General in United States

Key dates

2026-08-27

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-42 announcing the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open and recently closed MRAs arising from alleged legal or regulatory violations and assess whether each matter would satisfy one or more of the proposed substantive-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider strengthening documentation linking examination findings to duration, frequency, systemic characteristics, financial-condition effects, books-and-records impacts, customer harm, restitution, or insider misconduct.
• Banks may wish to separate remediation plans for legal or regulatory violations from broader supervisory enhancements, because the proposal would limit examiner authority over technical violations to directing correction of the violation itself.
• Compliance and examination-management teams should consider preparing comments or internal positions on the undefined terms more than minimal, systemic, pattern, and meaningfully impact, including how those terms should be applied to isolated but high-severity events.
• Management may wish to review escalation thresholds so that technical-violation treatment does not result in under-escalation of recurring findings that could become systemic or satisfy the proposed substantive criteria.
• Banks should monitor the Federal Register publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking and calculate the 30-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the OCC bulletin date.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to assess this proposal alongside the OCC-FDIC final rule and related supervisory reforms concerning unsafe or unsound practices, MRAs, and material financial risk, while treating the proposal as nonfinal until adopted.

What changed

The proposed rule would provide that the OCC may issue an MRA for a violation of a banking or banking-related law or regulation only when the violation is substantive. A violation would be substantive when its nature, duration, frequency, or severity could meaningfully impact the bank or its customers, and at least one of five criteria would need to be met: the violation is systemic or constitutes a pattern; it has had or could reasonably be expected to have a direct, clear, predictable, and more than minimal impact on the bank's financial condition; it has had or could reasonably be expected...

