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

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”

Blockonomi

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.

Blockonomi

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.

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.”

Cointelegraph

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.

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.

“Anchorage Digital, a federally chartered crypto bank and stablecoin infrastructure provider, has submitted a public comment letter supporting the US Treasury Department’s proposed Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and sanctions framework for the GENIUS Act, arguing that the rules largely strike the right balance between compliance and innovation”

Cryptonews.net

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.