Crypto & Digital Assets in United States

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2026-10-21

OCC publishes Bulletin 2026-52, revised PS-01 and PS-02 forms for public comment, and issues its GENIUS Act implementing final rule.

2027-01-18

The OCC final rule implementing the GENIUS Act and the GENIUS Act take effect, according to the OCC’s related final-rule materials.

2027-01-25 Deadline

First weekly PS-01 report date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

2027-03-31 Deadline

First quarterly PS-02 report date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected issuers should review the revised PS-01 and PS-02 workbooks and instructions and identify every required data element, reporting frequency, aggregation rule, and responsible control owner.
• Firms should consider submitting comments within 30 days after publication of the information-collection notice in the Federal Register, with particular attention to data availability, calculation methodology, confidentiality, reporting burden, and transition timing.
• Issuers should map daily issuance, redemption, reserve, ownership-concentration, and trading data to PS-01 and test whether systems can produce a complete weekly submission for the January 25, 2027 report date, subject to OMB approval.
• Issuers should assess whether finance and regulatory-reporting systems can produce PS-02 information on income, assets, liabilities, off-balance-sheet activities, and capital for the March 31, 2027 report date.
• Firms should establish governance for data certification, reconciliation to general-ledger and reserve records, exception management, senior review, and retention of supporting documentation for OCC examination.
• Issuers should assess the interaction between the reporting forms and the final rule’s reserve, redemption, risk-management, audit, capital, custody, and supervisory requirements, rather than treating the forms as an isolated reporting exercise.
• Foreign issuers should confirm their OCC registration status, reporting perimeter, U.S. activities, and allocation of information-production responsibilities between U.S. operations, parent entities, and service providers.

What changed

The OCC is reopening public comment on revised weekly Form PS-01 and quarterly Form PS-02 and their instructions. PS-01 requires daily data compiled and submitted weekly for each payment stablecoin, covering issuance, reserves, ownership concentration, and trading activity. PS-02 requires quarterly reporting on the issuer’s condition and income, including balance-sheet assets and liabilities, off-balance-sheet activities, income, and capital.

Key dates

2026-10-21

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-51 and stated that applications and waiver requests will be accepted only after OMB approves the related information collection.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule become effective; the Prior Approval Requirement generally applies, and unauthorized issuance of a payment stablecoin in the United States may carry criminal penalties.

2028-01-18 Deadline

The maximum statutory period for a waiver beginning on January 18, 2027 expires, subject to the terms and shorter duration of any individual waiver.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should determine whether they are currently issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States and whether they fall within the OCC application pathway or another primary federal payment stablecoin regulator's pathway.
• Existing issuers should consider preparing and submitting a substantially complete OCC application as soon as the agency announces that applications are accepted, rather than relying on the waiver as a substitute for authorization.
• Applicants should map their submission against every prescribed application question and documentation requirement, including the business plan, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, risk management, capital and liquidity, shared services, BSA/AML, OFAC, third-party risk, enterprise risk, compliance risk, and audit functions.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare a separate written waiver request addressing the Prior Approval Requirement, identifying any additional GENIUS Act or final-rule requirements that cannot be met by January 18, 2027, and explaining the requested duration and operational rationale.
• Issuers should monitor the OCC's GENIUS Act landing page and press releases for OMB approval and the opening of the application and waiver process, because the bulletin does not provide a fixed application-opening date.
• Firms should maintain evidence supporting the completeness and accuracy of their applications and establish a process to respond promptly to OCC requests for missing information within the 30-day review cycles.
• Prospective issuers that are not already operating in the United States should consider planning for operations to begin only after OCC approval, consistent with the agency's stated position on waiver eligibility.
• Regulatory change teams should continue tracking separate FinCEN, OFAC, OCC, and other agency rulemakings concerning AML, CFT, sanctions, and customer-identification requirements rather than assuming that an OCC application or Prior Approval Requirement waiver resolves those obligations.

What changed

Beginning January 18, 2027, a person generally must be approved as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer before issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States; unauthorized issuance may carry criminal penalties. Under GENIUS Act section 5(f) and 12 CFR 15.30(g), an issuer with a substantially complete OCC application pending on January 18, 2027 may request a written waiver of the Prior Approval Requirement and other statutory or final-rule requirements that it cannot satisfy by the effective date.

Key dates

2025-07-18

The GENIUS Act was enacted.

2026-10-21

The OCC published the final rule and related application, waiver and reporting materials.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule take effect; U.S. payment stablecoin issuance generally requires permitted payment stablecoin issuer status, and a substantially complete application must be pending by this date to support eligibility for an OCC waiver request.

2027-01-25

Proposed first weekly OCC reporting date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

2027-03-31

Proposed first quarterly OCC reporting date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

Suggested considerations

• Firms seeking permitted payment stablecoin status should consider mapping their licensing strategy, corporate structure and applicable OCC pathway under 12 CFR part 15 before 2027-01-18.
• Existing U.S. issuers that need transitional relief should consider submitting a substantially complete OCC application on or before 2027-01-18 and preparing a written waiver request promptly after the OCC begins accepting applications and waiver requests.
• Applicants should consider documenting business plans, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, capital and liquidity, risk management, third-party and shared-services arrangements, audit functions and compliance governance in the application package.
• Issuers should consider validating reserve composition, one-to-one backing, liquidity, concentration, counterparty exposure, stress-testing and redemption controls against the final rule rather than relying on the proposal's reserve assumptions.
• Issuers should consider testing operational capacity to process redemptions within two business days and to notify the OCC within 24 hours when the 10% redemption-demand trigger is reached.
• Issuers and distribution partners should consider reviewing stablecoin rewards, yield, rebate and promotional arrangements on a transaction-by-transaction basis because pre-existing programs are not automatically grandfathered and the final rule provides no general safe harbor.
• Covered firms should consider establishing governance for audits, reporting, examination responses, custody controls, foreign-issuer oversight and potential approval revocation or rescission.
• Compliance teams should track the separate Treasury-coordinated BSA, AML and OFAC rulemaking and avoid treating this final rule as the complete GENIUS Act compliance framework.

