charters, depending on what the final rule says. Why does this matter? Because the state-by-state regulatory model is killing innovation. Fintech companies spend millions on compliance instead of product development. They launch in 5 states instead of 50. They partner with sketchy sponsor banks instead of operating independently. A clear, accessible federal charter pathway would level the playing field. It would let fintech companies compete with incumbent banks on merit, not regulatory arbitrage. It would also give consumers more choice and better products. The comment period is open now. If you're in fintech, this is your chance to shape the rules. The OCC is listening—but only if you speak up.

Source

Read original article

January 14, 2026

FINTECH

JPMorgan Freezes Stablecoin Startup Accounts—Compliance or Competition?

JPMorgan Chase just froze the accounts of Kontigo and BlindPay, two stablecoin startups, citing "compliance concerns" and a "spike in activity." On the surface, this looks like standard de-risking. But the timing tells a different story. This happens right as Congress debates whether to allow stablecoin issuers to pay yields—a feature that would let stablecoins compete directly with bank deposit accounts. Traditional banks don't want yield-bearing stablecoins eating into their deposit base, and they're using compliance as a weapon. "Compliance concerns" is the banking industry's favorite excuse for cutting off competitors. It's vague enough to avoid legal liability but specific enough to justify account closures. And "spike in activity"? That's called growth. It's what happens when a fintech company succeeds. This is the real-world manifestation of the yield battle happening in Congress. Banks are lobbying to ban stablecoin yields while simultaneously cutting off stablecoin startups' access to the banking system. It's a two-pronged strategy: regulatory capture + operational strangulation. The irony? Banks claim they're protecting consumers from risky crypto products while offering savings accounts that pay 0.01% interest in a 4% inflation environment. Meanwhile, stablecoins offer transparency, programmability, and actual yields. If regulators are serious about fostering competition and innovation, they need to address Operation Choke Point 2.0. Otherwise, we'll keep seeing "compliance concerns" used as a cudgel against any fintech that threatens incumbent banks.

Source

Read original article

January 14, 2026

COMPLIANCE

SEC Issues Crypto Custody Guidance for Broker-Dealers

After years of institutional demand, the SEC Staff just issued long-awaited guidance on how carrying broker-dealers should handle crypto asset securities. This isn't headline-grabbing stuff, but it's the regulatory plumbing that makes institutional adoption possible. The guidance addresses custody requirements, capital adequacy, and operational standards for broker-dealers holding digital assets on behalf of clients. Essentially, the SEC is saying: "Here's how existing broker-dealer rules apply to crypto." Why does this matter? Because traditional financial infrastructure needs clear rules before it can touch crypto at scale. Banks, broker-dealers, and custodians have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for this kind of clarity. Now they have it. This is the SEC's way of preparing Wall Street for crypto integration without changing the underlying securities laws. They're not creating new rules—they're clarifying how old rules apply to new assets. Morrison Foerster's analysis suggests this is a significant step toward institutional integration. The timing is interesting too—it comes just as Congress debates the CLARITY Act and stablecoin regulations. The SEC is building the infrastructure for a future where crypto is part of mainstream finance, regardless of what Congress does. The real test will be whether broker-dealers actually use this guidance or continue to avoid crypto due to reputational risk and regulatory uncertainty. Guidance is helpful, but it's not a safe harbor.

Source

Read original article

January 14, 2026

CRYPTO

Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act - Code Is Not Custody

The Senate is moving fast this week, and one bill deserves more attention than it's getting. Senators Lummis and Wyden just introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act as a standalone measure, clarifying once and for all that non-custodial developers, miners, and validators shouldn't be classified as money transmitters simply because they write code or run infrastructure. The principle is simple but powerful: code is not custody. This matters because recent enforcement actions have created a chilling effect across the entire open-source blockchain ecosystem.

Source

Read original article

January 13, 2026

IGAMING

TwinSpires Wins Michigan Battle - Federal Preemption Reshapes State Gaming Enforcement

A federal judge just handed Churchill Downs a decisive victory in Michigan, and the implications reach far beyond one company or one state. The Western Michigan District Court permanently blocked the Michigan Gaming Control Board from enforcing a state licensing requirement against TwinSpires, ruling that federal law preempts state authority in this case.

Source

Read original article

January 13, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Generative AI in Compliance - Efficiency Without Abdication

Generative AI has crossed a threshold in compliance teams. It's no longer an experiment. It's operational. Over the past year, driven by rising regulatory complexity, resource pressure, and the need for consistency across jurisdictions, compliance teams have moved from cautious experimentation to real-world deployment. But as adoption accelerates, a critical question has emerged: how do you benefit from AI-driven efficiency without surrendering responsibility?

