Crypto Stablecoin Law Faces Pushback As New York Prosecutors Target Tether, Circle

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-04Last updated on 2026-02-04

Abstract

New York Attorney General Letitia James, along with four district attorneys, is pushing back against the newly enacted GENIUS Act, the first major U.S. stablecoin law. They argue the law fails to protect victims of financial crimes, as it does not require stablecoin issuers to return stolen funds. This omission, they warn, could embolden companies to retain stolen assets. The prosecutors specifically criticized the two largest issuers, Tether and Circle. They allege Tether inconsistently freezes funds and primarily cooperates only with federal law enforcement. They claim Circle’s policies are “significantly worse,” alleging it often retains control of frozen assets to continue earning interest, creating a financial incentive to delay returning funds. Both companies rejected the allegations, asserting their commitment to combating illicit activity.

As negotiations continue in Washington over the crypto market structure legislation known as the CLARITY Act, New York’s top law enforcement officials are now turning their attention to a bill that has already become law.

Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a group of senior prosecutors is raising concerns about the GENIUS Act, the first major US crypto law focused on regulating stablecoins.

Alleged Regulatory Gaps In Crypto Law

According to a report from CNN, James joined four district attorneys, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, in warning lawmakers that the GENIUS Act fails to adequately protect victims of financial crime.

In a letter to Congress, the prosecutors argue that the law gives what they describe as an “imprimatur of legitimacy” to stablecoins, while allowing issuing companies to sidestep critical regulatory obligations needed to combat terrorism financing, drug trafficking, money laundering, and, in particular, cryptocurrency fraud.

A central concern for the prosecutors is not what the GENIUS Act includes, but what it leaves out. They argue that the law does not require stablecoin issuers to return stolen funds to victims of fraud. This omission, they say, risks encouraging harmful behavior.

In their view, the lack of a clear legal obligation could embolden stablecoin companies to retain stolen assets rather than cooperate fully with law enforcement efforts to make victims whole. The prosecutors warned that this gap may effectively provide legal cover for firms that choose to keep control of stolen funds.

Tether Rejects Allegations

The letter singles out the two largest stablecoin issuers, Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC), claiming both have hindered efforts to seize and return illicit funds, while continuing to profit from activity that prosecutors say remains widespread in stablecoin markets.

The prosecutors allege that the company has used this power inconsistently and primarily in coordination with federal law enforcement, rather than in response to state or local actions.

As a result, they argue, many victims have little chance of recovering stolen funds once assets are converted into USDT. The letter states that funds moved into USDT are often never frozen, seized, or returned, and that Tether currently decides on a case‐by‐case basis whether to assist in recovery efforts.

Tether responded to CNN by strongly rejecting the suggestion that it tolerates illicit activity. The company said it takes fraud, consumer harm, and misuse of USDT extremely seriously and maintains a zero‐tolerance policy toward criminal behavior.

Circle Faces Sharper Scrutiny

The prosecutors’ criticism of Circle, the second‐largest stablecoin issuer, is even sharper. Circle is publicly traded and based in New York, and the letter acknowledges that the company presents itself as a partner in the fight against financial crime.

However, the prosecutors argue that Circle’s policies are “significantly worse than those of Tether” when it comes to helping victims recover stolen funds.

They allege that even when Circle agrees to freeze assets linked to fraud, it typically retains control of those funds rather than returning them to victims or law enforcement.

By holding the underlying reserves, the prosecutors say, Circle continues to earn interest, creating what they describe as a “crystal clear” financial incentive to delay or deny fund returns.

Circle pushed back against these claims in a statement to CNN. Dante Disparte, the company’s chief strategy officer, said Circle has consistently prioritized financial integrity and the advancement of strong regulatory standards in the US and globally.

He argued that the crypto law clearly requires stablecoin issuers to follow applicable rules to combat illicit activity while also strengthening consumer protections.

The 1-D chart shows the total crypto market drop to $2.5 trillion on Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main concern raised by New York prosecutors regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe main concern is that the GENIUS Act fails to adequately protect victims of financial crime by not requiring stablecoin issuers to return stolen funds to victims, which could embolden companies to retain stolen assets and provide legal cover for firms that choose to keep control of stolen funds.

QWhich two major stablecoin issuers are specifically targeted in the prosecutors' letter?

AThe two major stablecoin issuers specifically targeted are Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC).

QHow did Tether respond to the prosecutors' allegations?

ATether strongly rejected the suggestion that it tolerates illicit activity, stating that it takes fraud, consumer harm, and misuse of USDT extremely seriously and maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward criminal behavior.

QWhy do prosecutors claim Circle's policies are 'significantly worse than those of Tether'?

AProsecutors claim that even when Circle agrees to freeze assets linked to fraud, it typically retains control of those funds rather than returning them to victims or law enforcement, and continues to earn interest on the underlying reserves, creating a financial incentive to delay or deny fund returns.

QWhat is the name of the crypto market structure legislation mentioned that is still under negotiation in Washington?

AThe crypto market structure legislation mentioned is called the CLARITY Act.

Related Reads

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手1h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit4h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit4h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手5h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手5h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit6h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片