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC issued revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11; PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 manual, PPM 5400-11 replaces the February 27, 2026 version, and OCC Bulletin 2023-16 is rescinded.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open MRAs, enforcement orders, capital directives, and supervisory findings against the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, and substantive-violation thresholds.
• Banks should consider reviewing issue-management taxonomies and governance procedures so that MRAs, other violations, and supervisory observations are recorded and escalated according to their distinct consequences.
• Board and committee reporting processes may warrant review because supervisory observations do not automatically require board presentation or a corrective-action plan, whereas MRAs and enforcement actions remain subject to formal remediation and validation expectations.
• Large and complex banks should consider reassessing whether deficiencies that might previously have produced a community-bank-level supervisory response could receive faster escalation under the revised tailoring framework.
• Banks with existing enforcement actions may wish to assess whether their remediation evidence demonstrates substantial compliance with the essential requirements of each order and whether remaining issues are minor and isolated.
• Capital management teams may wish to review procedures for the institution of and termination of individual minimum capital ratios under the revised enforcement manual.
• Legal and regulatory change teams should monitor Federal Register publication of the joint OCC-FDIC final rule and calculate the actual effective date rather than relying on the bulletin date.
• Internal audit and compliance functions may wish to preserve objective factual support for responses to MRAs and other supervisory communications, particularly where the bank believes an issue does not meet the new risk-based threshold.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 version and structures the OCC enforcement framework around escalation, tailoring, and focus. The OCC generally intends to provide banks an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before initiating a Section 8 enforcement action, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable and warranted.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11, issued Bulletin 2026-41, and published the proposed rulemaking notice concerning substantive and technical violations. The proposed rule's 30-day comment period begins only upon Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open and recently closed MRAs and enforcement actions against the revised material-financial-risk threshold and the stated tailoring factors of capital structure, complexity, activities, and asset size.
• Banks should consider documenting objective facts, legal violations, financial-risk consequences, customer impact, duration, frequency, severity, and remediation status supporting the classification and closure of examination findings.
• Large and complex banks may wish to reassess escalation risk because the OCC expressly permits enforcement action for practices that might not produce the same response at a community bank.
• Banks should consider reviewing corrective-action plans to confirm that each action is directly tied to a specific deficiency and is proportionate to the risk, while preserving evidence of substantial compliance with existing orders.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish substantive violations from potential technical violations in issue-management inventories, including systemic or repeated conduct, customer restitution, books-and-records impacts, financial-condition effects, and insider misconduct.
• Banks should consider monitoring the Federal Register for publication of the proposed rule and calculating the 30-day comment period from that publication date; affected institutions may wish to submit comments on the proposed substantive-versus-technical framework.
• Examiners may identify lower-level weaknesses as supervisory observations rather than MRAs; banks should consider maintaining internal governance and risk records for such observations without assuming that the OCC may require a board action plan or track remediation in the same manner as an MRA.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3, Bank Enforcement Action and Related Matters, replaces the May 25, 2023 version and emphasizes escalation, tailoring, and focused corrective action. The OCC generally expects to provide a bank an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before taking an enforcement action under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the joint final rule through OCC Bulletin 2026-40. The bulletin applies to all OCC-supervised banks; it does not state the Federal Register publication date, effective date, or a firm compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify the final rule’s Federal Register publication and effective date, because the OCC bulletin itself does not state either date or a compliance deadline, and should monitor OCC and FDIC implementation guidance before relying on any transition treatment.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, enforcement matters, and examination findings and map each item to the final rule’s material-financial-risk, DIF-risk, actual-violation, or already-caused-harm criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level MRA remediation obligations from discretionary management responses to supervisory observations and documenting why a weakness is treated under one category rather than another.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to enhance evidence files supporting assessments of likelihood, materiality, current and reasonably foreseeable conditions, and impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and market-risk sensitivity.
• Banks should consider documenting how supervisory requirements and remediation plans are tailored to asset size, complexity, activities, capital structure, and other financial-risk factors, particularly where the institution has heightened systemic, concentration, liquidity, or operational complexity.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to distinguish actual violations of banking or banking-related laws and regulations from prudential weaknesses, because an actual violation can support an MRA without separately satisfying the prudent-operation and material-risk test.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing governance procedures so that MRAs receive required escalation and tracking while supervisory observations are clearly identified as non-binding potential enhancements.
• Firms should consider preparing a process for requesting and retaining the objective facts and reasoning underlying an MRA or unsafe-and-unsound-practice determination, as the rule requires examiners to share that basis.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either is likely, if continued, to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. “Likely” requires more than a merely possible risk; relevant financial-condition effects include impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the final rule and OCC published Bulletin 2026-40 describing its application to OCC-supervised banks.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and anticipated MRAs, enforcement commitments, supervisory recommendations, and examination findings against the new material-financial-risk and actual-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level corrective-action items from nonbinding supervisory observations and documenting why each issue does or does not meet the MRA threshold.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to update issue-taxonomy and escalation procedures to assess impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the Deposit Insurance Fund.
• Banks should consider retaining objective evidence and documented reasoning supporting materiality assessments, including institution-specific factors such as asset size, complexity, activities, and capital structure.
• Management and boards may wish to review outstanding policies, process, and documentation findings to determine whether they remain mandatory remediation matters, are better treated as supervisory observations, or independently constitute violations of banking or banking-related law.
• OCC-supervised banks should monitor the related examination guidance and assess whether planned lookbacks, independent-consultant requirements, or suspicious-activity review scopes are affected by the revised supervisory approach described in industry reporting.
• Firms should track Federal Register publication and calculate the 60-day effective date once publication occurs; the August 27, 2026 announcement date is not itself the effective date.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. Relevant financial-condition impacts include capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk; reputation concerns unrelated to financial condition are excluded.

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2026-08-20

CFTC announced and published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking amendments to Regulation 37.3(a)(2).

