US Banking Lobby Considers Lawsuit Over OCC Crypto Charters

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-03-10Last updated on 2026-03-10

Abstract

A US banking lobby group, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), is considering legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for granting national trust bank charters to cryptocurrency companies like Ripple, BitGo, and Paxos. The BPI argues that these charters, which allow crypto firms to operate as trust banks and provide custody services, could pose risks to Americans and the financial system. They claim this move blurs the definition of a "bank," increases systemic risk, and undermines the credibility of national banking charters. The BPI had previously urged the OCC to reject such applications, and while no final decision on a lawsuit has been made, the group has a history of taking legal action against the agency. Similar concerns were echoed by the Independent Community Bankers of America.

A banking lobby group hailing from the US is looking to take legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over the agency permitting national trust bank charters to crypto companies.

An unknown source close to the lobby’s thinking has informed The Guardian that the Bank Policy Institute has plans to sue the OCC for avoiding previous warnings from banking groups and state regulators and proceeding with its revisionism of federal licensing rules to permit national trust bank charters to crypto companies.

As per the group, this could probably put Americans and the financial system at stake. Under Jonathan Gould’s leadership, the OCC permitted the first batch of conditional national trust bank charter approvals to crypto companies comprising Ripple, BitGo and Paxos, among others. Since that time, various companies have demanded similar approvals.

Hanging Sword on OCC

Once permitted, the National Trust Bank charter will grant these firms the ability to function as trust banks and provide custody and asset safekeeping services. In October, the BPI stated it was requesting the OCC to decline applications from crypto companies, comprising Ripple and Circle, as it claimed that permitting such charters could lead to risk to the financial system.

It also mentions that BPI alerts that approving this route and permitting companies to pick a lighter regulatory touch while providing bank-like products could blur the statutory boundary of what it means to be a “bank”, heighten systemic risk and highlight the credibility of the national banking charter itself.

As per The Guardian, the BPI hasn’t decided yet if it plans to pursue legal action against the OCC. Although the report mentioned that the BPI was among a group of banks that had so far taken legal action against the OCC.

The Independent Community Bankers of America issued similar warnings over the OCC’s crypto charter approvals. Lately, the ICBA requested the OCC to pull or change its proposal for issuing licences to crypto companies. ‘

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Jumps 9%: Can the $40 Zone Be Reached and Anchor the Bull Run?

TagsLawsuitoccUSA

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason the US banking lobby group is considering legal action against the OCC?

AThe banking lobby group, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), is considering legal action because the OCC is granting national trust bank charters to crypto companies, which they believe avoids previous warnings and could put Americans and the financial system at risk.

QWhich companies were among the first to receive conditional national trust bank charter approvals from the OCC?

ARipple, BitGo, and Paxos were among the first crypto companies to receive conditional national trust bank charter approvals from the OCC under Jonathan Gould's leadership.

QWhat specific concerns does the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) have about granting these charters to crypto firms?

AThe BPI is concerned that granting these charters could blur the statutory boundary of what it means to be a 'bank', heighten systemic risk, and undermine the credibility of the national banking charter itself by allowing companies to operate with a lighter regulatory touch while providing bank-like services.

QHas the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) definitively decided to sue the OCC at this time?

ANo, as per the article, the BPI hasn't yet decided if it will pursue legal action against the OCC, though it has taken such action against the agency in the past.

QWhich other banking group has issued similar warnings to the OCC regarding crypto charters?

AThe Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has also issued similar warnings and recently requested the OCC to withdraw or change its proposal for issuing licenses to crypto companies.

Related Reads

From Cash to Crypto: Towards a Consistent Regulatory Approach to Illicit Payments

"From Cash to Crypto: Towards a Consistent Regulatory Approach to Illicit Payments" by Andrea Minto et al. (BIS) examines the challenges for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation posed by the diversification of payment instruments, from cash and bank deposits to cryptoassets and CBDCs. The paper introduces a conceptual framework centered on the degree of intermediary involvement in a payment tool. It identifies a "waterbed effect": as regulators tighten AML/CFT rules on one type of instrument (e.g., bank transfers), illicit activity may shift to less-regulated alternatives with lower detection probabilities (e.g., self-hosted crypto wallets). This regulatory arbitrage undermines overall effectiveness. The framework categorizes payment tools as either intermediary-dependent (e.g., bank deposits, e-money, custodial wallets) where regulated entities perform checks, or non-intermediated (e.g., cash, self-hosted wallets, offline CBDCs) which offer higher anonymity and pose greater detection challenges. Malicious actors are assumed to choose tools that minimize their risk of detection. A case study of the EU's evolving AML/CFT regime illustrates this dynamic, showing how regulation has expanded over time to cover new entities like Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs). However, inconsistencies remain, such as transaction limits for cash but not yet for self-hosted wallets or offline digital euro transactions. The paper concludes by proposing a dual regulatory approach: a *lex generalis* establishing a unified baseline of core obligations for all intermediated tools, and a *lex specialis* with tailored rules for non-intermediated instruments (e.g., transaction limits for cash and offline CBDCs, enhanced "touch point" monitoring for self-hosted wallets). This aims to create a more effective, consistent, and forward-looking framework that balances financial integrity with considerations for user privacy and innovation.

marsbit2h ago

From Cash to Crypto: Towards a Consistent Regulatory Approach to Illicit Payments

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片