The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has abolished a long-standing policy that barred settlements when a defendant publicly denied the agency’s allegations. The move, disclosed this week, ends nearly three decades of a rule critics say stifled free speech while supporters argued it helped preserve orderly settlements.

The CFTC said the no-deny policy, adopted in 1998, may have created an incorrect impression that the Commission was shielding itself from criticism. The agency framed the change as aligning with broader government practice, where regulators have loosened settlement language to reflect evolving enforcement approaches.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC has rescinded its no-deny settlement policy, effective for new cases going forward, after almost 30 years of application.
• The change provides the agency with greater flexibility when resolving enforcement actions, potentially allowing settlements that do not require defendants to concede the Commission’s allegations publicly.
• Existing no-deny provisions will not be enforced going forward, though future settlements may still require defendants to admit certain facts or liabilities.
• The move mirrors a similar shift by the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this year, which also abandoned a gag-like constraint on settlements.
• Observers tied the development to a broader political and regulatory backdrop, including ongoing debates over how crypto-enforcement actions should be settled and framed in public discourse.

The policy reversal and what it changes in practice

For nearly thirty years, the CFTC refused to settle enforcement actions unless the defendant promised not to publicly deny the Commission’s allegations. The agency argued that this condition helped maintain the integrity of its casework and ensured clear accountability in settlements. In its recent notice, the CFTC argued that retaining the policy could mislead the public into thinking the agency was avoiding scrutiny, prompting a rethink of how settlements should be structured in a modern regulatory environment.

With the policy rescinded, the CFTC asserts it now has more room to craft settlements that fit the realities of contemporary enforcement, where public statements and ongoing litigation can diverge from negotiated outcomes. The agency stressed that the change does not erase the possibility that settlements may still require certain factual admissions or liabilities, depending on the specifics of a case. In other words, the door to a more nuanced settlement framework is open, but not a blanket license for issuers or trading platforms to avoid accountability where appropriate.

Regulatory context and reactions from the ecosystem

The timing of the move sits within a broader regulatory cadence that has seen agencies recalibrate how crypto enforcement is communicated and resolved. Earlier this year, the SEC likewise moved to discard a gag-like provision that had limited the parties’ public denials in certain enforcement deals, signaling a potentially coordinated, cross-agency shift toward greater settlement flexibility. As with the CFTC’s action, the SEC’s decision was framed as aligning regulator practices with broader government norms.

Crypto companies and industry participants have long criticized such no-deny provisions as curbing free speech and constraining post-settlement discourse, even as some proponents argued the constraints helped deter frivolous settlements or mischaracterizations of enforcement actions. The current policy shift suggests regulators may be leaning toward more transparent disclosures in settlements, while still preserving the ability to secure accountability where appropriate.

The development comes amid a dynamic political backdrop. In the wake of various enforcement actions taken during the Biden administration, some observers have noted shifts under different political leadership, including attempts to reassess prior settlement strategies. It remains to be seen how broadly regulators will apply the new posture across cases and whether the changes will translate into faster resolutions or more litigation when parties push back against admissions or certain factual statements.

Gemini dispute and what it signals for enforcement priorities

The week also brought attention to a separate line of action tied to the Gemini settlement. The CFTC announced it would seek to vacate its $5 million settlement with the crypto exchange, a move that CFTC Chair Mike Selig described as politically targeted. The development underscores how settlements—and the conditions that accompany them—remain a live flashpoint in crypto regulation, with agencies testing the boundaries of what is acceptable public messaging around enforcement outcomes.

In discussing the reversal, observers warmed to the idea that enforcement posture is evolving. Tim Massad, who previously led the CFTC during the Obama administration, characterized the Gemini reversal as extraordinarily unusual. His remarks, reported in coverage this week, highlight the unusual degree to which agencies are revisiting settled matters in response to new policy directions and political scrutiny. The Gemini case illustrates that even settled actions can be reexamined when the legal and regulatory environment shifts, potentially recalibrating market participants’ expectations about the durability of settlements.

