Crypto10 June, 20262 min read
Anchorage Digital Backs Treasury’s GENIUS AML Rules, Seeks Clarity On Secondary-Market Sanctions Liability
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Anchorage Digital backs Treasury's GENIUS AML rules. Seeks clarity on secondary-market sanctions liability and related exposure.
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. 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. 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.
“The proposal would classify payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act.”
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.” 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
The proposed GENIUS AML framework is presented as part of a broader effort to integrate digital-asset payments into the US financial-regulatory perimeter, including cross-border considerations and enforcement expectations. 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.
“Anchorage wrote that‘a final rule that is clear and workable gives regulated institutions the certainty they need to build.’”
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.