Suggested considerations

• SEFs should assess which listed products and transaction categories are permitted transactions under Regulation 37.9(c)(1), distinguishing them from swaps subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement.
• SEFs should consider whether to submit comments within 30 days after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, including evidence on order-book usage, execution quality, liquidity, market transparency, and operational costs.
• SEFs should review their rulebooks, execution protocols, product listings, disclosures, surveillance coverage, and client documentation to determine what changes would be needed if the proposal is finalized.
• SEFs relying on the CFTC’s existing no-action relief should confirm the relief’s scope and conditions and maintain controls ensuring that required transactions continue to satisfy applicable execution requirements.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other market participants should identify whether counterparties or venues may discontinue order-book functionality for permitted transactions and evaluate impacts on liquidity access, best execution or execution-quality processes, recordkeeping, and internal trading procedures.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the actual publication date, comment deadline, final-rule date, and any changes to the proposed effective date; the August 20, 2026 press release does not itself establish the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposed rule would remove the Regulation 37.3(a)(2) requirement for an SEF to offer an order book for permitted transactions. A permitted transaction is defined in Regulation 37.9(c)(1) as a transaction that does not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement; such transactions are not required to be executed on an SEF or designated contract market and may use any execution method offered by the SEF.

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

2026-08-19

CFTC issued Release 9286-26 and announced the request for comment on listing compute derivatives contracts.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether the firm has direct or indirect exposure to compute cash markets, proposed compute futures, perpetual futures, benchmark administration, clearing, brokerage, or related trading activity.
• Firms considering submitting comments should assess the CFTC questions concerning cash-market size and liquidity, contract specifications, price formation, benchmark representativeness, settlement and rollover mechanics, manipulation scenarios, customer protection, and the risks of perpetual contracts.
• Potential contract venues and intermediaries should consider documenting how existing CFTC requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38 could apply to product submission, exchange oversight, market surveillance, position management, reporting, risk management, and customer funds.
• Trading and surveillance functions may wish to evaluate potential abusive strategies involving GPU capacity reservations, cloud allocation, data-centre outages, energy constraints, benchmark inputs, wash trading, spoofing, corners, squeezes, and manipulation of physical or reference markets.
• Firms should monitor the Federal Register and Regulations.gov for the publication date, final comment deadline, any technical corrections, and subsequent CFTC guidance or contract-approval filings.
• Market participants may wish to avoid treating the press release or request for comment as evidence that compute derivatives are already approved or that a reported exchange launch date is assured.
• Governance teams may wish to assign ownership across legal, commodities compliance, market surveillance, model risk, technology risk, procurement, and business teams because compute derivatives would connect financial-market controls with operational characteristics of cloud and data-centre markets.

What changed

The CFTC opened a public consultation under RIN 3038-AF77 concerning compute cash markets and potential compute derivatives contracts. The request seeks information on market size, liquidity, contract design, market oversight, manipulation risks, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, and is associated with potential amendments or application of the CFTC framework in 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38. It does not itself approve a compute futures contract, authorize an exchange to list one, impose new compliance obligations, or establish a final regulatory position.