What investors and builders should watch next

For market participants building in the crypto space, the rescission of the no-deny policy may influence how projects and platforms approach settlements and communications after enforcement actions. If regulators are more open to settlements that do not require explicit public denials, legal strategies may tilt toward achieving efficient, transparent settlements while addressing factual liabilities in a structured, precise way. Yet the possibility remains that some settlements will demand admissions of certain facts or liabilities, signaling that not all disputes will be resolved without some form of acknowledgment.

Beyond individual cases, the shift suggests a broader trend toward flexible settlement language across major U.S. financial regulators. The move could affect how exchanges, wallets, and DeFi platforms negotiate settlements if they face enforcement actions in the future. It may also influence the tempo of regulatory action, with the potential for faster resolutions when parties are willing to accept admissions, or, conversely, longer litigation if admissions are contested vigorously.

As observers digest the implications, attention will turn to whether other agencies follow suit and whether this renewed flexibility translates into clearer, more predictable settlement practices for the crypto sector. The balance regulators must strike is delicate: enabling accountability and enforcement while allowing for discourse and recognition of evolving market realities. The next few months will reveal how these policy shifts play out in actual settlements, and how market participants adjust their expectations around public statements, admissions, and the contours of negotiated outcomes.

Readers should monitor forthcoming agency announcements and court filings for how the no-deny framework is applied across new enforcement actions, and whether the Gemini case or similar settlements set precedents for what must or may be admitted in settlements moving forward. The coming months are likely to reveal how these policy refinements shape the interaction between crypto markets, regulators, and the legal system.

Bitcoin (BTC) has dropped 8% to a nine-week low of $65,360 from Tuesday’s high of $71,300 amid increasing geopolitical risks surrounding the US-Iran war.

Key takeaways:

• Bitcoin slipped to $65,000 on Wednesday in a market-wide correction, liquidating $774 million in longs.
• Traders say Bitcoin needs to hold $60,000 as support to avoid a deeper correction in BTC price.

Bitcoin wipes out longs in tumble to $65,000

Data from TradingView showed new BTC price lows of $65,362 on Bitstamp, the lowest since March 29 as sellers stayed in control.

BTC/USD daily chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

This extended the deviation from the local high of $82,800 to 21% and was accompanied by massive liquidations across the derivatives market.

Related: Bitcoin’s $224K ‘fair value’ may emerge if sovereign debt fears deepen: Bitwise

More than $1.58 billion in long positions were liquidated, with Bitcoin accounting for $774.2 million of that total. Ether (ETH) followed with $440 million in long liquidations.

Across the board, a total of $1.83 billion was wiped out of the market in short and long positions, marking the largest liquidation since Feb. 6, when BTC price tanked to its multi-year low below $60,000.

Total crypto liquidations across all exchanges. Source: CoinGlass

“This marks one of the larger single-day events in recent months,” analysts at CryptoBanter said in an X post on Wednesday.

Pseudonymous analyst Byzantine General shared Velo data, which tracks liquidations from four major crypto exchanges: Binance, Bybit, OKX and Deribit, saying:

“Highest $BTC long liquidations event since the infamous October 10 black swan event.”

Bitcoin aggregate liquidations. Source: X/Byzantine General 

Fellow analyst DonaX₿τ pointed out that the $1.5 billion in long liquidations recorded today were lower than the $1.6 billion posted during the Covid crash in 2020, adding:

“This industry is growing.”

Meanwhile, Bitcoin supply on Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, has reached a three-month high of 659,000 BTC. 

This signifies a “potential for heightened selling pressure in the market, especially if it coincides with declining prices or increased volatility,” CryptoQuant analyst Arab Chain said in a QuickTake note on Wednesday, adding:

“Rising supply on exchanges can amplify price volatility and selling pressure, especially if inflows continue in the coming period.”

Bitcoin supply on Binance. Source: Cryptoquant

As Cointelegraph reported, Bitcoin is now in a fresh distribution phase fueled by increased inflows to exchanges amid extreme fear.

