The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has issued non-compliance notices to 15 crypto platforms, or what it calls Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs), under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The notified entities could face access blocks in the country, with the FIU directing them to take down their applications and URLs.

India’s FIU Cracks Down On Crypto Entities

According to the Financial Intelligence Unit, the platforms failed to comply with several provisions of the PMLA and were operating illegally in the country. The platforms included in the list are Weex, Blofin, Bitunix, DigiFinex, Toobit, Razorex, XT.com, Latoken, WOO X, Pionex, ChangeNow, SimpleSwap, FixedFloat, WhiteBIT, and Guardarian.

India expanded its anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism framework in 2023, bringing VDA service providers in India under the ambit of FIU registration and PMLA obligations.

The PMLA mandates that companies registered as reporting entities with the Financial Intelligence Unit must report transactions and keep detailed records. These requirements are not contingent on whether the platform has a physical presence in the country. The agency stated in its press release,

“These obligations are activity-based, and are not contingent on the physical presence of the entity in India. The regulation casts reporting, record-keeping, and other obligations on the VDA SPs under the PMLA Act, which also includes registration with the FIU-IND.”

Prior Notices

Several cryptocurrency platforms have previously restricted operations in India for failing to comply with regulatory requirements. Bybit operations in India were temporarily restricted in January 2025. Access to Bybit services was fully restored once the platform completed its FIU registration. Coinbase, which suspended operations after failing to comply with regulatory requirements, returned to the Indian market after registering with the FIU, and Binance returned in 2024 after paying a $2.25 million penalty.

Investor Impact

The FIU and Ministry of Finance also cautioned against NFTs and other crypto products, stating they remain unregulated and carry substantial risk.

“There may be no regulatory recourse for any loss from such transactions.”

India’s Financial Intelligence Unit is responsible for monitoring suspicious financial transactions and reporting them to relevant agencies. Ankit Ghosh, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, explained how crypto entities fell under the FIU, stating,

“FIU-IND has always looked at the activity rather than the place of incorporation, so an offshore exchange serving Indian users comes within the reporting framework wherever it is based. Alongside the Section-13 notice, FIU-IND directed that the apps and URLs be removed under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, and that directly affects user access.”

Cryptocurrency platform WazirX called the FIU’s compliance requirements critical for protecting users, stating,

“FIU-IND’s compliance standards are critical to protecting users and preventing the misuse of VDA platforms and illegal fund transfers. Measures like KYC, AML, geotagging, and liveness verification have made India’s VDA system safer over the years, and the same rules must apply to every platform serving Indian users, whether it operates from India or overseas.”

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

A company behind the Unicoin brand has filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Uniswap Labs, seeking a court ruling that its UNICOIN trademark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s asserted marks. TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, is also asking the court to cancel a US trademark registration for UNI.

The dispute centers on trademark claims and alleged brand misuse that Uniswap’s representatives raised through a series of demand letters sent over several months. Unicoin’s complaint, filed Tuesday, requests declarations on non-infringement and non-dilution, along with determinations related to whether Unicoin’s domain names violate US anti-cybersquatting laws.

Key takeaways

• TransparentBusiness Inc. (Unicoin) sued in New York federal court seeking declarations that UNICOIN does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks.
• The complaint asks the court to cancel a US trademark registration for “UNI,” which Uniswap alleges it owns or has rights to.
• Uniswap’s counsel reportedly sent three demand letters—June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14—accusing Unicoin of infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
• Unicoin is also challenging claims tied to its “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
• The legal filing comes shortly before a listed Sept. 28 public launch date for Unicoin’s UNCN token.

Unicoin’s lawsuit targets Uniswap’s asserted trademark rights

According to Unicoin’s complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, TransparentBusiness Inc. is seeking court declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks, including UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN.

The company further requests cancellation of a US trademark registration for UNI. That request is significant because it directly challenges the scope of whichever trademark rights Uniswap is asserting. If the cancellation is granted, it could narrow or remove a foundation for future enforcement arguments tied to the “UNI” branding.

The filing also asks for a legal declaration that the company’s “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). That portion of the case targets whether the domains were acquired or used in a manner that meets the federal standard for cybersquatting.

Demand letters frame Uniswap’s allegations

Unicoin’s complaint states that Uniswap’s counsel issued three demand letters on June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14. In those letters, Uniswap reportedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.

The demand letters, as described in the lawsuit, required several actions from Unicoin, including:

• Stopping use of “UNICOIN” and other “UNI”-formative marks.
• Transferring the “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains.
• Providing an accounting of revenue and profits.
• Reimbursing Uniswap’s legal fees.