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

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

Key dates

2026-08-14

Effective date of FinCEN final rule "Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision" (91 FR 52508; RIN 1506-AB67), permanently narrowing CTA BOI reporting to foreign reporting companies and codifying exemptions for U.S. persons and domestic reporting companies.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at foreign reporting companies should review the revised 31 CFR 1010.380 definition of "reporting company" and confirm that their entity meets the narrowed criteria (foreign formation plus registration to do business in a U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction), updating BOI reporting inventories and scoping accordingly.
• Foreign reporting companies should update BOI reporting procedures to ensure that reports capture beneficial owners who are non-U.S. persons while excluding U.S. person beneficial owners, including revising data collection forms, internal instructions, and system logic to avoid collecting or transmitting U.S. person BOI under the CTA framework.
• Firms involved in foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States may wish to revise governance and reporting processes so that BOI reports for such vehicles identify only the individual exercising substantial control (or greatest authority over strategic management) who is not a U.S. person, and cease including U.S. controllers where they qualify as U.S. persons.
• Corporate secretarial and entity management functions should update CTA/BOI scoping matrices to remove domestic corporations, LLCs, and similar entities from BOI reporting obligations and to reflect that only qualifying foreign entities remain in scope, while maintaining awareness of other AML and KYC obligations that may still apply independently of the CTA.
• Onboarding and registration workflows for foreign entities should be reviewed so that BOI reporting triggers, timelines, and responsibilities are aligned with the final rule’s foreign-only scope, including any remaining deadlines tied to registration dates, and that staff understand that U.S. person company applicant information is no longer required for CTA reporting.
• Firms maintaining records of U.S. person beneficial owners and company applicants for CTA purposes may wish to reassess retention policies, ensuring that any continued collection or storage of such data is for other legal or risk-management purposes rather than CTA compliance, and that privacy notices and data minimization practices reflect the updated regulatory position.
• Compliance teams should revise CTA-related policies, procedures, and training materials to incorporate the exemptions for U.S. persons holding FinCEN IDs, clarifying that these individuals are no longer required to update or correct BOI previously provided to obtain the identifier, and documenting any residual obligations under other BSA or AML rules.
• Banks, broker-dealers, and other AML-regulated firms should consider the impact of reduced BOI availability for U.S. persons on their own customer due diligence, beneficial ownership, and risk assessment frameworks, and evaluate whether internal KYC standards or other regulatory requirements (such as customer due diligence rules) necessitate separate collection of U.S. person ownership information irrespective of FinCEN’s CTA exemptions.

What changed

The definition and scope of "reporting company" under 31 CFR 1010.380, as implemented under 31 U.S.C. 5336, are now permanently narrowed so that entities previously defined as domestic reporting companies are exempt from BOI reporting requirements, including initial, updated, and corrected BOI reports. Foreign reporting companies remain subject to BOI reporting, but the rule confirms that they are exempt from reporting beneficial ownership information for any U.S. person beneficial owners; those U.S.

Key dates

2019-11-01

Approximate start of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2023-06-30

Approximate end of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2026-08-13

SEC announced the enforcement action

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any compensated solicitors or referral sources are engaging in broker-like activity without registration.
• Firms should consider testing whether solicitation, negotiation, and fund-collection roles could create broker-registration exposure under Exchange Act Section 15.
• Firms may wish to reassess use-of-proceeds controls and verify that investor funds are not being diverted outside disclosed purposes.
• Firms should consider enhancing monitoring for Ponzi-like payout patterns, especially where distributions appear funded by new investor money rather than operating cash flow.
• Compliance functions may wish to review marketing and fundraising materials for consistency with the firm’s actual registration status and authority.
• Firms operating in relationship-driven communities may wish to evaluate affinity-based fraud risk and strengthen independent verification of investors, counterparties, and cash flows.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking or guidance release. The SEC complaint alleges that Leor Moshe solicited investments through Capital Funding ASAP LLC by claiming investor money would fund short-term business loans, while allegedly diverting more than $11 million for personal use and more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC release date for the administrative proceeding listing

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review municipal underwriting due diligence files to confirm that offering materials, issuer representations, and internal review steps are documented and consistent.
• Firms may wish to assess supervisory controls over municipal securities underwriting to ensure responsibilities, escalation paths, and sign-off procedures are clearly assigned.
• Broker-dealers may wish to re-check training for public finance personnel on disclosure accuracy, antifraud standards, and recordkeeping expectations.
• Firms with both brokerage and advisory businesses may wish to keep advisory fiduciary controls distinct from municipal underwriting controls so that governance frameworks do not blur separate regulatory obligations.
• Compliance functions may wish to compare this matter with prior SEC actions involving the firm to identify recurring control themes in disclosures, supervision, and product/distribution practices.

