United States prosecutors have charged a man serving a federal prison sentence over the alleged removal and laundering of about $290,000 in crypto assets held in a Kraken account subject to a forfeiture order. 

The Department of Justice said on Thursday that Rossen Iossifov, a Bulgarian national, conspired in January 2024 to withdraw and transfer crypto that a federal court had ordered forfeited following his 2021 conviction. Prosecutors allege that the assets were moved through illicit mixing services and crypto exchanges before the US could take possession. 

The case shows how attempts to move crypto after a forfeiture order can trigger fresh criminal charges, even after the underlying conviction.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky said the cryptocurrency was held in an account registered to Iossifov at Kraken and had been restrained during the investigation. The DOJ announcement did not say how the account was accessed or whether the funds were recovered.

Crypto laundering draws wider enforcement scrutiny 

Iossifov was previously convicted of racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy for his role in an online auction fraud network that victimized at least 900 Americans.

Prosecutors said Iossifov owned and operated a crypto exchange called RG Coins, which converted criminal proceeds into crypto and cash for the network. Earlier evidence showed that he laundered nearly $5 million in crypto in less than three years. 

The court ordered Iossifov to pay over $2.6 million in restitution and forfeit crypto assets. He is now charged with removing property to prevent seizure, aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 25 years if convicted. 

An indictment is an allegation, and Iossifov is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Related: US DOJ sentences man to 70 months in prison for role in $263M scam group

The charges come as authorities intensify scrutiny of crypto infrastructure used to obscure illicit flows. On Thursday, Interpol said that a wallet tied to a suspected romance-scam money launderer processed over $122 million in 10 months, using cross-chain swaps to move proceeds from online fraud. 

The investigation was part of a broader operation involving 97 countries and territories. The campaign led to 5,811 arrests and the interception of $293 million in assets tied to fraud and money laundering. 

Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

The crypto industry has spent years convincing Washington that it deserves a seat at the table. Now, as Congress inches toward passing the CLARITY Act, a long-awaited crypto market structure bill, it seems it finally has one.

The question is no longer whether lawmakers are listening to digital asset advocates, but whether the crypto lobby’s deep pockets and influence in election campaigns will be enough to get the legislation over the line.

That debate comes as Senate negotiators work toward a potential floor vote before Congress breaks for its August recess. 

In a June 25 thread on X, Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute and former chief executive of the Blockchain Association, argued that crypto’s advocacy operation is “the strongest and most sophisticated it has ever been.”

She pointed to bipartisan negotiations, daily meetings with lawmakers, and what she described as “a political operation supporting champions that’s winning in an overwhelming fashion” to illustrate her point.

Source: Kristin Smith

According to a report from consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, that “political operation” has spent $189 million so far to influence the 2026 midterm elections. Crypto’s opponents see the war chest as an illegitimate attempt to buy influence and votes, while the industry argues it’s a much-needed corrective to the anti-crypto forces that have dominated politics since 2022.

Colin McLaren, the Solana Policy Institute’s head of government relations, told Cointelegraph the industry’s political infrastructure did not emerge overnight.

“Fairshake, Cedar Innovation Foundation, Stand With Crypto, and the Blockchain Association built the political infrastructure that’s moving pro-crypto legislation forward,” he said.

“These groups, alongside the advocacy of companies and projects, created and supported allies in Congress, giving them the resources and cover to legislate and lead without fear of electoral reprisal from the anti-crypto army.”

The tide begins to turn on CLARITY

There are signs that momentum to pass the CLARITY Act is building.

On July 3, the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA), a national association representing elected sheriffs from some of the largest counties in the US, announced that it had shifted from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position following discussions over Section 604, also known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. As Coinbase chief executive Brian Armstrong commented on X, that development is “huge.”

Earlier that same day, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) became the first major law enforcement body to endorse the bill.  

But the BRCA, which includes protections for developers decentralized smart contracts, remains a sticking point. Four other attorneys and law enforcement groups representing 70,000 members between them, warned the Acting U.S. Attorney General in late June that the bill’s “broad exemptions could create gaps in oversight and accountability that sophisticated criminal actors may exploit.”

So the race is far from won.

MCSA letter to Senate Banking Leaders. Source: Eleanor Terrett

Related: Senate leaders push for July passage of CLARITY Act

How is the crypto lobby campaigning?

