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 Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

A sophisticated crypto laundering operation was executed following the $292 million hack of Kelp DAO on April 18. The attack, attributed to the North Korean Lazarus group, began with anonymous infrastructure preparation using Tornado Cash to fund wallets untraceably. The hacker exploited a vulnerability in Kelp’s cross-chain bridge, stealing 116,500 rsETH. To avoid crashing the market, the attacker used Aave and Compound as laundering tools—depositing the stolen rsETH as collateral to borrow $190 million in clean, liquid ETH. This move triggered a bank run on Aave, causing an $8 billion drop in TVL. After consolidating funds, the attacker fragmented them across hundreds of wallets to evade detection. A major breakpoint was THORChain, where over $460 million in volume—30 times its usual activity—was processed in 24 hours, converting ETH into Bitcoin. This shift to Bitcoin’s UTXO model exponentially increased tracing complexity by shattering funds into countless untraceable fragments. The final destination was Tron-based USDT, the primary channel for illicit crypto flows. From there, funds were cashed out via OTC brokers in China and Southeast Asia, using unlicensed underground banks and UnionPay networks outside Western sanctions scope. Ultimately, the laundered money supports North Korea’s weapons programs, which rely heavily on crypto hacking for foreign currency. The incident underscores structural challenges in DeFi: its openness, composability, and lack of central control make such laundering not just possible, but inherently difficult to prevent.

marsbit3h ago

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片