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

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-02-04Actualizado a 2026-02-04

Resumen

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

Preguntas relacionadas

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.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) kept its benchmark interest rate at 1% on July 31, as widely expected, following a June hike to a 31-year high. The decision passed with an 8-1 vote, with board member Hajime Takata again dissenting in favor of a hike to 1.25%. Despite holding rates steady, the BOJ signaled a hawkish tilt, warning that underlying inflation is likely to accelerate and exceed 2% from the latter half of the fiscal year. While it slightly lowered its core inflation forecast for FY2026, officials expressed stronger confidence that an overshoot will occur later, driven by yen weakness, corporate pricing behavior, and lingering energy shock effects. Markets were focused on the BOJ's forward guidance. Analysts noted the central bank appeared to balance short-term caution with a long-term warning of tighter policy. Governor Kazuo Ueda faces the challenge of reconciling a government reluctant to tighten further with bond markets already pricing in additional hikes, with the timing of the next move debated. Adding complexity, the BOJ reportedly intervened in currency markets hours before the rate decision, buying yen to support the currency which had fallen to 40-year lows against the dollar. Yen weakness stems from the wide U.S.-Japan interest rate gap, high fuel prices, and market skepticism about the pace of BOJ policy normalization. The yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds fell to 2.8%, indicating investor expectations for future monetary tightening.

cryptonews.ruHace 6 min(s)

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

cryptonews.ruHace 6 min(s)

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbitHace 12 min(s)

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片