What changed

This publication does not introduce a new regulatory requirement or rulemaking obligation. It reflects an SEC administrative cease-and-desist proceeding under the federal securities laws, with the public descriptions indicating an antifraud theory connected to municipal securities underwriting and inadequate due diligence. The available materials also indicate this is separate from the firm’s earlier 2019 SEC matter involving share class selection and 12b-1 fee disclosure issues, so it should not be conflated with that prior advisory-fiduciary case.

Key dates

2026-08-12

Federal Register publication of the proposed rule at 91 FR 52114

2026-10-13 Deadline

Comments due on the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposed changes against current CRA policies, exam procedures, public file practices, and community development grant approval workflows.
• Institutions may wish to assess how the proposed asset-size thresholds would change their CRA category and associated data collection, reporting, and evaluation obligations.
• Banks making grants or donations may wish to review documentation standards for recipient use of funds, overhead limits, and evidentiary support needed for CRA consideration.
• Community development and CRA governance teams may wish to identify which activities would still qualify under the revised CD definitions and performance tests.
• Legal and regulatory affairs functions may wish to prepare comments on the proposed lending focus, grant criteria, sunshine requirements, and technical changes to OCC public welfare and corporate activity rules.
• Banks subject to CRA-related agreements may wish to verify whether the proposed technical amendments would affect disclosure timing, content, or filing processes.

What changed

['The proposal would amend the OCC and FDIC Community Reinvestment Act rules to make substantive, technical, and process-oriented changes aimed at refocusing the statutory objective on meeting community credit needs and reducing burden, particularly for community banks.', 'The agencies propose to better ensure that community development grants reach intended communities and to provide greater clarity on how to obtain CRA consideration for activities.', 'The OCC and FDIC also propose technical changes to their CRA sunshine rules under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which govern disclosure...

Key dates

2026-08-11

Effective date of the Geographic Targeting Order

2027-02-06 Deadline

Order period ends after 180 days unless renewed

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all branches, subsidiaries, and offices in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and map which payment flows meet the Order’s definition of a Covered Transaction.
• Firms may wish to update transaction-monitoring and customer due diligence workflows to capture the additional data elements required for bank or money transmitter reports, including beneficiary or recipient contact details and government-benefits-related funding questions.
• Operational teams may wish to confirm readiness to submit reports through the FI Portal and to generate the required CSV files using the Minnesota Fraud GTO template and naming convention.
• Records-management teams may wish to set a retention control ensuring all reports and related compliance records are preserved for five years from the last day the Order is effective.
• Banks and money transmitters may wish to review whether any existing BSA or sanctions screening processes can be leveraged to identify covered international transfers meeting the $3,000 threshold.
• Compliance teams may wish to test month-end reporting processes so filings occur by the end of the month following the month in which each Covered Transaction took place.

What changed

The Order creates a temporary, geographically targeted recordkeeping and reporting regime under 31 CFR Part 1010 for covered institutions in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. A “Covered Business” is any bank under 31 CFR 1010.100(d) or money transmitter under 31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5) with a branch, subsidiary, or office in the covered area.

Key dates

2025-12-29

NCUA published the proposed rule to remove 12 CFR 701.25(b)

2026-02-27 Deadline

Public comment period closed

2026-08-06

Final rule published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50664

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective and 12 CFR 701.25(b) is removed

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that internal lending policies still reflect the remaining limits in 12 CFR 701.25(a) and any other applicable provisions, even though the separate policy requirement in paragraph (b) has been removed.
• Boards may wish to review whether any internal approval process for loans to other credit unions remains desirable as a governance control, particularly where state law, bylaws, or enterprise risk practices still support formal approval.
• State-chartered credit unions may wish to verify whether state law or state supervisory expectations still require board approval or written policies for loans to other credit unions.
• Monitoring teams may wish to update regulatory inventories, policy cross-references, and exam prep materials to reflect that 12 CFR 701.25(b) is no longer codified effective 2026-09-08.
• Training and procedure documents may wish to distinguish between the removed board-policy requirement and the continuing statutory and regulatory loan limits that still apply.