What changed

The final rule applies to national banks and their subsidiaries, federal savings associations and their subsidiaries, federal branches and their subsidiaries, federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers, foreign payment stablecoin issuers, and state qualified payment stablecoin issuers over which the OCC has regulatory or enforcement authority.

Key dates

2025-07-18

The GENIUS Act was enacted.

2026-10-21

The OCC published the final rule, application and waiver guidance, and revised proposed reporting forms.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule take effect; U.S. payment-stablecoin issuance generally requires permitted payment stablecoin issuer approval, and existing issuers seeking a waiver generally must have a pending substantially complete OCC application by this date.

2027-01-25 Deadline

Proposed effective report date for the weekly reporting form, subject to Office of Management and Budget approval.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Proposed effective report date for the quarterly reporting form, subject to Office of Management and Budget approval.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering U.S. payment-stablecoin issuance should assess whether they qualify as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer, a federal qualified issuer, a state-qualified issuer subject to OCC authority, or a foreign issuer within the rule's scope.
• Existing U.S. issuers should consider preparing a substantially complete OCC application and evaluating whether a waiver request is needed by January 18, 2027; the OCC may grant waivers for up to 12 months beginning on that date, generally where an eligible application is pending.
• Applicants should prepare documentation covering the business plan, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, risk management, capital and liquidity, shared services, BSA/AML/OFAC controls, third-party risk, enterprise risk, compliance risk, and audit functions.
• Issuers should map reserve assets to the final rule's 1:1 backing, daily-liquidity, diversification, and counterparty-concentration requirements and establish controls capable of supporting generally timely redemption within two business days.
• Compliance and product teams should inventory interest, yield, cashback, loyalty, referral, and exchange rewards arrangements involving payment stablecoins and document the business purpose and consideration supporting each payment, because the OCC has not provided a categorical safe harbor and will apply the statutory prohibition case by case.
• Issuers should design weekly reserve and payment-stablecoin activity reporting and quarterly reports of condition and income, subject to confirming the final OMB-approved forms and effective reporting dates.
• Banks and other OCC-supervised custodians should review custody arrangements, segregation and control frameworks, third-party dependencies, and contractual allocation of responsibility for stablecoin and reserve-asset custody.
• Firms should track the separate Treasury, FinCEN, OFAC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC implementation work because the OCC final rule does not complete BSA, AML, or sanctions requirements and is only one component of the GENIUS Act framework.

What changed

New 12 CFR part 15 establishes requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers, foreign payment stablecoin issuers subject to OCC authority, certain state-qualified issuers, and specified custody activities conducted by OCC-supervised entities. The framework covers issuer activities, reserve assets, redemption, risk management, audits, reports, examinations, supervision, custody, applications and registrations, state-to-federal transitions, foreign-issuer supervision, approval revocation or rescission, and capital and operational backstops.

Key dates

2022-05-12

The CFTC filed its complaint against Alexandre and EminiFX, alleging fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and operation of an unregistered commodity pool.

2026-07-01

As of July 2026, the court-appointed receiver had returned more than $98 million to over 28,000 investors.

2026-10-19

The CFTC announced that the Southern District of New York had entered orders granting summary judgment, injunctive relief, and a civil monetary penalty against Alexandre and EminiFX.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory products, investment clubs, managed accounts, and digital-asset offerings that pool customer contributions and obtain exposure to forex, futures, options, or other commodity interests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their activities constitute operating a commodity pool or acting as a commodity pool operator or associated person under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, including whether registration or an available exemption is required.
• Firms should consider validating marketing claims about returns, automated trading, proprietary technology, trading results, and risk, with particular scrutiny of unusually high or consistent returns such as weekly performance representations.
• Compliance teams may wish to test segregation, custody, reconciliation, withdrawal, and use-of-funds controls to detect commingling, personal use of customer assets, payments to earlier investors, and unexplained transfers.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence supporting reported performance, trading activity, investor statements, and asset ownership so that customer communications can be reconciled to underlying records.
• Digital-asset businesses may wish to review whether crypto terminology or a technology-focused structure obscures activities that remain subject to commodities, anti-fraud, registration, or customer-protection requirements.
• Firms should consider escalating suspected misappropriation, fabricated performance, or unregistered commodity-pool activity through applicable internal investigation, suspicious-activity, and regulatory-reporting processes.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or generally applicable regulatory amendment. The Southern District of New York entered summary judgment and injunctive relief against Alexandre and EminiFX, finding that the defendants made fraudulent representations, misappropriated investor funds, and operated as an unregistered commodity pool operator, with Alexandre acting in an unregistered associated-person capacity. The judgment imposes $228,576,962 of restitution, $15,049,500 of disgorgement subject to offset by restitution payments, and a $45,148,500 civil monetary penalty.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Federal Register publication date for the ANPRM, published as 91 FR 64811 and document number 2026-20888.

