Anchorage Digital Backs Treasury’s GENIUS AML Rules, Seeks Clarity On Secondary-Market Sanctions Liability
Image: Traders Union

Anchorage Digital Backs Treasury’s GENIUS AML Rules, Seeks Clarity On Secondary-Market Sanctions Liability

10 June, 2026.Crypto.5 sources

The story in 15 seconds

  • Anchorage Digital backs Treasury's GENIUS AML rules.
  • Seeks clarity on secondary-market sanctions liability and related exposure.
  • Requests guidance on enterprise-wide AML scope and correspondent-account requirements.

The divide · 1 of 2

How narrowly secondary-market liability should be bounded

One frames sweeping liability; the other emphasizes avoiding strict liability.

Who skipped what

How each outlet frames it

Every outlet we compared, the headline it ran, and a link to the original article.

Source Diversity
5 sources
Western Alternative
3
West Asian
1
Other
1

Western Alternative

Blockonomi
Blockonomi

Anchorage Backs GENIUS AML Rules, Seeks Clear Scope

10 June, 2026

Read the original →
Cointelegraph
Cointelegraph

Anchorage backs Treasury’s GENIUS AML rules, seeks secondary-market sanctions clarity

10 June, 2026

Read the original →
Cryptonews.net
Cryptonews.net

Anchorage backs Treasury’s GENIUS AML rules, seeks secondary-market sanctions clarity

10 June, 2026

Read the original →

West Asian

Mena FN
Mena FN

Anchorage Backs GENIUS AML Rules, Seeks Clarity On Secondary-Market Sanctions

10 June, 2026

Read the original →

Other

Traders Union
Traders Union

Anchorage Digital backs Treasury GENIUS AML rules, seeks sanctions clarity

10 June, 2026

Read the original →

Full story

GENIUS AML rules backed

Anchorage Digital, described as a federally chartered crypto bank and stablecoin infrastructure provider, backed the US Treasury’s proposed Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and sanctions framework for the GENIUS Act while urging clarifications on secondary-market sanctions liability.

Table of Contents Anchorage Digital has backed the US Treasury’s proposedGENIUS AMLframework while urging targeted clarifications

BlockonomiBlockonomi

In its public comment letter published Wednesday, Anchorage said the proposed framework “appropriately places AML obligations on regulated stablecoin issuers” while asking Treasury to clarify enterprise-wide AML programs and correspondent account requirements.

Image from Blockonomi
BlockonomiBlockonomi

The filing ties the proposal to April rules that would classify payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, subjecting them to AML, customer due diligence and suspicious activity reporting requirements.

Anchorage also argued that issuers should not face strict liability for failing to independently identify sanctioned users who transact on secondary markets through their smart contracts.

The proposal is described as jointly issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), with enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping obligations for stablecoins operating across borders and through programmable technologies.

Secondary-market liability dispute

Anchorage’s support comes with a specific warning about how sanctions duties could be applied to activity on public blockchains, where smart contract interactions may occur without issuer knowledge or direct customer relationships.

Anchorage urged Treasury to clarify liability tied to secondary-market transactions on public blockchains, arguing that “issuers should not bear strict liability for unknown sanctioned users.”

Image from Cointelegraph
CointelegraphCointelegraph

Hyperliquid and Paradigm submitted a separate comment letter taking a more critical view, saying OFAC’s approach could extend issuer liability beyond practical visibility into transacting parties.

The groups argued that “OFAC sweeps secondary market activity into the issuer’s compliance perimeter,” treating smart contract interactions as an ongoing “provision of services” that carries sanctions liability regardless of whether the issuer has any relationship with, or visibility into, the transacting parties.

Cointelegraph and Blockonomi both frame the dispute as a question of how far sanctions and AML obligations should reach when secondary-market users are not directly identifiable to issuers.

What changes next

Mena FN describes the plan as classifying payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, which would subject issuers to AML obligations, customer due diligence, and suspicious-activity reporting, along with enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping.

Anchorage’s submission emphasizes that a “clear and workable” final rule would give regulated institutions certainty to build and would strengthen US leadership in next-generation payments and settlement infrastructure.

At the same time, industry groups pressing for broader carveouts or clarifications warn that the current framework could impose sanctions obligations on issuers even when they lack direct visibility into end users transacting on secondary markets via smart contracts.

The sources also note that regulatory timing and final rule design will influence how stablecoin issuers, banks, and service providers structure compliance programs, including correspondent-banking and anti-financial-crime policies.

The deep audit

How victims, perpetrators and terms are handled across outlets.

More on Crypto