The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Interpretive Letter 1174 on January 4, 2021, clarifying the authority of national banks and federal savings associations to buy, sell, and issue stablecoins and participate in independent node verification networks (INVNs) in order to conduct payment activities and other bank-permissible functions.
The OCC has taken a systematic approach to its digital asset and cryptocurrency guidance. This is the third letter issued by the OCC that focuses on banks’ authority to offer innovative cryptocurrency-related services.
The first interpretive letter (Interpretive Letter 1170) clarified the legal basis for banks to provide cryptocurrency custody services for customers, specifically for custody of cryptographic keys associated with cryptocurrency. Cryptographic keys are a fundamental component of the technology underlying INVNs and stablecoins.
The second interpretive letter (Interpretive Letter 1172) focuses on the authority of banks to hold stablecoin reserves. Now the OCC has gone one step further in allowing banks to directly provide payment and related services using stablecoins or INVNs. All three interpretive letters emphasize that these new cryptocurrency-related services are merely extensions, and new methods of delivery, of traditional banking activities, including custody, safekeeping, and fiduciary services, accepting deposits, facilitating payments, and other financial intermediation services. Banks have historically adopted new technologies to carry out bank-permissible activities, such as those adopted in the development of electronic funds transfer, real-time settlement, and stored value systems—the OCC views digital asset and cryptocurrency activities as a similar type of development.
A stablecoin is a specific type of cryptocurrency that is designed to maintain a stable value by tying the value to another asset, most commonly a fiat currency like the U.S. dollar. INVNs consist of shared electronic databases that store copies of the same information on multiple computers—distributed ledgers, such as blockchains, are common forms of INVNs. INVNs are the ledgers underlying stablecoins where transactions are recorded. Because INVNs and stablecoins are inextricably linked, the OCC clarified the authority of banks to leverage both technologies in the new Interpretive Letter.
The OCC focuses on the fact that stablecoins backed by fiat currencies provide the ability to store, transfer, transmit, and exchange the underlying fiat currency. In this sense, stablecoins operate the same as other payment mechanisms, such as debit cards and electronically stored value (ESV) systems. National banks are authorized by statute to offer ESV systems.
While the Interpretive Letter focuses on the general legal permissibility of payment activities involving the use of INVNs and stablecoins, in the accompanying OCC News Release, Comptroller Brooks specifically mentioned the recent statement by the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets that outlines seven broad principles that have to be carefully considered in any stablecoin system. Among the primary considerations, banks will have to establish robust consumer protection practices and procedures if the payment system is to be utilized directly by consumers.
Consumer protection laws and regulations, such as Regulation E, will extend to stablecoin payment arrangements offered by banks. Banks will need to consider how to develop robust dispute resolution processes as well as clear communications regarding the rights of stablecoin holders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has a lot of work to do as the primary federal regulator responsible for supervising compliance with consumer financial laws in order to ensure its rules and guidance extend to innovative payment systems.
The Interpretive Letter emphasizes that banks have significant experience with establishing and maintaining programs to comply with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements. The OCC expects banks to leverage such BSA/AML experience when offering new payment systems to properly address the unique risks related to cryptocurrency transactions. As always, the level of risk management should be commensurate with the complexity of the products and services offered. Additionally, any new activities must align with the respective bank’s overall strategic plan.
For the time being, it is clear that national banks wishing to engage in cryptocurrency activities may do so, whether it involves safeguarding cryptographic keys for digital assets or offering innovative stablecoin payment systems, provided the banks can engage in such activities in a safe and sound manner. State banks whose regulators are hesitant to issue explicit guidance authorizing banks to engage in cryptocurrency activities can likely rely on parity statutes that create a level playing field between national and state banks. Alternatively, or in addition, state banks can make the same argument that the OCC continues to make: that using stablecoins, INVNs, digital assets, cryptocurrencies, and other blockchain technologies is merely a new means of performing existing bank-permissible functions.
- Associate
Marysia’s practice focuses on corporate, securities, and regulatory matters involving financial institutions. She represents financial institutions and their holding companies in a wide range of corporate and regulatory ...
