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

Anchorage Digital, a federally chartered crypto bank and provider of stablecoin infrastructure, has submitted a public comment letter in support of the U.S. Treasury Department’s proposed AML and sanctions framework for the GENIUS Act. The firm contends that the framework largely balances compliance requirements with innovation in digital payments, while also urging the Treasury to clarify several open points that could influence operational risk and regulatory certainty for issuers and their counterparties.

In the filing, Anchorage argues that the proposed rules appropriately place AML obligations on regulated stablecoin issuers while requesting guidance on secondary-market sanctions liability, the scope of enterprise-wide AML programs, and correspondent-account requirements. The firm also cautions against imposing strict liability on issuers for failing to independently identify sanctioned users who transacts through smart contracts on secondary markets.

“A final rule that is clear and workable gives regulated institutions the certainty they need to build, and strengthens U.S. leadership in the next generation of payments and settlement infrastructure,” Anchorage stated in its letter.

The public comment letter comes as the Treasury, together with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), advances a rulemaking aimed at classifying payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. The proposed framework would subject issuers to AML obligations, customer due diligence, and suspicious-activity reporting, with enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping required for stablecoins that operate across borders and through programmable technologies.

The policy, described in a Treasury release, would align stablecoin issuers with established AML and sanctions standards while imposing additional compliance expectations designed to address the unique risks posed by programmable money. The regulatory push is part of a broader effort to integrate digital-asset payments into the U.S. financial-regulatory perimeter, including cross-border considerations and enforcement expectations.

The discussion has drawn mixed responses from industry participants. Several trade and advocacy groups have urged broader carveouts or clarifications, reflecting a spectrum of views on how expansive the sanctions and AML obligations should be for issuers with limited direct visibility into user activity on secondary markets.

Key takeaways

• The GENIUS Act framework would classify payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, placing them under AML, customer due diligence, and suspicious-activity reporting regimes, with enhanced monitoring requirements.
• Anchorage Digital publicly supports the framework’s core aims but seeks clarifications on secondary-market sanctions liability, enterprise-wide AML program standards, and correspondent-account requirements to avoid unnecessarily broad obligations.
• Anchorage argues issuers should not face strict liability for failing to independently identify sanctioned users transacting via secondary-market smart contracts.
• Industry groups such as Hyperliquid and Paradigm have submitted comments pressing for greater clarity around secondary-market obligations, arguing the current framework could impose sanctions liability on issuers even in the absence of direct visibility into end users.
• Regulatory timing and final rule design will influence how stablecoin issuers, banks, and service providers structure compliance programs, with potential cross-border implications and alignment questions relative to other jurisdictions, including MiCA in the European Union.

Regulatory context and focal points

The proposed rulemaking, issued jointly by FinCEN and OFAC and highlighted by Treasury officials, would place regulated stablecoin issuers within the existing U.S. AML/Sanctions framework. The plan envisions formalizing stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, thereby obligating them to implement robust AML programs, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious activity. In parallel, the framework would impose enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping requirements to help regulators track and mitigate illicit finance risks associated with programmable payments and cross-border settlement.

Anchorage’s submission emphasizes practical considerations for regulated institutions seeking to deploy stablecoin rails at scale. The firm notes that a rule that is clear, predictable, and implementable would foster innovation in digital payments infrastructure while preserving strong compliance standards. The emphasis on clarity around secondary-market liability reflects ongoing debates about how to apply sanctions regimes to the decentralized aspects of programmable money, where user relationships may be indirect or opaque to issuers.

Industry responses and carveout debates

Not all industry voices view the GENIUS Act framework as a straightforward alignment with existing anti-money-laundering and sanctions regimes. In addition to Anchorage, the lobbying arms of Hyperliquid and venture-capital firm Paradigm recently submitted their own comments challenging certain aspects of the proposal. They argued that the current framework could extend sanctions obligations to issuers even when those issuers lack direct relationships with, or visibility into, the end users transacting on secondary markets via smart contracts.

According to these groups, OFAC’s approach risks treating secondary-market activity as a continuous provision of services by the issuer, thereby broadening sanction liabilities beyond what issuers can reasonably monitor or control. The concerns echo broader policy questions about where responsibility should lie when financial instruments and protocols enable peer-to-peer transactions without traditional, on-chain counterparty visibility.

Implications for policy, enforcement, and cross-border regimes

The GENIUS Act discussion sits at the intersection of domestic regulatory design and international policy harmonization. For U.S.-based crypto firms, the proposed rules could reshape licensing, risk management, and oversight frameworks, prompting issuers to invest in comprehensive AML programs and governance structures that integrate smart-contract activity with traditional compliance controls. Banks and other regulated entities servicing stablecoins may also need to adjust their correspondent-banking and anti-financial-crime policies to reflect the newly defined risk landscape.

From a broader perspective, policymakers must reconcile these developments with ongoing regulatory initiatives in other jurisdictions. The EU’s MiCA framework represents a contrasting approach to stablecoins and crypto-asset service providers, underscoring global differences in how regulators address stablecoin issuance, payment settlement, and cross-border settlement rails. As U.S. and international authorities pursue parallel aims—reducing illicit finance risk while enabling financial innovation—the final design of GENIUS Act rules could influence cross-border collaborations, licensing pathways, and the allocation of enforcement resources among agencies such as the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ, in addition to FinCEN and OFAC.

Legal and compliance teams at issuers, exchanges, and financial institutions will be watching for how the final framework defines secondary-market exposure, the level of issuer visibility required to meet sanctions obligations, and the granularity of enterprise AML programs. As enforcement expectations evolve, firms may face increased reporting, recordkeeping, and governance demands, with potential implications for cross-border operations and banking relationships.

Closing perspective

While the GENIUS Act proposals mark a significant step toward integrating stablecoins into the U.S. financial-regulatory perimeter, the path to final rules will hinge on clear definitions of issuer liability, the scope of AML program requirements, and practical considerations for secondary-market activity. The diverse industry responses underscore that the sector seeks a balanced framework—one that reinforces compliance and national security objectives without stifling technological advancement or limiting access to regulated, resilient digital payments infrastructure. Monitoring the forthcoming rulemaking and regulator guidance will be essential for institutions shaping their governance and risk management programs in this evolving landscape.