Source

Read original article

January 13, 2026

CRYPTO

Citi's Bet - Digital Assets as Usable Infrastructure

Citi just published a fascinating conversation with Ryan Rugg from their Treasury and Trade Solutions team, and it's worth reading for what it doesn't say as much as what it does. The framing is deliberate: From hype to infrastructure. That's not just marketing language. It's a signal that regulated institutions are finally moving from observation to integration, and the catalyst isn't technological, it's regulatory.

Source

Read original article

January 13, 2026

FINTECH

The Hidden Cost of Federal Retreat - 50 Competing Rulebooks

Here's a counterintuitive reality about deregulation: when the federal government steps back, it doesn't create freedom. It creates fifty competing rulebooks. The CFPB's decision to dial down enforcement of BNPL and other nonbank credit products hasn't created a vacuum, it's invited fifty state regulators and fifty state attorneys general to fill the gap with their own interpretations, priorities, and enforcement theories.

Source

Read original article

January 13, 2026

FINTECH

Compliance-First Fintech Attracting Capital

Chennai-based Mylapay just raised $1 million for its compliance-first payments infrastructure, and it's part of a broader trend that's worth paying attention to. We're seeing a shift in how investors evaluate fintech startups - compliance is no longer a cost center, it's a competitive advantage. Mylapay's pitch is simple: build payments infrastructure with compliance baked in from day one, rather than bolting it on later. That means KYC, AML, transaction monitoring, and regulatory reporting aren't afterthoughts - they're core product features. For merchants and platforms that integrate Mylapay's infrastructure, compliance becomes automatic rather than manual. This is a fundamental change in how fintech is being built. Five years ago, the playbook was "move fast and figure out compliance later." That worked when regulators were still trying to understand the space. But in 2026, regulators have caught up. Enforcement is real, fines are substantial, and the cost of getting compliance wrong can kill a company. The companies that are winning now are the ones that treat compliance as infrastructure. They're not just checking boxes - they're building systems that make it impossible to be non-compliant. That's what investors are betting on, and that's what's going to separate the survivors from the casualties over the next few years. Are you seeing compliance-first design becoming table stakes in your sector?

Source

Read original article

January 12, 2026

FINTECH

Plus500 US Expansion Shows Regulatory Licensing Pays Off

Plus500, the fintech broker, just reported results that outpaced expectations, and the driver is worth noting: new partnerships and regulatory licenses are fueling their US expansion. Analyst Rae Maile from Panmure Liberum is calling for "yet another good year to come in 2026." This is a case study in how regulatory licensing creates competitive moats. Plus500 isn't winning because they have better technology or lower fees - they're winning because they've done the hard work of securing licenses in multiple US states. That takes time, capital, and compliance infrastructure. But once you have those licenses, you're operating in a market where most of your potential competitors can't follow you. The US market is notoriously fragmented when it comes to financial services regulation. Every state has its own rules, its own licensing requirements, and its own enforcement priorities. That creates massive barriers to entry. For companies like Plus500 that have invested in building multi-state licensing infrastructure, those barriers become advantages. For compliance teams, this is a reminder that licensing isn't just a regulatory checkbox - it's a strategic asset. The companies that treat licensing as a growth enabler rather than a cost center are the ones that end up dominating their markets. How is your organization thinking about licensing as a competitive advantage?

Source

Read original article

January 12, 2026

IGAMING

Bangladesh Calls for Online Gaming Regulation

Bangladesh is joining the growing list of jurisdictions calling for comprehensive online gaming and gambling regulation. The argument being made is straightforward: an unregulated market creates consumer risks, enables illegal activity, and leaves tax revenue on the table. Right now, online gaming in Bangladesh operates in a regulatory grey zone. There are no licensing requirements, no consumer protections, and no oversight. That means players have no recourse if they're cheated, operators have no accountability, and the government collects no tax revenue from an industry that's generating significant economic activity. The call for regulation is interesting because it reflects a broader global trend. Jurisdictions that previously took a prohibitionist stance on online gambling are realizing that prohibition doesn't work - it just pushes the activity underground. Regulation, on the other hand, brings the industry into the light where it can be monitored, taxed, and held to standards. For operators, this creates both opportunity and risk. Opportunity because regulated markets are more stable and predictable than grey markets. Risk because regulation means compliance costs, licensing fees, and ongoing oversight. The operators that will succeed in newly regulated markets like Bangladesh are the ones that can move quickly to secure licenses and build compliant operations before the market gets crowded. Are you seeing similar regulatory momentum in other emerging markets?