$60,000 is now Bitcoin’s last line of defence

BTC swept lows around $65,000, leaving traders questioning where Bitcoin is likely to find support.

Bitcoin is in an “interesting zone” below $66,000 with bulls looking at the “area at $61K with the 200-Week MA for support,” MN Capital founder Michael van de Poppe said in a Wednesday post on X, adding:

“Those are important to be looking at crucial zones of interest for support and I’m sure that I’ll be going to accumulate more positions within this region.”

BTC/USD weekly chart. Source: Michael van de Poppe

Analyst Colin Talks Crypto said the $65,000-$66,000 is “a reasonable support level for a short-term bounce,” with the possibility of the BTC/USD pair later retesting the $60,000 support zone.

“Re-testing $60k is still highly likely. And breaking below it later this year is definitely not ruled out.”

BTC/USD six-hour chart. Source: X/𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝

As Cointelegraph reported, bulls are expected to defend the $60,000 level aggressively, as a break below it may plunge Bitcoin into a new downtrend. 

Update (June 3, 1 pm, UTC): This article has been updated to include a comment from a spokesperson at BingX.

The United Kingdom’s financial regulator has warned football clubs, including those in the Premier League, to avoid sponsorship deals with unauthorized financial companies amid concerns that fans are being pushed toward risky crypto and trading platforms with no protections.

In a Wednesday press release, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said several unauthorized firms, including crypto businesses and online trading platforms, are using football sponsorships to target “unwitting” supporters.

It warned that such firms may be breaching UK financial services law by operating without authorization and that fans using them “risk losing all their money.”

The intervention puts scrutiny on the clubs themselves. The FCA said that it had written directly to football clubs, telling teams that sponsorship deals with unauthorized financial firms not only endanger fans but could also expose clubs to legal liability, money laundering risks, and serious reputational damage if they fail to carry out adequate checks on partners.

The warning comes as crypto and trading brands have expanded their presence across top-flight football, giving retail-facing platforms prominent exposure through club sponsorships as the FCA steps up enforcement of its financial promotions rules.

Related: UK FCA seeks feedback on guidance for crypto rules ahead of 2027 rollout

The regulator expects every UK club to conduct proper, ongoing due diligence on financial services sponsors and said it will take action where concerns have already been identified.

Rise in crypto football sponsorship deals

The FCA’s warning comes amid a rapid influx of crypto and trading brands into football, including crypto group LAK3 Company, which sponsored Wolverhampton Wanderers in the 2024-25 season, which appears on the FCA’s Warning List of unauthorized firms.

LAK3 Company appears on the FCA’s warning list. Source: FCA

BingX and OKX, which have partnered with Chelsea and Manchester City, are not on the FCA’s Warning List, but the Financial Times reported that they do not appear on the FCA register of authorized firms.

Their deals have given prominent shirt and stadium exposure to retail-facing trading platforms, as the regulator has been clamping down on high-risk promotions.

The FCA did not respond to a request for comment by publication. In its notice, however, the regulator stressed that any firm not authorized in the UK can only promote financial products or services to consumers if its adverts are signed off by an authorized firm under the financial promotions regime.

A spokesperson from BingX told Cointelegraph that the company has “registered or obtained the applicable regulatory approvals to operate in countries where it provides its services.”

Crypto marketing firmly under FCA oversight

The FCA already brought crypto marketing under its financial promotions regime in October 2023, issuing 146 alerts in the first 24 hours alone and launching its first enforcement action against global exchange HTX (formerly Huobi) in February 2026 for allegedly illegal crypto promotions to UK consumers.

Its latest move makes clear that football sponsorships are now firmly in scope for the FCA’s crypto marketing rules. The watchdog said it is working with the government, the Premier League and the incoming Independent Football Regulator to tackle the issue across the sport.

The crackdown also follows a separate warning by the Gambling Commission over gambling adverts on children’s replica kits at four Premier League clubs, Bournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle, and Wolves, highlighting growing regulatory unease about how high-risk products are sold through football.