What changed

The final rule removes the documentation requirement in 12 CFR 701.25(b) that required board approval of all loans to other credit unions and written policies governing those loans. NCUA states that federal credit unions remain subject to statutory requirements on loans to credit unions, and the remaining limits and requirements in § 701.25 continue to apply. The rule does not change the aggregate loan limit in § 701.25(a), which remains 25% of the lending federal credit union’s paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus.

Key dates

2026-02-25

NCUA published the proposed rule for public comment.

2026-04-27

Public comment period closed after NCUA received 15 comments.

2026-08-06

NCUA published the final rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50680.

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review and update FCU written policies for purchases, sales, and pledges of eligible obligations so they no longer mirror the removed prescriptive checklist and instead reflect the board’s own risk-based framework.
• Credit unions may wish to confirm that internal governance documents still address conflicts of interest and compensation consistently with bylaws and fiduciary-duty expectations, even though the detailed regulatory text has been removed.
• Firms should consider updating any procedures, training materials, and control inventories that reference the old paragraph structure or the former 12 CFR 701.23(h) cross-reference.
• Compliance teams may wish to validate that transaction approval, due diligence, documentation, and agreement-review processes continue to be embedded in policy at a level appropriate to the institution’s risk profile, even though the rule is less prescriptive.
• Federal credit unions may wish to brief boards and relevant committees on the shift from a checklist-based rule to a principles-based framework so governance oversight remains aligned with supervisory expectations.

What changed

['The rule removes the mandated lists of items that FCU written policies must address for purchases, sales, and pledges of eligible obligations under 12 CFR 701.23(b)(6), (c), and (d). FCUs still must maintain written policies for these activities, but the regulation no longer prescribes a detailed checklist of required policy contents.', 'The rule removes the detailed conflicts-of-interest and compensation provision formerly in 12 CFR 701.23(g).

Key dates

2026-08-06

Federal Register publication of the final rule at 91 FR 50661

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, and product templates that still reference the former segregated deposit and collateral formulas in 12 CFR 701.20.
• Institutions may wish to review surety and guaranty programs to ensure the obligation remains fixed in amount and duration and is structured as an otherwise permissible loan under the applicable lending regulations.
• FCUs may wish to confirm that any related lending analysis still addresses member lending limits and other applicable provisions, including where commercial lending rules apply.
• FISCUs may wish to confirm continued state-law authority to act as surety or guarantor and verify any state-specific constraints or approvals before offering these arrangements.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to reassess collateral practices for these products in light of the new flexibility while preserving safety-and-soundness controls.

What changed

The final rule deletes the specific segregated deposit requirement in 12 CFR 701.20(c)(3) for suretyship and guaranty agreements. It also removes the detailed collateral standards in 12 CFR 701.20(d), including the prior 100 percent and 110 percent collateral categories and the requirement for a perfected security interest tied to those prescribed values.

Key dates

2026-02-25

NCUA issued the proposed rule removing 12 CFR 701.26; public comments were invited through April 27, 2026

2026-04-27 Deadline

Public comment deadline on the proposal

2026-08-06

Final rule published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50674

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to remove references to 12 CFR 701.26 from policies, procedures, and training materials once the rule is effective.
• Firms should consider confirming that contract templates still include written terms addressing audit rights, information security, business continuity, indemnification, performance metrics, data ownership and return, termination, and dispute resolution.
• Credit unions involved in shared operational arrangements may wish to review whether documentation now reflects the updated clarification in 12 CFR 721.3.
• Firms may wish to confirm that third-party risk management, vendor oversight, and due diligence controls remain aligned with existing supervisory expectations despite the regulatory deletion.