Source

Read original article

January 12, 2026

CRYPTO

CLARITY Act Faces Make-or-Break Moment This Week

Thursday could determine whether the US finally gets clear crypto regulation - or whether the industry stays stuck in limbo for another year. Two Senate committees are holding synchronized markups on the CLARITY Act on January 15, and there's one issue that could kill the whole thing: stablecoin yield rewards. Here's the tension. Traditional banks, represented by the American Bankers Association, are warning that allowing crypto firms to offer yield on stablecoin holdings creates a $6.6 trillion risk to community banking. Their argument: if customers can earn yield on stablecoins, deposits will flow out of traditional banks, reducing their ability to make loans. JPMorgan disagrees, saying the threat is overblown. Coinbase, the largest US crypto exchange, is now saying it may pull support for the bill if stablecoin rewards are banned. That's significant. Coinbase has been one of the loudest voices pushing for regulatory clarity, and if they walk away, it signals that the industry would rather have no regulation than bad regulation. The stakes are enormous. Right now, oversight is split between the SEC and CFTC, but tokenized markets, DeFi, and stablecoins don't fit neatly into either category. The CLARITY Act would finally answer the foundational question: how should digital assets be regulated in the United States? Institutional capital has been sitting on the sidelines waiting for this answer. If the bill passes, expect massive inflows. If it stalls, expect another year of uncertainty. What's your read - will stablecoin yield rewards make it into the final bill?

Source

Read original article

January 12, 2026

COMPLIANCE

India Game-Changing Crypto KYC Rules

India just raised the bar for crypto compliance in a way that's going to reshape how exchanges think about onboarding globally. The Financial Intelligence Unit rolled out new AML/KYC protocols on January 8 that go way beyond traditional document uploads. Here's what's now mandatory: live selfies with liveness detection software that tracks eye-blinking and head movement to prevent deepfakes. GPS tracking that captures exact latitude, longitude, timestamp, and IP address during account creation. Penny-drop verification to confirm the bank account is real and belongs to the person signing up. And dual ID requirements - PAN plus a secondary document like Passport or Aadhaar, with OTP verification layered on top. But it doesn't stop at onboarding. Exchanges now have to update KYC details every six months for high-risk clients and annually for everyone else. Enhanced due diligence is required for politically exposed persons, nonprofits, and anyone with links to tax havens or FATF grey/black list jurisdictions. And the FIU is taking a hard line on anonymity tools - tumblers, mixers, and anonymity-enhancing tokens are explicitly banned. This is a massive shift. India isn't just regulating crypto - it's building a compliance infrastructure that makes it nearly impossible to operate anonymously. For exchanges operating globally, this sets a new standard. If you can meet India's requirements, you can probably meet anyone's. The question for compliance teams: is your onboarding infrastructure ready for this level of scrutiny?

Source

Read original article

January 12, 2026

REGULATION

Gibraltar Sports Regulation Framework

Gibraltar continues to set the standard for sports regulation in Europe. The jurisdiction's framework for sports betting and gaming operations demonstrates how thoughtful regulation can balance consumer protection with commercial viability. What makes Gibraltar's approach particularly interesting is the emphasis on operational substance. Operators aren't just buying a license - they're building real compliance infrastructure on the ground. This creates genuine accountability and makes regulatory oversight meaningful rather than theoretical. For compliance professionals working in the sports betting sector, Gibraltar offers a case study in how jurisdictions can maintain high standards without creating impossible barriers to entry. The licensing process is rigorous but transparent, and the ongoing supervisory relationship between operators and regulators tends to be collaborative rather than adversarial. As we see more jurisdictions wrestling with how to regulate sports betting, Gibraltar's model - now refined over more than a decade - provides valuable lessons about what works when you prioritize substance over speed. What's your experience with Gibraltar's regulatory framework? How does it compare to other jurisdictions you've worked in?