Cointelegraph reached out to Chelsea and Manchester City, as well as OKX, and LAK3 Company, for comment, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Magazine: How to fix suspected insider trading on Polymarket and Kalshi

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has rescinded its long-running “no-deny” policy for enforcement settlements. 

The rule, adopted in 1998, blocked the agency from accepting settlement offers when a defendant continued to deny allegations in a complaint or administrative order.

The CFTC said the old policy may have created the view that the agency wanted to “shield itself from criticism.” Chairman Michael Selig said the Commission had used the rule for nearly three decades and was now moving “consistent with regulators throughout the government.”

SEC move set the recent precedent

The decision follows a similar shift at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC removed its own no-deny settlement rule in May, ending a policy first adopted in 1972 that limited public denials after enforcement settlements.

According to recent crypto.news reporting, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said that change ended a restriction on criticism of the agency. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also argued that allowing both sides to speak openly would support clearer enforcement records.

Crypto cases add fresh context

The CFTC decision comes as U.S. market regulators review parts of their crypto enforcement approach. Crypto firms have long criticized no-deny language, arguing that settlement terms forced companies to stay silent even when they disagreed with agency claims.

The timing also follows renewed attention on Gemini. The exchange agreed in January 2025 to pay $5 million to settle CFTC charges tied to alleged misleading statements linked to a Bitcoin futures product. As crypto.news reported at the time, Gemini settled without admitting or denying the allegations.

Gemini case remains part of the broader debate

The CFTC has since asked a federal judge to vacate the prior order against Gemini. Reuters reported that Gemini agreed not to seek a refund of the $5 million penalty, while the agency now says the false-statement case should not have been brought.

Selig has also described the Gemini case as “politically targeted,” according to recent reports. Meanwhile, the CFTC said it will not enforce existing no-deny provisions in prior settlements. The agency also said the new approach does not remove its discretion to seek admissions of facts or liability in future enforcement deals.

That means defendants may gain more room to settle without giving up public denials. At the same time, the CFTC can still pursue enforcement actions, seek penalties, and negotiate admissions where the facts or public record require them.

For crypto companies, the change may affect how future CFTC settlements are drafted. It does not erase past investigations or rewrite commodity law, but it changes the speech terms attached to many enforcement resolutions.

Coinbase said it froze more than $3 million in cryptocurrency tied to scam networks operating in Southeast Asia. 

The exchange joined a broader operation led by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Scam Center Strike Force.

The action targeted criminal groups accused of running romance scams, investment fraud, and forced labor scam compounds. Coinbase said it shared intelligence with Meta, Microsoft, Starlink, the DOJ, and global law enforcement agencies.

“This operation is proof that scammers can’t be stopped by any single company or agency acting alone,” Coinbase said. 

The company added that social platforms, financial firms, internet providers, and police had to act together.

Meta and Microsoft disrupt online accounts

Meta said the joint action disabled more than 1.4 million accounts, pages, and groups across Facebook and Instagram. Microsoft also suspended about 20,000 fraudulent accounts linked to scam networks.

Starlink terminated connectivity for thousands of kits tied to unlawful use. The Royal Thai Police also arrested 63 people connected to scam operations, according to Meta.

The companies said the operation connected online activity with real-world scam centers. Meta said shared intelligence helped identify scam locations, accounts, infrastructure, and networks for law enforcement review.

Crypto tracking aids law enforcement

Coinbase defended the role of blockchain tracking in the operation. The company said public blockchain records can help investigators follow stolen funds after victims send crypto to scammers.

“Blockchain technology gives law enforcement something traditional financial systems often can’t: a transparent, immutable and permanent record of every transaction,” Coinbase said.

The statement comes as crypto-linked investment scams continue to draw attention from U.S. authorities. The DOJ has described pig butchering and investment scams as among the most damaging fraud types targeting Americans.

Broader scam crackdown continues

The latest action follows a broader push against scam compounds and fake investment platforms. As previously reported by crypto.news, U.S. authorities froze more than $701 million in crypto tied to global scam networks in April.

