Anchorage Digital backs Treasury GENIUS AML rules, seeks sanctions clarity

Traders Union
All News
Crypto News
Anchorage supports treasury aml rules

Highlights

Anchorage Digital supports the U.S. Treasury's April proposal classifying payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, subjecting them to AML, due diligence, and monitoring requirements.
Anchorage urges Treasury to clarify AML program, correspondent account, and sanctions exposure requirements for secondary-market activities, arguing that issuers should not face strict liability for unidentified sanctioned users transacting via smart contracts.
Industry groups, including Hyperliquid and Paradigm, warn the rule could expand sanctions compliance obligations to issuers for secondary-market smart contract interactions, increasing liability risk throughout the stablecoin sector.

Regulatory framework and Anchorage requests

As reported by Cointelegraph, the U.S. Treasury Department proposal discussed in Anchorage Digital’s public comment letter, the rules published in April would classify payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. That would subject issuers to anti-money laundering controls, customer due diligence and suspicious activity reporting requirements, while the proposal from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control also adds stronger monitoring and recordkeeping obligations.

Anchorage, a federally chartered crypto bank and stablecoin infrastructure provider, says the framework largely strikes the right balance between compliance and innovation. In its letter published Wednesday, the company urges Treasury to clarify enterprise-wide AML programs, correspondent account requirements and sanctions exposure tied to secondary-market activity.

The company argues issuers should not face strict liability for failing to independently identify sanctioned users who transact through smart contracts on secondary markets. Anchorage says a final rule that is clear and workable would give regulated institutions more certainty to build and would support U.S. leadership in next-generation payments and settlement infrastructure.

Industry concerns over secondary-market liability

Support for the proposed rule is not uniform across the crypto sector, with some industry groups pressing for broader carveouts on sanctions compliance. The lobbying arms of crypto derivatives exchange Hyperliquid and venture capital firm Paradigm submitted a separate comment letter that echoes Anchorage’s concerns but takes a more critical position on the overall framework.

Those groups argue the current proposal could impose sanctions obligations on issuers even when they have no direct relationship with, or visibility into, users transacting on secondary markets. In their view, the framework risks pulling smart contract interactions into an issuer’s compliance perimeter by treating them as an ongoing provision of services, potentially expanding sanctions liability across the stablecoin industry.

Our earlier coverage of lawmakers’ scrutiny of Chinese money laundering networks detailed how these groups help drug cartels move illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system using shell companies, real estate, and money service businesses. The piece highlighted calls for a whole-of-government response, stronger beneficial-ownership transparency, and expanded sanctions and enforcement tools—issues that frame today’s debate over how far compliance obligations should extend to new payment rails like stablecoins.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.