2026-12-14 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the CFTC on Regulation CTX, Regulation CAM, and the interpretation and implementation of CEA section 2(c)(2)(D).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned retail crypto products could constitute transactions covered by CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including products described as spot, margin, leveraged, financed, perpetual, or otherwise structured to defer delivery.
• Firms should consider mapping current customer agreements, funding arrangements, custody models, delivery controls, and liquidation processes against the CFTC's preliminary positions on offers and actual delivery.
• Prospective venues may wish to assess the potential CAM operating model, including registration perimeter, governance, listing standards, market surveillance, position controls, execution, recordkeeping, cyber and system safeguards, proof-of-reserves, and customer-asset arrangements.
• FCMs, IBs, DCOs, custodians, and leverage providers should consider identifying the registrations, permissions, capital, segregation, margin, clearing, insolvency, and operational dependencies that a CAM structure could create.
• Crypto businesses may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of section 2(c)(2)(D), the definition and practical test for actual delivery, treatment of fully paid open transactions, permissible crypto assets, and the allocation of responsibilities among CAMs, FCMs, DCOs, and leverage providers.
• Firms should monitor whether the CFTC follows the ANPRM with a formal proposed rule and should not treat the ANPRM as creating immediate registration, margin, reporting, or conduct obligations.
• Affected firms may wish to preserve evidence of product design, delivery capability, customer disclosures, surveillance controls, and legal analysis in anticipation of supervisory or enforcement scrutiny under the CFTC's stated interpretation of section 2(c)(2)(D).

What changed

The CFTC has published ANPRM RIN 3038-AF80, 91 FR 64811, concerning proposed Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets. Regulation CTX would seek to clarify when section 2(c)(2)(D) applies to crypto asset transactions, including the meaning of covered offers, actual delivery, and actual delivery of fully paid open transactions. Regulation CAM would create a crypto asset market subcategory of designated contract market registration under 17 CFR part 38, supported by related amendments or requirements under 17 CFR parts 1, 38, and 39.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 63870, covering pages 63870-64103.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Public comments must be received by the SEC on or before this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether client or fund crypto assets are currently held through arrangements that would constitute adviser or regulated-fund self-custody under the proposal, including arrangements involving service providers, private keys, wallets, or decentralized finance protocols.
• Firms should consider mapping proposed requirements for key management, joint authorization, asset segregation, safeguarding expertise, cybersecurity, incident response, annual review, internal control reporting, and client or investor account statements against existing custody, information-security, and operational-resilience controls.
• Advisers and regulated funds may wish to assess whether existing custodians, including state trust companies, could satisfy the proposed authorization, policy, audit, internal-control, and segregation conditions.
• Compliance teams should consider preparing comments for File No. S7-2026-35 by December 7, 2026, particularly on the proposed scope of self-custody, the qualified-custodian determination, treatment of airdropped crypto assets, decentralized finance activity, and the interaction with existing custody arrangements.
• Firms should assess potential changes to Form ADV, Form ADV-E, Form N-CEN, custody records, crypto-network records, audited financial statements, and accountant reports if the proposal is adopted.
• Investment advisers and regulated funds may wish to inventory tokenized private funds and tokenized regulated-fund shares in anticipation of the proposed additional Form ADV and Form N-CEN questions.
• Firms should distinguish proposal-stage planning from current legal obligations because the publication does not itself impose the proposed requirements and does not establish a final compliance date.

What changed

The proposal would add an adviser self-custody framework under proposed Advisers Act rule 223-1(b)(7), allowing an adviser to self-custody client crypto assets only in specified circumstances and subject to conditions addressing safeguarding expertise, documented safeguarding systems, key management, joint authorization, segregation, cybersecurity risk assessment, threat and vulnerability management, incident response and recovery, annual review, an internal control report, and client account statements.

Key dates

2020-12-23

FinCEN published the NPRM at 85 FR 83840 proposing additional reporting, recordkeeping, and identity-verification requirements for certain transactions involving unhosted or otherwise covered wallets.

2026-10-06

FinCEN withdrew the NPRM and stated that it would take no further action on that rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to remove implementation workstreams, testing scenarios, and policy language that were created solely for the withdrawn NPRM's proposed $3,000 recordkeeping or $10,000 reporting thresholds.
• Firms should consider documenting that the NPRM was never effective and that its withdrawal does not eliminate existing obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or applicable implementing regulations in 31 CFR parts 1010, 1020, and 1022.
• Banks and MSBs may wish to reassess whether current controls for transfers involving unhosted wallets remain risk-based and supported by documented AML risk assessments, rather than treating the withdrawn proposal's thresholds as mandatory rules.
• Crypto businesses should continue reviewing applicable customer-identification, customer-due-diligence, suspicious-activity-reporting, recordkeeping, transaction-monitoring, and OFAC sanctions requirements independently of this withdrawal.
• Regulatory-monitoring teams may wish to track whether FinCEN or Treasury develops a replacement digital-asset framework, particularly in light of the stated policy objective that digital-asset regulation be fit for purpose.

What changed

FinCEN withdrew the NPRM published at 85 FR 83840 and stated that it will take no further action on that rulemaking. The withdrawn proposal would have required banks and money services businesses to file reports when a transaction involving an unhosted or otherwise covered wallet exceeded $10,000, or multiple such transactions exceeded $10,000 in 24 hours. It also would have required records, counterparty information, and customer identity verification for covered transactions exceeding $3,000.

