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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-04Última atualização em 2026-02-04

Resumo

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

Perguntas 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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbitHá 1h

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbitHá 1h

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbitHá 1h

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbitHá 1h

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbitHá 2h

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbitHá 2h

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbitHá 2h

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片