Smith’s comments spotlight how closely the industry’s political organization has become intertwined with its legislative ambitions. No organization better exemplifies that shift than Fairshake, the crypto-backed political action committee (PAC), funded by companies like Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz. 

A PAC is an organization that raises and spends money to support or oppose political candidates and causes, and can pool contributions from multiple donors to fund campaign advertising and other political activity, subject to federal election rules.

Political Action Committees (PACs). Source: Federal Election Commission

Throughout the 2026 US congressional primary election cycle, Fairshake and affiliated PACs have spent tens of millions of dollars supporting candidates in various races who are viewed as favorable to digital assets while opposing others seen as hostile to the sector.

In May, affiliated PACs spent more than $20 million supporting candidates in Republican congressional primaries across Georgia, Alabama and Kentucky, including more than $7 million backing Rep. Andy Barr in Kentucky’s Senate primary. 

The group later expanded its efforts into Democratic contests, spending millions of dollars in Maryland and New York. Several crypto-backed candidates advanced in these states, further reinforcing Fairshake’s reputation as the industry’s most influential political organization.

McLaren argued that the crypto’s lobby’s willingness to back candidates in competitive races is making a difference.“Adrian Boafo was polling behind the field in Maryland before the crypto industry’s ads ran. He won,” he said. 

“In Houston, the industry backed Christian Menefee, a young upstart challenging a sitting incumbent. He won. The industry supports its champions, even when that means taking risks.”

Related: Democrat backed by Ripple co-founder’s PAC wins Colorado primary

Fairshake spokesperson Geoff Vetter told Cointelegraph that election victories are only one measure of success.

“Our goal is to increase the number of members who understand and are willing to act on these issues in good faith,” Vetter told Cointelegraph. 

“The difference we make will be creating the largest crypto-literate caucus in history, ready to act on responsible regulation.”

But is Fairshake’s influence overstated?

But how much of Fairshake’s influence stems from election outcomes themselves rather than simply the perception that it can shape them?

In a June 30 analysis published by Brogan Law, journalist Veronica Irwin examined Fairshake’s involvement in 40 decided races during the current election cycle, comparing Federal Election Commission filings with polling data and election results.

While Fairshake-backed candidates won in 38 of those contests, Irwin’s analysis found that many of those races already leaned heavily toward the eventual winner before the PAC entered the picture. 

Based on her methodology, only 16 races appeared to be genuinely competitive enough for Fairshake’s spending to have plausibly adjusted the outcome.

How much difference does crypto money really make in elections? Source: Brogan Law

That’s still a considerable impact, and Irwin said her goal was never to argue that Fairshake lacked influence, but to show that its strategy is more sophisticated than many observers assume.

“I was reading a lot of stories that were basically just the press release,” she told Cointelegraph. “That top-line narrative implies they are just buying up all of the elections outright and having these huge, huge wins. That kind of betrays the more complex strategy underlying it.”

Rather than simply trying to swing every race, Irwin said Fairshake has the financial resources to “spray” campaign spending across a much wider range of contests than most PACs could afford.

“They’re in this position where they have so much money that they can pursue these costly strategies,” she said.

Her analysis raises the nuanced possibility that the organization’s greatest political strength may lie not in deciding elections outright, but in cultivating the belief that it can. 

Beyond campaign spending

Campaign spending alone does not always move legislation through Congress. The CLARITY Act’s progress also reflects months of negotiations involving lawmakers, industry groups and outside stakeholders. 

The MCSA’s shift to a neutral position shows that legislation still depends on coalition-building and compromise, particularly when addressing concerns around financial crime, consumer protection and law enforcement.

“It is a combination of factors,” Ron Tarter, founder of self-custodial, multi-currency cryptocurrency wallet RockWallet and a former attorney, told Cointelegraph. “Adoption is the foundation… Lobbying translates that adoption into direct policy engagement… and campaign spending is the accelerant.”

Irwin also argued that crypto’s political influence comes from more than campaign spending alone. “Crypto occupies this space where it matters a lot to you and me, but to the average voter it isn’t a top-five issue,” she told Cointelegraph.

“That’s the sweet spot where lobbying and election influence can really flex their muscles… It’s pretty easy for a politician to switch to a more pro-crypto perspective without a lot of downside,” she said.

“It’s this one-two punch between lobbying being really effective and the potential to raise a bunch of money if you side with crypto.”

McLaren argued that campaign spending succeeded because it was built on a broader political strategy rather than replacing one.

