OCC boss says ‘no justification’ to judge banks and crypto differently

cointelegraphОпубликовано 2025-12-09Обновлено 2025-12-09

Введение

OCC Acting Comptroller Jonathan Gould stated that crypto companies seeking federal bank charters should be treated equally with traditional financial institutions, arguing there is "no justification" for differential treatment of digital assets. He emphasized that banks should not be confined to outdated technologies and noted that custody services have long been electronic. Gould revealed the OCC received 14 new bank applications this year, including from digital asset firms, nearly matching the total from the past four years. He dismissed concerns from traditional banks about crypto charters, stating such opposition risks stifling innovation, and expressed confidence in the OCC's ability to supervise crypto-native banks fairly.

Crypto companies seeking a US federal bank charter should be treated no differently than other financial institutions, says Jonathan Gould, the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Gould told a blockchain conference on Monday that some new charter applicants in the digital or fintech spaces could be seen as offering novel activities for a national trust bank, but noted “custody and safekeeping services have been happening electronically for decades.”

“There is simply no justification for considering digital assets differently,” he added. “Additionally, it is important that we do not confine banks, including current national trust banks, to the technologies or businesses of the past.”

The OCC regulates national banks and has previously seen crypto companies as a risk to the banking system. Only two crypto banks are OCC-licensed: Anchorage Digital, which has held a charter since 2021, and Erebor, which got a preliminary banking charter in October.

Crypto “should have” a way to supervision

Gould said that the banking system has the “capacity to evolve from the telegraph to the blockchain.”

He added that the OCC had received 14 applications to start a new bank so far this year, “including some from entities engaged in novel or digital asset activities,” which was nearly equal to the number of similar applications that the OCC received over the last four years.

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould giving remarks at the 2025 Blockchain Association Policy Summit. Source: YouTube

“Chartering helps ensure that the banking system continues to keep pace with the evolution of finance and supports our modern economy,” he added. “That is why entities that engage in activities involving digital assets and other novel technologies should have a pathway to become federally supervised banks.”

Gould brushes off banks’ concerns

Gould noted that banks and financial trade groups had raised concerns about crypto companies getting banking charters and the OCC’s ability to oversee them.

Related: Argentina weighs letting traditional banks trade crypto: Report

“Such concerns risk reversing innovations that would better serve bank customers and support local economies,” he said. “The OCC has also had years of experience supervising a crypto-native national trust bank.”

Gould said the regulator was “hearing from existing national banks, on a near daily basis, about their own initiatives for exciting and innovative products and services.”

“All of this reinforces my confidence in the OCC’s ability to effectively supervise new entrants as well as new activities of existing banks in a fair and even-handed manner,” he added.

Legal Panel: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

Похожее

Encryption Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Under the Conflict of Criminal and Civil Procedures

"Encrypted Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Amidst Criminal-Civil Procedure Conflicts" This article examines the challenges victims face in seeking legal recourse for cryptocurrency theft or fraud in China, highlighting the tension between criminal and civil procedures. Through two representative cases, it illustrates how cross-jurisdictional complexities and regulatory ambiguities often hinder effective relief. In Case 1, a South Korean company paid 800,000 USDT to a Chinese employee of an S-based exchange for listing services, only to have the employee disappear. Despite legal efforts citing属地管辖 (territorial jurisdiction) and the property-like status of virtual assets under China’s "9.24 Notice," local police initially refused to accept the case due to the foreign elements involved. After persistent advocacy, the case was accepted but not formally立案 (registered). Case 2 involved a woman scammed out of over 3 million RMB while attempting to purchase USDT through an OTC trader for investment. While the trader was arrested, the main fraudster remained abroad. Civil action against the trader for unjust enrichment failed, as courts cited the "criminal-first" principle (刑事优先), requiring criminal resolution before civil claims can proceed. The analysis reveals that civil remedies are often impractical when criminal elements are involved: courts may transfer such cases to police, and even successful criminal convictions may not guarantee restitution if perpetrators lack assets. The author concludes that, despite guides on civil litigation, pursuing criminal avenues remains the more viable—though still fraught—path for victims seeking recovery. The piece underscores systemic hurdles, including judicial reluctance to recognize crypto-related claims and procedural barriers, urging greater clarity in legal frameworks to protect victims.

比推45 мин. назад

Encryption Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Under the Conflict of Criminal and Civil Procedures

比推45 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片