Source

Read original article

January 11, 2026

FINTECH

Embedded Finance Goes Mainstream in 2026

2026 is shaping up to be the year embedded finance finally moves from promise to infrastructure. The convergence of technology, trust, regulation, and user behavior is pushing financial tools directly into the software businesses already use - no more jumping between systems. What's changed? Accounting platforms have become the system of record for most small businesses, providing real-time data and trusted foundations for financial decision-making. Businesses now expect finance to be contextual, not a separate destination. And advisors are moving closer to the tools, with embedded finance aligning naturally with advisor-led models. But here's the critical point: embedded doesn't mean automatic, and easier access increases the importance of judgment. Poorly designed embedded finance products can scale faster, amplifying harm rather than reducing it. As regulatory scrutiny increases, the focus is shifting to transparency, suitability, and responsible product design. For compliance teams, this creates both opportunity and risk. Well-designed embedded finance can reduce friction and improve access while maintaining appropriate guardrails. Badly designed embedded finance can create systemic problems at scale. The question isn't whether embedded finance will happen - it's already happening. The question is whether we'll embed good finance or bad finance. How is your organization thinking about embedded finance from a compliance perspective?

Source

Read original article

January 11, 2026

IGAMING

Michigan Crackdown on Unlicensed Gaming

Michigan's Gaming Control Board just issued 19 cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed online gambling operators - the biggest enforcement action yet. These sites were offering casino games and sports betting without going through the state licensing process, violating Michigan's Lawful Internet Gaming Act and Lawful Sports Betting Act. Here's the scale of the problem: Michigan's 17 licensed online casinos generated $331 million in January 2025. Meanwhile, unregulated platforms are estimated to have pulled in $1.2 billion from Michigan residents last year. That's not just lost tax revenue - it's players operating without the consumer protections that licensed operators are required to provide. The MGCB has now issued 59 cease-and-desist letters over the last year, and they're not slowing down. Henry Williams, the MGCB's leader, put it bluntly: "When companies offer games without proper licensing, Michigan players are left without the critical protections they deserve. That's unacceptable." For compliance professionals in the iGaming sector, this is a reminder that enforcement is real and getting more aggressive. The days of operating in regulatory gray zones are over. Jurisdictions are building the infrastructure to identify, target, and shut down unlicensed operators. Are you seeing similar enforcement trends in other US states? What's the compliance cost of getting it wrong?

Source

Read original article

January 11, 2026

REGULATION

Senate Crypto Market Structure Vote - January 15

Next Thursday could be a watershed moment for US crypto regulation. Two Senate committees - Banking and Agriculture - are holding synchronized markups on crypto market structure legislation on January 15. If both committees can advance reconcilable versions, we could see a Senate floor vote within weeks. The stakes are enormous. This legislation would finally answer the foundational question that's plagued the industry for years: how should digital assets be regulated in the United States? Right now, oversight is split between the SEC (securities) and CFTC (commodities), but tokenized markets, DeFi, and stablecoins have blurred these categories in ways regulators never anticipated. The big unresolved issue? Whether crypto firms can offer yield on stablecoin holdings. Traditional banks argue this siphons deposits from community banking markets. Crypto firms counter that yield incentives are essential for liquidity and user adoption. This single issue could determine whether the bill moves forward or stalls. For CFOs and treasury teams, the key issue is predictability. You can't commit resources, integrate systems, or approve new financial instruments when you don't know which rules apply. Clear federal rules would unlock institutional capital flows that have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for regulatory clarity. How would clear crypto regulation change your organization's approach to digital assets?

Source

Read original article

January 11, 2026

CRYPTO

Bitget Secures El Salvador DASP License

El Salvador continues to position itself as a serious player in digital asset regulation. Bitget just secured a Digital Asset Service Provider (DASP) license from El Salvador's Central Reserve Bank, joining Binance and Bitfinex in the jurisdiction. This isn't just about adding another license to the wall. El Salvador's DASP framework allows exchanges to offer the full suite of crypto services - spot and derivatives trading, staking, and custodial wallets - under a clear regulatory structure. For an exchange like Bitget, which now serves 120 million users globally, having licenses in multiple jurisdictions reduces concentration risk and signals commitment to operating within legal frameworks. The interesting trend here is how quickly El Salvador has moved from Bitcoin adoption to building out comprehensive digital asset regulation. While some jurisdictions are still debating whether crypto needs regulation at all, El Salvador has created a licensing regime that's attracting major global players. For compliance teams at crypto exchanges, the message is clear: regulatory arbitrage is dead. The winners in 2026 and beyond will be the platforms that can navigate multiple regulatory regimes simultaneously while maintaining operational consistency. Are you seeing more exchanges prioritize licensing over speed to market? What's driving that shift?

