US Lawmakers Push Federal Framework for Crypto Theft and Scams

A bipartisan proposal in the U.S. House aims to consolidate criminal investigations into cryptocurrency theft, scams, and other digital asset-related crimes under a Department of Justice-led task force. The legislation envisions the DOJ as the principal federal coordinator, uniting the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to streamline evidence collection, blockchain forensics, asset tracing, and victim support across federal, state, and local law enforcement. According to Cointelegraph, the measure would also enable training and technical assistance for state and local agencies, with the task force coordinating international law enforcement collaboration on cross-border investigations and delivering annual threat assessments to Congress.

The proposal explicitly states that it would not authorize new regulation of cryptocurrency markets, would not expand the authority of federal agencies, and would not create new criminal offenses. Rather, its focus is on interagency coordination within the enforcement framework already responsible for financial crimes. The bill names Republican Representative Lance Gooden and Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer as its sponsors. The text and accompanying materials have been referenced in reporting, including a link to the draft bill hosted by Gooden’s office.

The initiative also comes amid rising crypto-related losses and an expanding role for technology in investigations. The FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report highlighted that Americans reported more than $11 billion in crypto-related losses last year. In parallel, the crypto-analytic community is increasingly leveraging artificial intelligence to support casework.

The task force would engage with international counterparts on cross-border cases and would produce annual reports outlining emerging threats, enforcement challenges, and potential policy recommendations for Congress. The bill’s architects frame the measure as a coordination enhancement rather than a regulatory expansion, aimed at closing gaps in investigative workflows and ensuring consistency in evidence handling across jurisdictions.

The broader policy conversation surrounding this proposal sits alongside a growing emphasis on advanced analytics in crypto investigations. Industry players have rolled out AI-enabled tools designed to trace fund flows, audit transaction graphs, and support investigative decision-making. For example, TRM Labs recently introduced an AI-driven investigative assistant designed to aid crypto compliance and investigations, while Chainalysis announced a later rollout of similar AI-enabled agents for investigations and compliance. These developments reflect a trend toward more scalable forensics as criminals increasingly automate cross-chain activity. Regulatory and financial institutions will be watching closely how such tools intersect with AML/KYC regimes and cross-border enforcement norms.

Crypto-asset exploits continue to drive losses, underscoring the practical significance of enhanced investigative capacity. DeFiLlama data cited a monthly loss total of roughly $630 million in April, marking one of the largest monthly totals in recent months and reinforcing the argument for stronger, more coordinated enforcement and forensics capabilities. Related reporting indicates a broader push toward integrated law enforcement tools and international cooperation in tackling crypto crime.

Key takeaways

• A bipartisan bill would establish a Department of Justice–led task force to coordinate cryptocurrency crime investigations across federal, state, and local agencies, with a focus on best practices and evidence standardization.
• The initiative emphasizes cross-agency collaboration, blockchain forensics, asset tracing, victim support, and training, including international cooperation on cross-border cases.
• Importantly, the bill explicitly prevents new market regulation, expansion of federal authority, or creation of new criminal offenses; the aim is enhanced coordination within existing enforcement powers.
• AI-enabled analytics and blockchain-investigation tools are increasingly central to crypto crime workflows, shaping how investigators trace flows and identify illicit networks.

Legislative framework and enforcement architecture

According to Cointelegraph, the proposal would position the DOJ as the central federal coordinator for cryptocurrency-crime investigations, consolidating activities among the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, and FinCEN’s enforcement arm. The task force would develop and disseminate best practices for evidence collection, blockchain forensics, asset tracing, and victim support, while providing training and technical assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. The legislation envisions annual reporting to Congress on emerging threats and enforcement challenges, and it calls for collaboration with international law-enforcement partners to advance cross-border investigations. The sponsors emphasize that the measure is a coordination mechanism rather than a vehicle to regulate markets or expand federal power.

For compliance and oversight teams, the architecture signals a potential shift toward standardized investigation workflows and shared standards for digital-asset evidence. As authorities align practices across jurisdictions, exchanges, custodians, and banks could face more uniform expectations for information sharing and cooperation in criminal investigations.

Technology and investigative capabilities

The bill arrives at a moment when private-sector blockchain intelligence firms are integrating AI into investigative workstreams. In early 2025, TRM Labs announced an AI-assisted investigative assistant designed to trace flows, audit transaction graphs, and propose next steps from natural-language prompts, reflecting a broader industry trend toward scalable forensics. Chainalysis subsequently indicated that its own AI-enabled agents would roll out to support investigations and compliance functions, underscoring a parallel shift toward automated, data-driven intelligence in crypto-crime response. The integration of AI tools—while increasing efficiency—also raises considerations for accuracy, bias, and governance within enforcement workflows.

These tools are increasingly central to how investigators identify illicit activity, parse complex transaction networks, and reconstruct schemes that span multiple chains and jurisdictions. As enforcement bodies scale with these capabilities, firms operating in the crypto ecosystem should anticipate evolving expectations around data transparency, reporting, and collaboration with law enforcement under applicable AML/KYC regimes and cross-border frameworks.

Regulatory policy and market implications

The proposed framework represents a structural approach to enforcement coordination rather than a new regulatory regime. By clarifying roles and standardizing practices across agencies, the bill could influence how exchanges, banks, and institutional investors approach risk management and regulatory compliance. In the broader policy landscape, the development complements ongoing regulatory oversight at the federal level while existing frameworks for monitoring and supervising crypto markets remain distinct from the substance of this enforcement-oriented initiative. Observers will be attentive to how annual congressional reporting shapes understanding of threats and informs any future policy considerations.

Overall, the measure highlights a continued convergence between legislative intent and technological tools in the fight against crypto crime. As cross-border investigations intensify and illicit actors increasingly leverage automation, coordinated, well-governed enforcement mechanisms will be critical to maintaining resiliency in the digital-asset ecosystem.

Closing perspective: If advanced oversight and interagency coordination proceed, the sector should monitor the pace of funding, the scope of interagency collaboration, and the cadence of annual threat assessments—factors that will shape enforcement posture and compliance expectations in the months ahead.