Key dates

2023-10-23

FinCEN published the proposed section 311 finding and special measure concerning international CVC mixing at 88 FR 72701.

2026-10-06

FinCEN's withdrawal of the finding and proposed rulemaking became effective upon Federal Register publication at 91 FR 63513.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should discontinue implementation work that was undertaken solely for the withdrawn section 311 CVC-mixing proposal, including plans for the proposal-specific data fields, reporting workflows, and enhanced customer records.
• Firms should not interpret the withdrawal as authorization to process illicit mixer activity without controls; they should continue applying existing risk-based AML, sanctions, transaction-monitoring, escalation, and suspicious activity reporting procedures.
• Crypto exchanges and other covered institutions should review whether current transaction-monitoring scenarios appropriately identify mixer exposure and other indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing under existing requirements, without treating all privacy-preserving activity as inherently suspicious.
• Firms may wish to document the withdrawal in their regulatory inventory, rulemaking-impact assessments, and model or procedure change logs, while preserving controls that address independently applicable BSA or sanctions requirements.
• Compliance teams should monitor future FinCEN notices, section 311 actions, enforcement activity, and interpretive guidance because FinCEN expressly reserved the possibility of future measures concerning mixers.
• Legal and compliance functions should reassess any customer, product, or transaction restrictions adopted specifically in anticipation of the proposed rule and determine whether they remain justified by the firm's risk assessment, other legal requirements, or contractual obligations.

What changed

FinCEN withdrew the proposed rule published at 88 FR 72701 and the underlying section 311 finding concerning international CVC mixing. The proposed special measure one regime would have required covered financial institutions to report specified information for transactions they knew, suspected, or had reason to suspect involved international CVC mixing, including CVC type and amount, mixer and wallet information, transaction hashes, transaction dates, IP addresses, customer-identifying information, and a narrative description.

Key dates

2026-10-05

The CFTC Chairman announced the proposed Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM framework, and independent industry reporting identified the accompanying action as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for publication of the CTX/CAM ANPRM and calculate the 60-day comment period from the actual publication date rather than from the Chairman’s October 5 statement.
• Affected exchanges should map each product and customer flow against margin, leverage, financing, custody, settlement, and internal-ledger features to determine whether the activity could fall within the proposed CTX concept.
• State-licensed platforms may wish to assess the strategic and operational consequences of pursuing a CFTC registration pathway instead of relying solely on state money-transmitter licenses.
• Firms may wish to review governance, conflicts-of-interest controls, market surveillance, anti-manipulation controls, customer-asset segregation, operational resilience, disclosure, and recordkeeping capabilities against existing CFTC designated contract market and customer-protection expectations.
• Exchanges and service providers may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of Section 2(c)(2)(D), the treatment of fully paid transactions, the boundary between spot trading and financed transactions, and the interaction between CAM registration and state licensing.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to inventory crypto assets and classify them consistently with the referenced joint CFTC-SEC interpretation, while preserving separate analysis for assets that may constitute securities or fall outside the proposed framework.
• U.S.-facing offshore platforms should reassess territorial exposure and customer-access controls because the proposal may create a clearer federal compliance pathway without eliminating potential CFTC jurisdiction over unregistered or fraudulent activity.

What changed

The CFTC is proposing to use its existing Commodity Exchange Act authority, including Section 2(c)(2)(D), to develop a purpose-built framework for crypto asset transactions and markets. Regulation CTX would address retail crypto transactions involving margin, leverage, or financing. Regulation CAM would establish a tailored category of CFTC-registered crypto asset market, apparently as a specialized form of designated contract market, for exchanges offering those transactions.

Key dates

2026-10-05

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium and publicly described the CFTC-SEC crypto-asset classification framework and the shift toward formal crypto market regulation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory each supported token and document its likely classification under the five-category framework, including the facts supporting treatment as a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, stablecoin, or digital security.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether their products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including transactions involving margin, leverage, financing, or other arrangements that may require execution on or registration with a CFTC-registered venue.
• Crypto exchanges and trading platforms may wish to assess whether their activities could require DCM registration, a future crypto-asset-market registration, SEC registration, or multiple registrations depending on the asset and service provided.
• Issuers and platforms may wish to preserve evidence concerning network functionality, decentralization, token utility, marketing, purchaser expectations, transfer restrictions, and the separation of a crypto asset from any investment contract.
• Firms may wish to maintain controls addressing customer-asset segregation, custody, conflicts of interest, orderly trading, market surveillance, anti-manipulation, recordkeeping, and AML obligations, because the speech criticizes state money-transmission licensing as insufficient to provide federal market protections.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the CFTC and SEC rulemaking dockets and distinguish the Chairman's personal views, the joint interpretation, proposed rules, and any final rules or effective compliance dates.
• U.S. and offshore groups serving U.S. customers may wish to reassess their territorial and solicitation controls because the policy direction is intended to offer a federal pathway without eliminating the risk of CFTC or SEC jurisdiction over offshore conduct.

What changed

The Chairman described a joint CFTC-SEC interpretation that classifies crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The interpretation reportedly provides that digital commodities, digital collectibles, and digital tools are generally not securities; stablecoins may in some circumstances be securities; and digital securities remain subject to the federal securities laws.