“Crypto didn’t come to Washington because it wanted to,” he said.

“The industry played defense for years, then decided to meet the threat at the ballot box and build the apparatus to advocate for the clarity needed.”

Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has launched a supervisory review of MiCA-authorized crypto custodians, moving its focus from licensing to testing how firms handle operational risks in practice.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority, the regulator has started a Common Supervisory Action (CSA) covering a sample of authorized crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework. 

The review concentrates on custody services and will examine whether firms have effective operational resilience measures rather than relying only on regulatory approval.

ESMA examines custody controls after MiCA licensing

As outlined by ESMA, supervisors will assess digital operational resilience in several critical areas, including private key and storage management, transaction controls, incident response procedures and reliance on third-party technology providers. The review comes soon after MiCA’s transitional period ended, making it one of the first coordinated supervisory exercises under the EU’s crypto rulebook.

In a statement, Sebastien Dessimoz, co-founder and managing partner of digital asset infrastructure company Taurus, said the message from regulators is that obtaining a MiCA licence is only the starting point for custodians.

Dessimoz said custody providers are now expected to demonstrate that their operational controls can withstand real-world risks instead of simply asserting that their systems are secure. He added that as digital assets become more integrated into regulated financial infrastructure, regulators expect the same level of security, accountability and resilience seen in traditional financial markets.

Institutional clients have already increased scrutiny of custody practices, according to Jody Mettler, chief operating officer of BitGo and president of BitGo Trust. In a statement, Mettler said clients increasingly ask how custodians segregate customer assets, manage access controls, respond to security incidents and maintain business continuity during periods of market stress.

She added that regulators are paying closer attention to the operational standards supporting digital asset services rather than limiting their assessment to licensing requirements.

MiCA oversight expands as Europe revisits crypto rules

Industry participants also see the review as an early indication of how MiCA supervision could evolve. Markus Levin, co-founder of blockchain infrastructure company XYO, told Cointelegraph that receiving MiCA authorization and proving operational resilience are separate challenges. He said firms that can demonstrate strong operational controls before supervisory reviews conclude could be better positioned as institutional participation in digital assets increases.

Meanwhile, Yuriy Brisov, a lawyer at Digital & Analogue Partners, said the review combines obligations under both MiCA and the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). According to Brisov, concentration among custody technology providers means weaknesses at a single vendor could affect multiple regulated firms simultaneously, making supply chain resilience a key compliance issue.

At the same time, European regulators are already preparing the next stage of MiCA. According to a Euronews report, European Commission officials are planning a review of parts of the framework from 2027 after the United States enacted the GENIUS Act.

The review is expected to examine how non-EU stablecoin issuers should be treated under existing rules as international crypto regulation continues to develop.

Current market data also shows MiCA’s regulated exchange ecosystem continuing to expand. DefiLlama’s MiCA exchange dashboard, cited by Wu Blockchain, ranked Kraken as the largest regulated venue by liquidity, with more than $400 million in spot liquidity and over $220 million in perpetual liquidity on the live dashboard.

Coinbase remained the second-largest regulated exchange by liquidity, according to the same data, underscoring the growing scale of platforms operating under Europe’s licensing framework.

Kraken is rolling out a new set of AI-driven “financial intelligence” tools inside its mobile app, aiming to make crypto investing feel less like an interface challenge and more like decision support. The exchange says users will start by setting financial goals and preferences, after which the app will tailor what it shows and which portfolio recommendations it surfaces—without taking control of trades.

According to an announcement, Kraken’s system continuously monitors markets and flags opportunities, but every suggested action must be approved by the user. In reporting from CNBC, the updated app uses a customer’s goals, risk tolerance, funding preferences and broader financial profile to generate a suggested portfolio, which users can review and adjust before investing. After funds are deployed, it provides personalized portfolio updates and additional investment suggestions based on what the user holds.

Key takeaways

• Kraken’s mobile update personalizes recommendations around user-set goals like buying a home, retirement savings, or an emergency fund.
• Despite AI “financial intelligence,” Kraken’s recommendations are decision-support only—users must approve every trade before execution.
• The approach mirrors a wider industry shift: exchanges are moving from basic order entry toward conversational portfolio guidance.
• Other major platforms are already testing AI agents and assistants that can transact or place orders, though user review and consent remain a common requirement.