Source

Read original article

January 11, 2026

IGAMING

Massachusetts HB 4431 - March 16 Deadline for iGaming Decision

Massachusetts lawmakers have until March 16 to decide on House Bill 4431, a proposal that would legalize regulated online casino gaming while simultaneously banning sweepstakes-style casinos statewide. The policy logic here is critical. If sweepstakes platforms are banned without providing a legal in-state alternative, players will simply migrate to offshore and unregulated websites. By pairing the ban with legalized online casinos, Massachusetts can keep gaming activity onshore, ensure regulatory oversight, implement problem gambling safeguards, and create a taxable market. With California and New York already banning sweepstakes casinos, the trend suggests momentum is building for this comprehensive approach.

Source

Read original article

January 10, 2026

CRYPTO

CLARITY Act Senate Vote - January 15 Showdown

The US Senate Banking Committee votes on the CLARITY Act next Wednesday, January 15, and this could be the moment crypto regulation finally gets the clarity it has been waiting for. After months of bipartisan negotiations, the committee will use the House-approved text as the foundation for what could become law by March 2026. The Senate is split 53-47, which means Republicans need at least 7 Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote threshold. Analysts at Galaxy suggest that if we see all Republicans plus 2-4 Democrats voting yes in committee, the final Senate vote could reach 65-70 approvals. The stakes are high because this bill could reduce market manipulation by 70-80 percent according to supporters.

Source

Read original article

January 10, 2026

FINTECH

2026 Fintech - Stablecoins, Agentic AI, and the Year of Clarity

After years of regulatory uncertainty, 2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for fintech. The GENIUS Act enacted in July 2025 created the first comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins. Since its passage, stablecoin transaction volumes have surged to $10 billion as of August 2025, up from $6 billion in February. The real transformation is happening with agentic AI which can plan, reason, and take multi-step actions without explicit instructions. Fintechs are integrating payment tools directly into AI chatbots to initiate transactions and detect fraud. The challenge is cybersecurity. Financial services ranks as the most targeted industry for AI-powered cyberattacks in 2025, experiencing 33 percent of all AI-driven incidents.

Source

Read original article

January 10, 2026

IGAMING

Sri Lanka Aggressive Casino Tax Overhaul - A Warning for Asia

Sri Lanka just introduced one of the most aggressive gambling tax overhauls in Asia. Effective January 1, 2026, the country sharply raised licence fees, increased the casino entry levy to $100, and shifted to turnover-based levies. This signals a broader trend where regulators are moving toward dynamic revenue-linked models that capture a larger share of operator earnings. For compliance professionals, turnover-based levies require more sophisticated reporting systems, real-time transaction monitoring, and tighter integration between gaming operations and tax authorities. As digital gambling and crypto-integrated gaming platforms expand across Asia, regulators are under pressure to modernize tax frameworks. Sri Lanka aggressive approach may serve as a template for other jurisdictions.

Source

Read original article

January 10, 2026

COMPLIANCE

2026 KYC & AML - Speed is the New Compliance Challenge

Customer risk now changes faster than traditional compliance review cycles can keep up with. That is the defining challenge for KYC and AML teams in 2026. The shift from periodic KYC refreshes to perpetual KYC is no longer optional. The EU AML Regulation now mandates that customer data be kept up to date with refresh intervals capped at one year for high-risk customers. We are also seeing a rise in micro-laundering through creator-economy rails like tipping services and subscription platforms. UK fines in 2025 tell the story: Monzo £21 million, Barclays £43 million, Nationwide £44 million. Australia Tranche 2 reforms kick in July 1, 2026, bringing lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents into the AML/CTF regime for the first time.

Source

Read original article

January 10, 2026

FINTECH

Will 2026 Be the Year for Stablecoins?

Stablecoins are entering the banking mainstream. U.S. Bank's pilot on Stellar, the GENIUS Act, and Bank of England's draft regime all point to the same conclusion: stablecoins are transitioning from crypto-native tools to core financial infrastructure. With projections of $4 trillion in cross-border volume by 2030, the compliance implications are massive. Regulatory clarity is emerging, but operational readiness—particularly around reserve transparency, redemption mechanisms, and cross-border flows—will separate winners from losers.

Source

Payment Expert - 2026 Year for Stablecoins

January 8, 2026

IGAMING

Maine Becomes Eighth State to Legalize iGaming

Maine's legalization of iGaming, following an exclusive tribal model, brings the total to eight U.S. states with legal online casino gaming. With New York and Virginia reintroducing bills, momentum is building for broader U.S. iGaming expansion. For operators, each new state means navigating unique licensing requirements, tax structures, and responsible gaming mandates. The patchwork nature of U.S. iGaming regulation demands flexible, jurisdiction-specific compliance strategies. One-size-fits-all won't work.