Key dates

2026-10-05

CFTC published Release 9307-26 announcing the ANPRM and beginning consultation on a potential framework for crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA Section 2(c)(2)(D), particularly where crypto assets are leveraged, margined, financed, or embedded in derivatives or perpetual-style products.
• Firms should consider mapping their customer-facing crypto activities, order execution arrangements, custody model, financing terms, liquidation processes, conflicts, market-abuse controls, and consumer disclosures against the issues identified in the ANPRM.
• Potential commenters may wish to prepare submissions addressing the scope of CTXs, the proposed treatment of spot versus financed transactions, appropriate registration and supervisory requirements, and the operational feasibility of a crypto asset market category.
• Designated contract markets and prospective applicants should consider assessing whether existing governance, surveillance, listing, liquidity, technology, and risk-management controls could support a future crypto asset market registration framework.
• Firms may wish to preserve evidence of existing controls and industry practices that they regard as effective, because the CFTC is specifically seeking information on crypto-specific contextual guidance and compliance practices.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the ANPRM publication and calculate the 60-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the October 5 press release.
• Firms should continue complying with currently applicable CEA, CFTC, securities, commodities, consumer-protection, AML, and state requirements because the ANPRM does not replace or suspend existing obligations.

What changed

The CFTC has opened a consultation process and is considering future rules referred to in market commentary as Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM). The ANPRM seeks views on preventing abusive practices in crypto asset markets and CTXs, providing crypto-specific context on compliance requirements and industry practices that the Commission considers best practices, and codifying a subcategory of designated contract market registration for crypto asset markets.

Key dates

2026-08-20

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the Innovation Advisory Committee speech and announced the prospective roadmap for crypto assets, compute markets, and prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should treat the speech as a forward-looking supervisory and rulemaking signal, not as an effective legal change, and continue applying currently effective CEA, CFTC regulations, registration, listing, reporting, customer-protection, and market-surveillance requirements.
• Crypto platforms should assess whether their products could constitute futures, swaps, or retail commodity transactions offered on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis, and should document the current jurisdictional and registration analysis for each product and customer segment.
• Crypto exchanges and protocol developers may wish to monitor CFTC releases, Federal Register notices, and any proposed rules concerning crypto asset markets, onchain finance protocols, and possible DCM designation; they should be prepared to submit comments within the applicable future comment periods rather than relying on the speech as a safe harbor.
• Designated contract markets and prediction-market operators should review event-contract listing governance, product surveillance, manipulation controls, customer disclosures, incentive programs, and state-law litigation exposure in light of the CFTC's stated intention to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Prediction-market firms should monitor developments concerning prohibited gaming-related contracts, public-interest standards, fully collateralized event-contract reporting, and enhanced consumer-protection requirements identified in independent industry coverage of the committee meeting.
• Firms developing compute-related contracts or financing products should map the underlying compute service, delivery and settlement terms, participants, and potential commodity or derivatives characterization so that they can respond meaningfully to the CFTC and Department of Commerce request for comment.
• Compliance teams may wish to update regulatory-change inventories and senior-management briefings to distinguish the Chairman's policy direction from binding Commission action, particularly because any future rules would require formal rulemaking, publication, and applicable transition periods.

What changed

The Chairman directed CFTC staff to explore rules establishing a CFTC framework for crypto asset markets using existing authorities. The proposed approach could allow current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated as a type of designated contract market called a crypto asset market, with authority to offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis under purpose-specific rules; no rule text, eligibility criteria, effective date, or compliance threshold was issued in the speech.

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-18

The SEC published the Chairman’s statement and proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, including the proposed startup exemption, fundraising exemption, and investment-contract safe harbor.

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its interpretation concerning the application of the federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions, which the Chairman identifies as a basis for the proposed framework.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to treat the package as a proposal rather than a currently usable exemption and continue applying the existing Securities Act, Exchange Act, and applicable state-law analysis until final rules become effective.
• Potential issuers should consider mapping planned token offerings against the proposed $5 million/four-year and $75 million/12-month limits, including aggregation, timing, resale, and interaction with other registration exemptions once the proposing release is reviewed in full.
• Issuers considering the fundraising exemption should consider preparing systems for principles-based crypto disclosures, financial-condition information, audited financial statements at the applicable thresholds, and ongoing reporting.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to assess whether existing investment-contract documentation contains essential managerial promises and whether operational evidence could support the proposed certification required for the safe harbor.
• Crypto trading venues and intermediaries should consider inventorying assets currently treated as securities or investment contracts and evaluating how a future safe-harbor determination could affect onboarding, trading permissions, disclosures, custody, surveillance, and state-law analysis.
• Firms may wish to monitor the Federal Register publication, the SEC comment period, any revisions to the proposal, and the status of the CLARITY Act, which the Chairman described as necessary for durable market-structure rules.
• Compliance teams may wish to review independent commentary emphasizing that the proposal is a major policy shift toward tailored token fundraising but that the practical scope remains uncertain until the detailed conditions, audit thresholds, eligibility criteria, and final text are settled.

What changed

The proposed rules would establish two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration for qualifying crypto-asset investment contracts. The startup exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period. The fundraising exemption would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period, subject to principles-based crypto-asset disclosures, financial-condition disclosures, financial statements, ongoing reporting, and audited financial statements at specified capital-raising thresholds; the publication does not state those audit thresholds.

