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

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-02-04Обновлено 2026-02-04

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbit30 мин. назад

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbit30 мин. назад

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbit1 ч. назад

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片