Source

Covers - Maine iGaming Legalization

January 8, 2026

COMPLIANCE

FinCEN Hits Pause: No AML Rule for Investment Advisers Until 2028

FinCEN's decision to delay AML requirements for investment advisers until 2028 provides a two-year window for the industry to prepare—but it's not a free pass. This extension reflects the complexity of applying traditional AML frameworks to diverse investment models, particularly those involving digital assets. Smart advisers will use this time to build robust compliance programs proactively, rather than scrambling at the deadline. Early movers will have competitive advantage.

Source

Morrison Foerster - FinCEN AML Rule Delay

January 8, 2026

REGULATION

Florida Revives Bitcoin Reserve Push with New 2026 Bill

Florida's HB 1039 marks a significant moment in the state-level crypto adoption narrative. Following similar moves by New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Texas, Florida is positioning itself as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction by proposing a strategic Bitcoin reserve fund. For compliance advisors, this trend raises important questions about custody standards, reporting requirements, and fiduciary responsibilities when public funds enter digital assets. The regulatory framework is still catching up to political ambition.

Source

CoinDesk - Florida Bitcoin Reserve Bill

January 8, 2026

CRYPTO

Crypto Crime Hits Record $154B: State-Backed Actors Dominate 2025

Chainalysis' 2026 Crypto Crime Report reveals a sobering reality: illicit crypto activity reached $154 billion in 2025, with state-backed actors—particularly North Korea and Russia—driving the majority. The $1.5B Bybit hack alone demonstrates the sophistication and scale of modern crypto crime. For compliance professionals, this underscores the critical importance of robust security infrastructure, real-time monitoring, and cross-border cooperation. The threat landscape has evolved; our defenses must too.

Source

Chainalysis - 2026 Crypto Crime Report

January 8, 2026

REGULATION

One Year of MiCA: The Evolving Landscape of EU Crypto Asset Regulation

As we mark the first anniversary of MiCA implementation, the regulatory landscape for crypto assets in the EU continues to evolve. With the July 2026 deadline approaching for CASPs to achieve full compliance, now is the time for crypto businesses to assess their readiness. The regulation has brought much-needed clarity, but it also demands significant operational adjustments. Are you prepared for what's coming?

Source

Zampa Partners - One Year of MiCA

January 7, 2026

COMPLIANCE

Financial Crime Compliance in 2026: Five Trends to Watch

The financial crime compliance landscape is undergoing rapid transformation. From AI-powered transaction monitoring to real-time AML screening and increasing regulatory divergence across jurisdictions, compliance professionals face unprecedented challenges. The convergence of technology and regulation is creating both opportunities and risks. How is your organization adapting to these shifts?

Source

Fintech Global - Financial Crime Compliance Trends

January 7, 2026

FINTECH

Digital Assets Banking and Regulation: 2026 Policy Outlook

The GENIUS Act and similar legislative efforts signal a fundamental shift: digital assets are moving from the periphery to the core of traditional banking. As banks begin integrating crypto custody, trading, and settlement services, the regulatory framework is racing to catch up. For financial institutions, the opportunity is enormous—but so is the compliance complexity. Success will require not just technical capability, but deep regulatory expertise across multiple jurisdictions.

Source

IFLR - Digital Assets Banking 2026 Outlook

January 6, 2026

CRYPTO

Forget Gas Fees: Compliance is Crypto's New Cost of Doing Business

The crypto industry has matured beyond its wild west days. Today, compliance isn't just a regulatory checkbox—it's becoming the primary cost center for digital asset businesses. As institutional adoption accelerates and regulatory frameworks solidify globally, the question isn't whether to invest in compliance, but how much and how strategically. The winners will be those who view compliance as competitive advantage, not burden.

Source

PYMNTS - Compliance as Cost of Business

January 6, 2026

IGAMING

2026 Gambling Predictions: The Year Ahead for Regulation and Compliance

The iGaming sector enters 2026 with regulatory momentum building across multiple jurisdictions. Brazil and Latin America are leading growth in regulated markets, while European markets continue to refine their frameworks. For operators, the challenge lies in maintaining compliance across increasingly diverse regulatory requirements while scaling operations. The key to success? Proactive engagement with regulators and robust compliance infrastructure from day one.

Source

iGaming Business - 2026 Gambling Predictions

January 2, 2026

We Value Your Privacy

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, provide personalized content, and analyze our traffic. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to our use of cookies. You can customize your preferences or learn more in our Privacy Policy.