Key dates

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its earlier interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework and opened the process for public comment, subject to publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map planned and existing token offerings against the proposed $5 million four-year and $75 million 12-month thresholds, including aggregation across related issuers, affiliates, projects and offering periods once the proposing release is reviewed.
• Issuers should consider documenting which exemption they would use, the relevant measurement period, investor eligibility and transfer restrictions, and controls intended to prevent exceeding the applicable offering cap.
• Firms should consider preparing draft principles-based narrative disclosures and, for the $75 million exemption, assessing financial-statement readiness and the systems needed for ongoing SEC reporting.
• Project sponsors may wish to inventory all essential managerial efforts represented or promised to investors and establish evidence, governance approvals and public communications supporting any future safe-harbor position based on completion or permanent cessation of those efforts.
• Exchanges, broker-dealers and trading platforms should consider assessing how the proposed safe harbor and state-law preemption could affect asset classification, listing reviews, customer disclosures, surveillance, custody and secondary-market controls.
• Industry participants may wish to review the full proposing release and consider submitting comments within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register; the specific deadline should not be assumed until the Federal Register publication date is confirmed.
• Firms should continue treating the proposal as non-final and should not represent that an exemption, safe harbor or state-law preemption is currently available.

What changed

The proposed framework would add two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration requirements for qualifying investment contracts involving crypto assets. The first would allow aggregate offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period on a one-time basis; the second would allow offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Issuers relying on either exemption would need to make specified principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors.

Key dates

2026-06-25

FinCEN published the underlying NPRM to amend the Huione Group definition

2026-06-25

Electronic comment filing became unavailable due to a portal issue

2026-06-30

Portal issue period ended after six days of blocked electronic filing

2026-07-22

FinCEN dated the comment-period extension notice

2026-07-24

Federal Register publication of the extension notice at 91 FR 46761

2026-08-02 Deadline

Extended deadline for written comments on the NPRM

Suggested considerations

• Consider whether to submit comments on the NPRM by the extended deadline of 2026-08-02.
• Review customer, correspondent, and payment relationships for any exposure to Huione Group, H-Pay Service PLC, or entities that may be treated as successor entities if the proposal is finalized.
• Assess whether internal screening, escalation, and due diligence procedures would need updates if FinCEN finalizes the expanded definition.
• Monitor FinCEN’s final action on the NPRM and any resulting special-measures scope changes under 31 CFR 1010.

What changed

This publication does not impose a new final obligation; it extends the public comment deadline for an existing NPRM. The underlying proposal would amend FinCEN’s definition of Huione Group, a financial institution operating outside the United States of primary money laundering concern, to include H-Pay Service PLC and to add a defined term for “successor entity.” The extension was granted because a technological issue with the comment portal prevented electronic filing from June 25 through June 30, 2026.

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Key dates

23 June 2026

- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs

TBD (2026–2027)

- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified

TBD (aligned with ongoing cases in Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island)

- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts

Suggested considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

What changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Key dates

2026-06-22

OCC bulletin announcing the notice of proposed rulemaking was issued

2026-07-22 Deadline

Planned deadline for comments, if the Federal Register publication date aligns with the bulletin date and the OCC’s 30-day comment period is measured from publication

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the entity falls within the OCC-supervised PPSI category or within the state-qualified issuer population covered by OCC authority under the GENIUS Act.
• Firms may wish to review existing AML/CFT and sanctions controls against the BSA, FinCEN, and OFAC requirements referenced in the proposal, including reporting, monitoring, and risk assessment procedures.
• Compliance teams may wish to map governance, escalation, and record-sharing workflows to the proposed OCC-FinCEN consultation framework, particularly for potential significant supervisory or enforcement matters.
• Firms may wish to consider whether their current policies, procedures, and internal controls are sufficiently tailored to stablecoin-specific risks and whether additional board or senior management oversight would be needed.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate whether they should submit comments during the 30-day Federal Register comment period if aspects of the proposed framework could affect operating models or compliance design.

What changed

The proposed rule would require OCC-supervised PPSIs to comply with the BSA, sections 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6)(B) of the GENIUS Act, and applicable FinCEN and OFAC regulations, including AML/CFT program, sanctions program, and reporting requirements. It would also create a supervision and enforcement framework for PPSI AML/CFT programs, so the OCC can take AML/CFT supervisory and enforcement action against covered issuers. The rule would establish a formal consultation process between the OCC and FinCEN when the OCC intends to initiate an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT...

Key dates

10 June 2024

– Earlier CFTC NPRM on event contracts was published in the Federal Register as “Event Contracts; Proposed Rule, 89 FR 48968,” later withdrawn on 06 February 2026; the new NPRM effectively replaces that initiative with a more targeted framework

06 February 2026

– CFTC formally withdrew the 2024 Event Contracts proposed regulatory action (91 FR 5386), clearing the path for the current, more targeted NPRM on enumerated activities

12 March 2026

– CFTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on prediction markets and a staff advisory to DCMs, launching a broader process to develop a tailored regulatory framework for prediction markets

30 April 2026 Deadline

– Comment deadline for the March 2026 prediction‑markets ANPRM, which this NPRM is described as addressing in part and which may lead to additional rulemaking

10 June 2026

– CFTC announces the new NPRM on amendments to Regulation 40.11 and addition of Appendix F to Part 40 regarding event contracts involving enumerated activities

Suggested considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

What changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Key dates

02 July 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Strategic Plan

Suggested considerations

• Submit written comments by 02 July 2026 if your firm wants to influence the SEC’s strategic priorities, especially on disclosure modernization, private markets, digital assets, or enforcement posture.
• Include File Number DSP-3 on all comments and use only one submission method, because the SEC requires the file number on email subject lines and asks commenters to choose a single channel.
• Review internal compliance roadmaps for likely impacts from disclosure simplification, rule retrospectives, and enforcement refocusing, and identify where current controls may become redundant or need redesign.
• Assess whether your firm’s digital asset, tokenization, or distributed ledger activities may benefit from future SEC guidance or may face new framework requirements.
• Monitor developments on EDGAR modernization and filing technology changes, and test whether internal reporting, tagging, or submission processes would need upgrades.