From trading screens to goal-based investing

Kraken’s update is built around a simple premise: most investors don’t want to start with complex trading tools—they want clarity around outcomes. The company says its redesigned app begins by asking users to define financial goals and preferences, then adapts its interface and recommendations to match those objectives. Instead of treating crypto as just another asset to trade, Kraken is positioning the tools as a way to support structured investing decisions.

Kraken describes its AI system as “financial intelligence” that watches markets for potential opportunities and recommends trades. However, the company draws a clear line between guidance and automation: it does not execute transactions on a user’s behalf. Each recommendation requires the user’s approval, making the experience more like an assistive layer on top of existing trading functions rather than an autonomous trading engine.

How the app generates portfolios—and where approval fits

CNBC reports that Kraken’s platform incorporates market monitoring data alongside personal inputs—risk tolerance, funding preferences and financial profile—to produce a suggested portfolio. That portfolio is not presented as a final instruction. Users are expected to review and adjust the proposal before investing.

Once a user has acted, the system continues to provide personalized portfolio updates and further suggestions that reflect the user’s holdings. The key element for investors and traders is the workflow: the AI proposes, the user disposes. That distinction matters for both risk management and compliance concerns, and it helps explain why exchanges are able to market AI capabilities without fully removing human control.

In comments to CNBC, Kraken chief data officer Kamo Asatryan said the technology is intended to give everyday investors visibility similar to what active traders may already have, by continuously monitoring markets, identifying opportunities and recommending trades. He framed the goal as enabling non-experts to participate in more sophisticated decision-making “using plain English,” rather than requiring constant manual interpretation of market data and trading mechanics.

The broader push for agentic tools across crypto

Kraken’s move fits a broader competitive pattern across crypto exchanges and fintech platforms: adding AI to help users analyze markets, manage portfolios, and interact with trading systems via more natural, assistant-like experiences. Instead of only supporting traditional order types, these products increasingly aim to translate user intent—often stated in conversational language—into actionable guidance.

In June, OKX launched a beta marketplace for AI agents that can transact autonomously, complete onchain tasks, and build blockchain-based reputations. Around the same time, Coinbase introduced a tool allowing AI agents to make payments and trade cryptocurrencies on behalf of users using its x402 payments protocol. In both cases, the industry debate is not whether AI can be useful, but how much autonomy it should be given and how responsibility is handled.

Chainalysis reported last month that agentic payment activity on Coinbase’s Base network surpassed 100 million transactions. While transaction growth has stabilized, the report indicated that higher-value transfers have become more common—suggesting agent-driven payments are evolving beyond the earliest wave of small, test-like activity. For investors and builders, that shift is a signal that AI-enabled “agentic” actions may increasingly be used for meaningful payments rather than only experimentation.

Meanwhile, fintech firm Revolut announced an upgrade to its Revolut X exchange, enabling customers to connect AI assistants—including Claude, Gemini, Cursor and OpenClaw—to analyze markets, backtest trading strategies and place orders through natural-language prompts. Like Kraken, Revolut’s approach requires customers to review and approve every trade before execution, reinforcing the notion that user consent remains the default boundary even as interfaces become more automated.

Why Kraken’s positioning matters for users

Kraken’s “financial intelligence” framing highlights an important distinction in how exchanges are adopting AI. Autonomy is one dimension, but user experience and decision architecture are another. By centering the workflow on goals and risk preferences, Kraken is trying to reduce friction for users who may otherwise struggle to map personal objectives onto trading choices.

For retail investors, goal-based guidance could make portfolio management more consistent—especially when combined with ongoing updates after investment. Still, the success of such tools will likely depend on how effectively recommendations reflect the user’s stated objectives and how clearly the system explains why a particular trade or portfolio shift is suggested. Kraken’s insistence on approval before execution provides a safety valve, but users will still need to understand the recommendations they accept.

For market participants more broadly, Kraken’s rollout underscores that AI features are becoming a competitive baseline rather than a differentiator reserved for the most tech-forward platforms. Even where full agentic autonomy is not enabled, exchanges are competing on the quality of their guidance, the speed at which they can interpret market conditions, and the clarity with which they translate complex strategies into something everyday customers can act on.

Next, investors should watch how Kraken measures engagement and outcomes from the new goal-based recommendations—particularly whether users stick with the guidance after the initial setup—and whether similar interfaces expand beyond portfolio suggestions into deeper automation. The remaining uncertainty is how quickly the market will move from decision support to fully autonomous action, especially as regulators, user expectations, and platform designs continue to converge.