What changed

The final rule rescinds 12 CFR 701.26, which had addressed FCU authority to enter written contracts for assets or services relating to daily operations and required those agreements to be in writing. NCUA states that the contractual authority already exists under the FCU Act and incidental powers authority, so the regulation was redundant. The Board also amended 12 CFR 721.3 to formally clarify that credit unions may act as representatives in shared operational arrangements with other credit unions or organizations, and that fixed assets may be shared.

Key dates

2026-08-06

FDIC published the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal must be received by the FDIC

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current insider-lending policies against the proposed $400,000 and $2,000,000 thresholds to assess operational impact if finalized.
• Firms may wish to review board-approval workflows and escalation triggers so systems can be updated quickly if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to evaluate whether existing exception reporting, insider tracking, and credit administration procedures will need revision to reflect periodic indexing rather than fixed thresholds.
• Commenters may wish to submit feedback by the October 5, 2026 comment deadline if the proposed thresholds or indexing methodology would create implementation issues.

What changed

The proposal amends 12 CFR 337.3 for extensions of credit to insiders of FDIC-supervised institutions. It would increase the threshold for certain extensions of credit to executive officers not otherwise specifically authorized by statute from $100,000 to $400,000, and it would increase the threshold for extensions of credit to insiders requiring prior approval by the board of directors from $500,000 to $2,000,000. The FDIC also proposes to establish an indexing methodology to periodically update those dollar thresholds over time.

Key dates

2026-08-05

OCC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 50610)

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes for the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map which internal records fall into the proposed CSI category and compare current disclosure controls against the new exceptions and safeguard requirements.
• Supervised entities may wish to review any confidentiality agreements and onward-sharing practices to determine whether they would satisfy the proposed conditions for permitted CSI disclosures.
• Legal and FOIA teams may wish to update request-handling workflows for expedited processing requests, fee-waiver appeals, and request tracking once the rule is finalized.
• Banks and other recipients of OCC information may wish to reassess litigation, government-reporting, and interaffiliate sharing procedures to ensure they align with the revised disclosure framework.
• Firms may wish to submit comments by the close of the comment period if the proposed CSI scope, disclosure exceptions, or FOIA procedures would affect their supervisory, legal, or records-management processes.

What changed

The proposal would restructure the OCC’s information-disclosure rules in 12 CFR part 4 and make conforming changes in parts 5, 7, 21, and 163. It would create a new subcategory of non-public OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI), clarify when supervised entities and other recipients may disclose CSI without prior OCC approval, and require applicable safeguards and, in some cases, qualifying confidentiality agreements. The OCC also proposes to permit certain disclosures of CSI in limited circumstances to support business efficiency, government accountability, and...

Key dates

2026-08-04

Federal Reserve published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 49526.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule are due.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposal’s threshold changes against existing Regulation O controls, including board-approval triggers, disclosure triggers, and internal lending limit checks.
• Firms may wish to identify any lending relationships that rely on current presumptions of control, especially where portfolio companies of investment fund complexes could be affected.
• Banks may wish to review insider-lending policies, forms, recordkeeping, and disclosure workflows for provisions that the proposal would codify, clarify, or remove.
• Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-10-05 if they want to influence the final treatment of thresholds, fund-complex ownership, valuation rules, or correspondent-lending provisions.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to compare the proposed text against existing Regulation O, Regulation Y, and internal interpretive guidance to spot implementation impacts if the rule is finalized largely as proposed.

What changed

The proposal would amend 12 CFR part 215 (Regulation O) and conform related provisions in Regulation Y and other Board regulations. It would make a one-time adjustment to several dollar-based thresholds, then index those thresholds going forward based on nominal GDP. It would clarify how certain limits apply on an aggregate basis and streamline limits on loans to executive officers, including prior board-approval requirements for certain large loans.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued Bulletin 2026-37 announcing the proposed rulemaking on availability of OCC information

2026-10-02 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after publication, based on the OCC’s stated deadline formula in the related rulemaking notice

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current controls for handling nonpublic OCC information and identify where internal policies reference the existing 12 CFR part 4 subparts B and C.
• Firms may wish to assess whether any current or planned disclosures of supervisory materials could fall within the proposed expanded exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, or supervisory coordination.
• Banks may wish to inventory records that could qualify as aged CSI once the final rule is issued, so they can update retention and disclosure procedures accordingly.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the final rule and any comment-driven changes to the proposed FOIA expedited-processing and fee-waiver appeal procedures.
• Institutions may wish to align employee training with the OCC’s clarified position on unauthorized disclosure and potential criminal referral exposure.