What changed

• - The SEC is proposing a strategic reorientation toward core statutory objectives: investor protection, fair and orderly markets, and capital formation.
• The plan emphasizes clearer, fit-for-purpose rules intended to support innovation while deterring misconduct.
• The SEC says it will prioritize modernizing and simplifying disclosure practices, which may affect reporting frameworks and issuer-facing compliance processes.
• The draft plan highlights expanded access to private markets and new capital-raising pathways, signaling possible future changes in offering, exemptive, and disclosure regimes.
• The SEC identifies digital assets and distributed ledger technologies as an area needing a “firm regulatory foundation,” indicating continued policy development for crypto-related activities.

Key dates

29 May 2026

– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings

Suggested considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

What changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

Key dates

19 May 2026

- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters

Suggested considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

What changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Key dates

September 4, 2024

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Matos and Aureus

April 13, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida enters consent order resolving claims against Matos (action against Aureus remains pending).[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

What changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Key dates

March 2026

- Arizona files 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against prediction market platform Kalshi, alleging illegal gambling and election betting

Week prior to April 2, 2026

- CFTC files complaints (with DOJ involvement) against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois seeking declaratory judgments on exclusive jurisdiction and permanent injunctions

April 9, 2026

- CFTC files motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to halt state enforcement

April 10, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants CFTC's requested TRO, barring Arizona from pursuing criminal charges against CFTC-regulated DCMs. (Note: Ongoing litigation timelines for preliminary injunction and permanent relief remain undetermined.)

Suggested considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

What changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Key dates

May 2025

- Arizona issued initial cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi

December 2025

- Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood Derivatives

March 2026

- Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi executives

April 2, 2026

- CFTC and DOJ filed coordinated lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois

April 9, 2026

- CFTC filed motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Suggested considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

What changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Key dates

March 2026

- Prior Director Margaret Ryan resigned after approximately six months in the role amid reported disagreements on enforcement priorities

May 4, 2026

- David Woodcock assumes role as Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Acting Director Sam Waldon

Suggested considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

What changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Key dates

October 1, 2024

December 31, 2024; - FY 2025 Q1; record 200 enforcement actions filed

January 20, 2025

- Inauguration Day; marker for post-transition enforcement slowdown (only 4 public company actions afterward)

April 21, 2025

- Paul Atkins sworn in as SEC Chair

September 30, 2025

- End of FY 2025; period covered by the announcement

Suggested considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

What changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Key dates

March 31, 2026

Speech delivery; Outlines priorities and previews new cooperation policy advisory

Soon after March 31, 2026

New cooperation policy advisory issuance; Expected imminently; firms should monitor CFTC site for formal release

Suggested considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

What changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Key dates

March 26, 2024

CFTC files civil enforcement complaint; against Peken Global and affiliates for CEA violations (Press Release 8884-24)

July 28, 2025

FINTRAC imposes $19,552,000 penalty; on Peken Global (KuCoin) for Canadian AML failures (failure to register, report large virtual currency transactions, submit suspicious transaction reports)

March 30, 2026

U.S. District Court enters consent order; imposing injunction, penalty, and dismissals.[1 from provided content]

Suggested considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

What changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Key dates

March 17, 2026

SEC-CFTC Joint Interpretation Effective; The foundational joint interpretation establishing crypto asset taxonomy and digital commodity classification became effective upon Federal Register publication

March 20, 2026

FAQs Published; CFTC Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk issue clarifying FAQs effective immediately

January 18, 2027 (Estimated)

GENIUS Act Stablecoin Exclusion; Final implementing rules for payment stablecoins issued by permitted issuers; interim staff position applies now

Within 30–60 Days Deadline

Disclosure & Program Updates; Firms must revise Form ADV, disclosure documents, offering materials, and custodial arrangements to reflect the new regulatory framework

Immediate Deadline

Compliance Review Required; Asset classification audits, staking arrangement reviews, and investment contract assessments must begin now; enforcement posture is live

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (0–30 days):
• *Asset Classification Audit: Map every crypto asset in your portfolios, products, or platforms against the five-category framework (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) established in the March 17 joint interpretation.
• *Investment Contract Review: Identify any assets subject to active issuer promises of essential managerial effort—those remain securities regardless of category and cannot be treated as digital commodities.
• *FAQ Implementation Review: Obtain and review the full CFTC FAQs (available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9200-26) to identify specific operational questions relevant to your entity type.
• *Notification Protocol Establishment: If relying on the no-action relief for tokenized collateral, establish procedures to notify the CFTC of significant operational, system, or cybersecurity issues affecting digital asset collateral use (required for first three months of relief).