The Hunton Andrews Kurth Blockchain Blog features opinions and legal analysis as we follow the development and use of distributed ledger technology known as the blockchain.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
- 2019 Leaders’ Declaration
- 2020 National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (the 2020 Strategy)
- Advancing Innovation to Assist Law Enforcement Act
- Airdrops
- AML compliance program
- AML/CFT
- anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies
- Anti-Money Laundering
- Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA)
- Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
- Antifraud
- Aon and Marsh
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Australia
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
- Automated Clearing House (ACH)
- Bank of England
- Bank Secrecy Act
- Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
- Bank Term Fund Program
- Bermuda
- Biden Administration
- BIS
- Bitcoin
- Bitcoin Cash
- Bitfinex
- BitLicense
- Blockchain
- Blockchain Incubators
- Blockchain Legislation
- Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
- Blockchain Technology Act
- Brazil
- Breach of Contract
- Broker-Dealer
- Broker-Dealers
- BSA
- BSA Enforcement
- BTFP
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- California
- Canada
- Captive Insurance
- CCPA
- Celebrity Endorsers
- Central Bank
- Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)
- CFTC
- Chapter 15
- China
- Christopher Giancarlo
- Civil Enforcement
- Class Actions
- Clearweb
- Colorado
- Commissioner
- Commodity Exchange Act
- Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Complaint Bulletin
- Compliance
- Compliance Note
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- Consumer Protection
- Convertible Virtual Currency
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)
- Council of Institutional Investors
- Council of the European Union
- Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- crypto arbitrage trading accounts
- Crypto Assets
- crypto bank
- crypto custody
- Crypto Hackers
- Crypto Mining
- Crypto-commodity
- Crypto-currency
- Cryptoassets
- Cryptocurrency
- Cryptopia Limited
- Cryptosweep
- CVCs
- cybercrime
- Cybersecurity
- Dalia Blass
- DAO Report
- Darknet
- darknet marketplaces
- Data Privacy
- Data Protection Authority
- Davos
- decentralized finance (DeFi)
- DeFi
- Del. Michael San Nicolas
- Delaware
- Department of Business and Industry
- Department of Justice
- Department of Treasury
- DFS
- Digital Asset
- Digital Asset Securities
- Digital Assets
- Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022
- digital currency
- digital currency ATM operators
- digital currency exchangers
- digital currency flows
- Digital Financial Assets Law (the Act)
- Digital Token Act
- digital token sales
- Digital Tokens
- Distributed Ledger
- Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)
- Dodd-Frank
- DOJ
- Economic Sanctions
- EDPB
- Eleventh Circuit
- Endorsement Guides
- Enforcement Action
- ePrivacy
- Ether
- Ether Classic
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Regulation
- European Central Bank
- European Commission
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Traded Fund
- FDIC
- Federal Election Commission
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Board
- Federal Trade Commission
- FedNow
- fiat currency MSBs
- Fiat-Backed
- Fight Illicit Networks and Detect Trafficking Act
- Figure Lending LLC
- Final Guidance
- Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
- Financial Privacy
- Financial Stability Board
- Financial Stability Oversight Council
- Financial Stability Report
- Financial Technology Protection Act
- FinCEN
- FINRA
- FinTech
- Florida
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
- Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA)
- Form BE-12
- fractional interests
- FTC
- Gemini Dollar
- Gemini Trust Company
- Global Consortium for Digital Currency Governance
- Group of Seven
- Group of Twenty (G20) Finance Ministers
- H.R. 5635
- Hard Fork
- Heath Tarbert
- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
- Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act
- House of Representatives
- House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee
- Howey
- Howey test
- IEO
- iFinex Inc.
- Illinois
- India
- Information Sheet 225
- Initial Chain Offering
- initial exchange offerings (IEOs)
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- International
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Investor Protection
- IRS
- Jefferies Funding LLC
- Kenneth Blanco
- KYC/AML requirements
- Lael Brainard
- Large Platform Utility
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liechtenstein Parliament
- liquidity
- Litecoin
- Litigation
- Louisiana
- Ltd.
- Malicious Cyber Activity
- Malicious Cyber Actor
- managed stablecoin
- Martin Act
- Maryland
- Metaverse
- model rule
- Monetary Policy
- Money Laundering
- Money Service Business
- money services businesses (MSBs)
- Mortgages
- Multi-Level Marketing Program (MLM)
- Mutual Fund
- Nakamoto
- narcotics
- NASAA
- Nebraska
- network maturity
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)
- New Zealand
- NFT (Non-Fungible Token)
- NFTs
- Non-fungible tokens
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- NY Department of Financial Services
- OFAC
- Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Patent
- Paxos Standard
- Paxos Trust Company
- peer-to-peer exchangers
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Information
- President’s Working Group (PWG)
- Privacy
- privacy coins
- Provenance.io
- Proxy Voting
- Public Blockchain
- rapid settlement
- real estate
- Regulation and Enforcement
- Rep. Sylvia Garcia
- Rescission
- Retail
- Ripple
- Ripple Labs
- Rule 233-1
- Russia
- Sanctions
- Sanctions Compliance Program (SHP)
- SAR lookback review
- SD8 coins
- SDN List
- SEC
- SEC crypto-securities
- SEC registration
- Securities
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Securities Exchange Commission
- security tokens
- Self-disclosure
- Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs
- Shareholder
- Shareholders
- SIFI
- Signature Bank
- Silicon Valley Bank
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Spencer Dinwiddie
- stablecoins
- Stablecoins are Securities Act of 2019
- State-Sponsored Malicious Cyber Groups
- Suspicious Activity Report
- suspicious activity reporting (SARs)
- SVB
- SWIFT messaging system
- Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
- Switzerland
- synthetic hegemonic currency
- Taxation
- Templum
- Tennessee
- Terrorist Financing
- Tether Limited
- Texas
- Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)
- Texas Senate Bill 1859
- Texas Senate Bill 1971
- The World Bank
- three-year safe harbor
- Token and TT Service Provider Act
- token developers
- token transfer limits
- tokenization
- tokenized assets
- Trademark
- Travel Rule
- Trump Administration
- TT Identifier
- TT System
- TVTG
- U.S. Virtual Currency Market and Regulatory Competitiveness Act of 2019
- UCC Article 12
- UK Tax Rules
- unhosted wallets
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United Kingdom (UK)
- United Specialty Insurance Company
- United States Bankruptcy Code
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- US central bank digital currency (US CBDC)
- US Department of the Treasury
- US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- US dollar
- US Treasury
- USTR
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Virtual Asset Service Providers
- Virtual currencies
- Virtual Currency
- Virtual Currency Consumer Protection Act of 2019
- Virtual Currency Exchange
- virtual currency license
- Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020
- Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative
- Washington
- Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations
- World Economic Forum
- Wyoming
- XRP
Authors
- Jimmy Bui
- Mayme Donohue
- Nicholas Drews
- Andrew Feiner
- Jason Feingertz
- Hannah Flint
- Kevin E. Gaunt
- Armin Ghiam
- Carleton Goss
- Gregory G. Hesse
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Marysia Laskowski
- Michael S. Levine
- Phyllis H. Marcus
- Lorelie S. Masters
- Patrick M. McDermott
- Uriel A. Mendieta
- Alex D. Pappas
- Daryl B. Robertson
- Natalia San Juan
- Caitlin A. Scipioni