What changed

The proposal would amend the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR 4 by creating a new subcategory of nonpublic OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI). It would modify the prior-approval regime for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI by expanding exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, while adding safeguards around those exceptions. The OCC also proposes to provide for the release of certain aged CSI, which would create a time-based disclosure concept not described in the current rule.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued the notice of proposed rulemaking

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register

2026-08-05

Federal Register publication date of the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current internal controls for handling OCC nonpublic information and map where the proposed CSI category could affect disclosure workflows.
• Firms may wish to assess whether existing information-sharing arrangements with government agencies or service providers would fit within the proposed exceptions and safeguards.
• Teams responsible for FOIA or public records requests may wish to update procedures for expedited processing requests and any related appeal handling.
• Banks and supervised entities may wish to submit comments on operational burden, safeguards, and the practical impact of the proposed disclosure exceptions before the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposal would make structural and substantive changes to the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR part 4. According to the OCC, it would create a new nonpublic information category called confidential supervisory information (CSI), modify the prior-approval framework for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI, and add tailored exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, subject to safeguards.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Policy becomes effective for authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the stated commitment period for the agencies’ enforcement-policy non-action position

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether any Venezuela-related activity is specifically authorized under applicable OFAC sanctions licenses or other authorizations before relying on the policy.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA/AML compliance program is currently in place and that they continue to make reasonable efforts to meet applicable BSA Requirements during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to review whether they have had a final BSA-related enforcement action by FinCEN or their primary federal regulator within the prior 24 months, as that would disqualify reliance on the commitment.
• Operational teams may wish to document the basis for treating transactions as covered authorized financial services in Venezuela and retain evidence supporting reliance on the enforcement-policy statement.

What changed

The agencies announced a temporary enforcement-policy commitment covering authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29. During that period, the agencies state they will not take supervisory action, including citing a violation of law, or pursue an enforcement action against a supervised financial institution for BSA Requirement issues arising from such authorized services. The commitment applies only if the institution is currently compliant with an applicable BSA compliance program requirement and continues to make...

Key dates

2026-06-24

Venezuela experienced a pair of strong earthquakes off the northern coast west of Caracas, triggering the humanitarian crisis referenced by the agencies.

2026-07-27

FinCEN issued a substantively similar statement of enforcement policy regarding Venezuela-related financial services.

2026-07-31

The OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA issued the joint enforcement policy.

2026-07-31

Start of the period during which authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela are covered by the enforcement commitment.

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the covered period for the joint enforcement commitment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether current Venezuela-related activity falls within the scope of authorized financial services covered by the joint statement.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA compliance program remains current and that ongoing controls reflect reasonable efforts to comply during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to check whether they have had any final FinCEN or OCC enforcement action involving BSA violations in the prior 24 months before relying on the policy.
• Sanctions teams may wish to confirm continued compliance with all applicable OFAC-administered sanctions regulations and authorizations.
• Institutions with Venezuela exposure may wish to document how they will evidence reliance on the policy and monitor the January 29, 2027 end date.

What changed

The agencies stated that eligible U.S. financial institutions that choose to provide authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela will not be subject to supervisory action, including a citation for a violation of law, or enforcement action related to a Bank Secrecy Act requirement, for those services. The commitment is limited to authorized financial services provided from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29 and applies only to statutes or regulations specifically addressed in the joint statement.