Banking

Subscribe to Banking via RSS

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has delivered to Congress the report on Innovative Technologies to Counter Illicit Finance Involving Digital Assets, as required by the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The report largely reflects the comments Treasury received about how financial institutions (including digital asset service providers (DASPs)) use technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital identity, blockchain analytics, and application programming interfaces (APIs) to detect and disrupt illicit finance involving digital assets, including payment stablecoins. The report highlights many of the challenges and frustrations that institutions are experiencing in trying to adopt these emerging technologies, and promises additional guidance in the future.

On February 11, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) released a proposed rule to implement the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). Under the proposal, credit unions cannot issue payment stablecoins directly. Instead, only NCUA‑licensed “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” (PPSIs) that are subsidiaries of FICUs would be allowed to issue payment stablecoins, and FICUs would be limited to investing only in PPSIs licensed by the NCUA.

In this episode of The Crypto Exchange, hosts Ethan Ostroff and Genna Garver look back at 2025 — ultimately a pivotal year for digital assets and crypto regulation in the U.S. — drawing on Troutman Pepper Locke’s flagship publication, Financial Services Industry 2025 Digital Assets Year in Review. The report reflects insights from more than 10 of our firm’s practice areas and more than 30 attorneys, offering a comprehensive, cross-practice view of how the regulatory landscape is evolving.

In continuation of increased state efforts to regulate state-chartered banks and fintech partnerships,Oregon’s newly enrolled House Bill (HB) 4116 would enact an express “opt‑out” from a key provision of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) for consumer finance loans made in Oregon. HB 4116 also updates licensing requirements and clarifies when Oregon law applies to remote and online loans. This Oregon development comes on the heels of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Weiser upholding Colorado’s DIDMCA opt-out and holding that a loan is “made in such State” if either the borrower or lender is located in the opt-out state as discussed here. A petition for rehearing en banc has been filed in Weiser, and it remains unsettled where a loan is “made” for purposes of DIDMCA.

Payward Financial’s Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI), Kraken Financial, has received a master account from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, giving it direct access to the Federal Reserve’s core payment infrastructure. The approval, initially for a one-year term, allows Kraken Financial to connect directly to Fedwire and other Fed payment rails, a capability traditionally limited to insured financial institutions. As a general matter, digital assets, fintech and other firms that are not FDIC-insured have generally depended on correspondent banking relationships to move fiat funds over these payment rails.

On December 22, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) updated its Artificial Intelligence (AI) resource page to consolidate key technical and policy references for federally insured credit unions. The page sits within NCUA’s broader cybersecurity and financial technology resources and is explicitly framed as support for evaluating and performing due diligence on third‑party AI vendors. It links AI oversight back to existing NCUA guidance on third‑party relationships, including 07‑CU‑13 (Evaluating Third Party Relationships) and 01‑CU‑20 (Due Diligence Over Third Party Service Providers).

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partner Lori Sommerfield and Charles River Associates VP and Practice Leader of Financial Economics Marsha Courchane to discuss the current administration’s “debanking” initiative established through Executive Order 14331. They discuss key actions taken by federal agencies to implement it, expectations for financial institutions and small business lenders to conduct internal reviews, regulatory reporting deadlines, and consequences for noncompliance. This episode also features practical tips on tools and technology that institutions/small business lenders can use to facilitate conducting debanking reviews and highlights the tension between the debanking initiative and financial institutions’ need to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other federal anti-money laundering laws.

On December 10, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of “debanking” activities at the nine largest national banks. The objective of the review was to determine whether the banks debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. The review, which was required to be completed by the OCC and other federal banking agencies by December 5 pursuant to Executive Order 14331 (Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans), covers the period 2020–2025.

On November 25, the House Financial Services Committee majority staff published Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Biden’s Debanking of Digital Assets, a detailed account of how, in the Committee’s view, federal prudential regulators between 2021 and early 2025 discouraged banks from serving lawful digital asset businesses through informal guidance, supervisory posture, and enforcement.

On November 25, the New York Court of Appeals issued a pair of decisions — Art. 13 LLC and Van Dyke — that provide definitive guidance on the hotly contested and heavily litigated issue of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act’s (FAPA) reach. In both cases, New York’s high court confirmed that FAPA applies retroactively to foreclosure actions where a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced, and rejected all constitutional challenges to the statute.