What changed

• The CFTC FAQs address implementation questions arising from two prior staff positions:
• Tokenized Collateral Guidance (CFTC Staff Letter 25-39): Established the framework allowing futures commission merchants (FCMs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) to accept digital assets as...
• No-Action Position (CFTC Staff Letter 26-05): Provided temporary relief permitting FCMs to accept payment stablecoins, Bitcoin, and Ether as customer margin collateral, subject to specific...
• How registered entities should operationalize tokenized collateral acceptance
• Compliance with notification and operational risk management requirements

Key dates

April 26, 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for public comments (45 days after Federal Register publication; ANPRM published March 12, 2026). Comments via CFTC Public Comments Portal. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9194-26)

Suggested considerations

• Submit comments: Affected parties should prepare and file written comments within 45 days via the CFTC Public Comments Portal, addressing ANPRM questions on CEA principles, prohibited contracts, and costs/benefits.
• Monitor developments: Track Federal Register publication, related litigation (e.g., state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction), and CFTC Enforcement Division advisories. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26)

What changed

• This ANPRM proposes no immediate changes, as it is an early-stage consultation seeking input on:
• Application of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) core principles and existing CFTC regulations to prediction markets.
• Criteria for prohibiting event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest (e.g., potentially sports, politics, or sensitive topics like government employee outcomes).
• Cost-benefit analyses for regulating prediction markets. It builds on prior actions, including withdrawal of a 2024 proposed ban on certain event contracts and a 2025 staff advisory on sports-related...

Key dates

June 2025

Paul Hayeck began as acting director; (historical context; Hayeck transitions to Complex Fraud Task Force chief)

March 02, 2026

Announcement and effective start of David I. Miller as Director of Enforcement

Suggested considerations

• Review internal controls for fraud, manipulation, and abusive trading, prioritizing digital asset activities (e.g., derivatives, prediction markets).
• Assess exposure from Miller's past cases (e.g., BitMEX, ICOs, Ooki DAO) and strengthen defenses against similar enforcement theories.
• Monitor CFTC enforcement dockets and coordinate with counsel experienced in CFTC/SEC/DOJ matters for upcoming investigations.
• Update training on "core" violations (fraud, abuse, manipulation) to align with stated enforcement focus.

What changed

This announcement introduces no new regulatory rules, requirements, or statutory changes; it is a personnel appointment reshaping enforcement leadership. Chairman Selig highlighted Miller's role in refocusing the Enforcement Division on "policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy," potentially signaling reduced pursuit of novel legal theories and a narrower enforcement scope.

Key dates

May 2025

- First enforcement case (political candidate trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

February 25, 2026

- CFTC Enforcement Division issues Prediction Markets Advisory

August

September 2025; - Second enforcement case (YouTube editor trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

No specific future deadlines Deadline

- Advisory does not establish new compliance deadlines; it clarifies existing obligations

Suggested considerations

• *For Prediction Market Platforms (DCMs):
• *Implement robust surveillance systems to detect trading by individuals with material nonpublic information or direct/indirect influence over contract outcomes
• *Establish clear trading prohibitions in exchange rules addressing:
• Trading in contracts where the trader has influence over the outcome
• Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through breach of duty

What changed

• The advisory does not introduce new rules but rather reaffirms existing CFTC enforcement authority over prediction markets and clarifies the scope of prohibited conduct:
• Insider trading/misappropriation: Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty or pre-existing duty of trust and confidence (Section 6(c)(1) of the...
• Fraud and manipulation: Use of manipulative schemes or artifices to defraud, including trading in contracts where the trader has direct or indirect influence over the outcome
• Pre-arranged and wash trades: Noncompetitive trading under Section 4c(a)(1) and (2)(A) and Regulation 1.38(a)
• Disruptive trading practices: Violations under Section 4c(a)(5) The advisory demonstrates the CFTC's commitment to enforce these prohibitions on prediction market platforms, reinforcing that...

Key dates

June 10, 2024

- Publication of withdrawn "Event Contracts" Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

September 30, 2025

- Issuance of withdrawn CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (Sports Event Contracts Advisory)

February 4, 2026

- CFTC announcement withdrawing both the 2024 proposal and 2025 advisory; no final rules from 2024 proposal; new rulemaking to advance

Suggested considerations

• Review and disregard prior compliance programs built around the 2024 proposal or 2025 advisory (e.g., cease preparations for prohibiting political/sports contracts).
• Monitor CFTC docket for new event contracts rulemaking notice and provide comments during any future consultation period.
• Assess current offerings for event contracts under existing Commodity Exchange Act prohibitions (e.g., gaming, manipulation); document reliance on CFTC's innovation stance pending new rules.
• Evaluate litigation exposure, especially state gaming regulator actions; prepare for potential CFTC intervention asserting exclusive jurisdiction.
• No immediate prohibitions lifted or mandates imposed—continue operating within current CEA framework (e.g., anti-fraud, market integrity).

What changed

• - Withdrawal of the June 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Event Contracts,” which proposed prohibiting political event contracts as contrary to public interest (e.g., akin to war or...
• Withdrawal of CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (issued Sept. 30, 2025), a Staff Advisory cautioning designated contract markets (DCMs) against offering sports event contracts due to litigation risks and state...
• Commitment to new event contracts rulemaking based on a "rational and coherent interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act" to promote innovation, with clear standards for prediction markets; CFTC...