These demands indicate Uniswap’s approach extended beyond stopping trademark use to seeking financial disclosures and fee reimbursement. That broad enforcement posture is part of why the litigation matters: court outcomes could shape how aggressively Uniswap and similar brands police overlaps in naming and web presence.

Cointelegraph reached out to Uniswap for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Why trademark cases matter in crypto branding

While the dispute is framed in legal trademark terms, it has practical implications for crypto projects because naming and domain strategy are tightly connected to user discovery, marketing, and community recognition. In markets where tokens and apps proliferate quickly, brand identifiers and web domains often become the first point of contact for users who are looking for official services, documentation, and liquidity.

In this case, Unicoin is contesting both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In plain terms, that puts two different legal theories in play: whether Unicoin’s use of its mark is likely to cause confusion with Uniswap’s asserted marks, and whether it nonetheless harms or weakens those marks even absent direct confusion. Unicoin’s inclusion of dilution and cybersquatting claims suggests it is treating Uniswap’s enforcement threats as multi-pronged.

Investors and builders will likely watch how the court approaches similarity between the “UNI” family of terms and whether the case turns on marketplace confusion, the strength of Uniswap’s claims to the cited marks, or the specific use of the Unicoin domains.

Timing: filing before Unicoin’s listed token launch

The lawsuit was filed weeks before a Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.

This timing may matter for participants evaluating execution risk and operational continuity. Token launches in crypto frequently depend on marketing, websites, and community onboarding—areas that can become collateral in trademark and domain disputes. Although the filing itself does not indicate the launch will be delayed, the presence of active federal litigation is the kind of uncertainty that can affect planning, partner relationships, and user-facing communications.

Separately, Unicoin’s competitive context can also provide background for why enforcement attention might intensify around well-known brands. At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion. A leading position in the DeFi trading stack can make brand-related enforcement more consequential, since other services may be measured against widely recognized naming and user expectations.

What to watch next in the case

The next developments to track are how Unicoin and Uniswap argue the legal standards for infringement, dilution, and ACPA-related domain issues, and whether the court addresses the requested cancellation of the UNI trademark registration. With a token launch date already on the calendar and multiple demand letters documented in the complaint, the litigation’s pace and interim rulings could determine how both sides manage branding and online presence going forward.

Former Bank of England and Bundesbank officials have joined Fnality’s UK and European boards as the bank-backed blockchain payments company prepares to expand its central bank money settlement network beyond sterling.

Fnality said Thursday that former Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe will chair the board of its UK entity, while former Deutsche Bundesbank payments executive Jochen Metzger has been appointed to the supervisory board of Fnality Europe and is expected to become its chair.

Ron Berndsen, who previously served as head of oversight and head of market infrastructures policy at De Nederlandsche Bank, is joining the supervisory board of the Germany-based European business.

The appointments bring three former central bank officials into Fnality’s governance structure as banks and other financial institutions develop infrastructure for settling tokenized securities and moving digital forms of money across blockchain networks.

Fnality brings former central bankers into its payments network

Cunliffe previously served as the Bank of England’s deputy governor for financial stability, where his responsibilities included oversight of financial market infrastructure and payment systems.

Metzger served as director general for payments and settlement systems at Deutsche Bundesbank, while Berndsen previously worked on oversight and market infrastructure policy at the Dutch central bank.

Their appointments come as Fnality works to extend its wholesale payment infrastructure into additional currencies and jurisdictions.

The London-based company operates a blockchain-based wholesale payment system that allows participating financial institutions to settle obligations using funds backed by central bank money. Its sterling payment system launched in 2023 and is regulated by the Bank of England.

Fnality is now seeking regulatory approvals for dollar- and euro-denominated versions of the network.

“It is really important that we find a way to get central banks and central bank money at the heart of the new technologies that were pioneered in the crypto world,” Cunliffe said in an interview.

“Some of those technologies are coming to the mainstream world of finance because they offer better functionality and speed.”

Fnality was founded in 2019 and is backed by banks and financial market infrastructure companies including Goldman Sachs, UBS, Banco Santander, Bank of America and Citigroup.

The company raised $136 million in Series C funding in September 2025, with crypto.news previously reporting that WisdomTree, Bank of America, Citi, KBC Group, Temasek and Tradeweb led or participated in the round alongside existing investors including Goldman Sachs, Santander, UBS and Euroclear.

That financing took Fnality’s total funding since 2019 to more than $280 million. The company said at the time that the capital would support expansion of the Sterling Fnality Payment System into additional currencies, alongside liquidity management tools and connections with stablecoins and tokenized deposits.

Fnality had earlier raised $95 million in Series B funding in 2023 in a round led by Goldman Sachs and BNP Paribas. Euroclear, DTCC, WisdomTree and Nomura were among the participants, while Santander, BNY Mellon, Barclays, ING, Lloyds Banking Group, State Street and UBS were among its existing backers.

Tokenized assets are creating demand for digital settlement

Banks are increasing work on tokenization, where conventional assets such as stocks and bonds are represented and transferred through blockchain-based infrastructure.

Moving securities onto digital networks creates a corresponding requirement for the cash side of transactions to operate on compatible systems. Fnality’s model uses central bank-backed money for wholesale settlement, allowing participating institutions to complete transactions involving digital assets without relying solely on stablecoins or commercial bank deposits.

Its live sterling system has been used for cases including real-time settlement of tokenized securities through delivery versus payment, foreign exchange transactions using payment versus payment and repo transactions.

Similar projects are developing across the banking sector.

Swift moved its blockchain ledger into deployment in July with 17 global banks preparing to test tokenized deposit payments for round-the-clock cross-border settlement. Participants included HSBC, Citi, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, DBS and Standard Chartered.

The system coordinates tokenized deposits between banks while retaining existing compliance, risk and control processes. Tokenized deposits are digital representations of commercial bank deposits, meaning the underlying funds remain on the issuing bank’s balance sheet.

In August, HSBC and Standard Chartered completed the first live interbank transaction through Swift’s blockchain ledger. The banks connected their separate tokenized deposit systems through the shared network, which matched and netted payment obligations before final settlement occurred through existing banking infrastructure.

Seventeen banks across six continents are participating in the wider Swift pilot.

Banks are testing several forms of digital money

Fnality is developing its central bank money model alongside other forms of blockchain-based cash being tested by banks, including tokenized deposits and stablecoins.

Stablecoins are generally issued by companies and backed by reserve assets, while tokenized deposits represent deposits held at commercial banks in digital form. Fnality instead provides wholesale settlement using money linked to central bank balances.

“Multiple models of digital money will co-exist,” Fnality Group CEO Michelle Neal said in an interview. “Our differentiation is that this is regulated wholesale settlement.”

Banks are developing infrastructure around more than one of those models.

Wells Fargo said in August that it planned to launch tokenized deposits for selected corporate and commercial clients, initially supporting U.S. dollar-to-British pound transactions. The bank plans to use blockchain infrastructure for 24-hour transfers, settlement and programmable payments before adding more clients, currencies and countries during 2027.

JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are separately working through The Clearing House on a shared network that would allow corporate customers to move tokenized deposits around the clock, with a launch targeted for the first half of 2027.

The development of digital cash is taking place alongside efforts to put securities settlement on distributed ledgers.

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group said in August that four MUFG companies would work with Digital Asset and Progmat on a blockchain settlement test for Japanese government bond repo transactions using Canton Network.

The project is designed to synchronize existing JGB book-entry records with blockchain infrastructure, while tokenized deposits or stablecoins are being considered for the cash side of settlement. Japan’s Financial Services Agency selected the project under its Payment Innovation Project pilot program in February.

Fnality’s sterling network uses a different settlement structure by placing central bank-backed money directly within its wholesale payments framework. With its UK system already operating, the company is working through the regulatory process required to extend that structure to dollar and euro payments.

On 8 September, Northland Securities upgraded Intel to Outperform with a price target of $120, citing a shortage of server processors, progress in the company’s business turnaround and potential benefits from its involvement in the Terafab project with Tesla and SpaceX. On the same day, reports emerged that Intel was planning to raise processor prices by around 10% from October amid rising costs and limited supply across the supply chain. The combination of higher prices and a positive rating revision is helping to sustain investor interest in Intel shares against the backdrop of strong performance across the semiconductor sector.

Intel Technical Analysis

From 30 June to 29 July, a short-term trend formed on the INTC four-hour chart. Following a decline, the market corrected higher, with the rebound forming an ascending trendline. The price subsequently broke below this trendline, but the attempted breakout was not confirmed by the RSI + MAs indicator. As a result, the price reversed direction and quickly moved through the current market profile, breaking above its upper boundary at $100.00 and is now attempting to establish itself above this level.

It is worth noting that the red resistance level at $109.00 is relatively close to the current price, while the RSI + MAs indicator currently stands at 75, 56 and 51. The RSI has already entered overbought territory, while the moving averages have yet to leave the neutral zone, making the current breakout attempt look questionable. If the market produces another false breakout, a return into the market profile could bring several important levels into play, including the Point of Control (POC) at $92.00 and the lower boundary of the profile at $86.00. Below this level, and relatively close to it, lies the green support level around $82.00.

Key Takeaways

The RSI being in overbought territory while the moving averages remain in the neutral zone casts doubt on a potential breakout of the profile. The short distance to the red resistance level could also strengthen the current resistance zone. Investor reaction to the planned price increase in October could provide an additional factor influencing the stock’s price action.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.