That earlier action also targeted over 500 fake investment websites. Authorities said the sites used false dashboards and fake returns to convince victims to deposit more funds.

Law enforcement agencies in several countries have also moved against scam centers this year. Actions have involved the U.S., Thailand, Singapore, the UAE, Austria, Albania, and other partners.

The Coinbase freeze adds another case showing how exchanges now play a direct role in fraud disruption. The company said it will continue working with public and private partners to block criminal funds and protect users.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has elevated digital assets to a strategic priority, signaling that comprehensive regulatory clarity around blockchain technology, tokenization and crypto market infrastructure will be central to its agenda through 2030. The agency’s forthcoming Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2026–2030 designates digital assets as a core objective alongside core mission pillars such as capital formation, investor protection and agency modernization. The plan positions the SEC as pursuing a firm regulatory foundation for digital assets and distributed ledger technology through a rational, coherent, and principled approach, underscoring a belief that blockchain and crypto asset technologies have the potential to transform America’s financial infrastructure.

According to the SEC’s draft Strategic Plan, the agency acknowledges that the growth of digital assets has outpaced existing regulations and emphasizes a need for greater legal certainty for market participants. It highlights tokenized offerings and on-chain financial infrastructure as areas where the SEC intends to support compliant, orderly capital formation. The document also notes that custody, trading and staking services should be able to operate under appropriate oversight without duplicative or conflicting regulatory requirements.

Related: SEC approves Paxos as ‘blockchain-native’ clearing agency (Paxos regulatory milestone cited in contemporaneous coverage)

Key takeaways

• The SEC elevates digital assets to a strategic, cross-cutting priority and charts a long-term regulatory blueprint through 2030, with a focus on reducing legal ambiguity for market participants.
• The plan foregrounds a clearer division of oversight between the SEC and the CFTC, signaling a push for a coherent, agency-spanning framework for digital asset markets.
• It emphasizes practical oversight for custody, trading, and staking services that avoids duplicative or conflicting requirements, aligning policy with market realities and capital formation needs.
• Regulatory and legislative context remains active, including congressional deliberations on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which would expand the CFTC’s reach and shape how digital assets are regulated at scale. Coordination with international standards, such as the EU’s MiCA framework, is referenced as part of the broader policy environment.

Strategic priorities and practical implications for the market

The draft plan frames digital assets and distributed ledger technology (DLT) as foundational to the modernization of U.S. financial markets. By articulating a “rational, coherent, and principled” approach, the SEC signals an intent to establish durable rules that can support legitimate innovation while enhancing investor protections. The emphasis on tokenized offerings and on-chain financial infrastructure points to a future where securitization, settlement, and financing arrangements may increasingly rely on programmable digital assets. For institutions, this could translate into clearer licensing expectations, more predictable custody protocols, and standardized oversight of trading venues and on-chain settlement mechanisms.

From a regulatory design perspective, the plan’s call for a consistent framework—where custody, trading and staking services operate under appropriate oversight without duplicative burden—addresses a longstanding friction between fragmented rules and the need for reliable, scalable infrastructure. For exchanges and liquidity providers, the emphasis on non-duplicative regulation could influence registration pathways, product approvals, and ongoing compliance obligations. For banks and institutional clients, clearer standards around custody and on-chain activity may affect risk management, auditability, and interoperability with traditional payment rails and settlement systems.

The plan also reiterates a broader objective: to provide regulatory certainty that supports compliant capital formation in the digital asset space. Tokenized offerings, which enable traditional assets to be represented on-chain, could become more common if the SEC can articulate clear requirements for disclosure, governance and investor protections. In parallel, the development of on-chain financial infrastructure—such as tokenized custody and settlement rails—has the potential to influence how traditional asset markets interoperate with blockchain-based ecosystems. This alignment could influence product design, risk controls, and the cadence of regulatory reviews for new platforms and services.

Jurisdiction, cooperation and the path forward

A central element of the plan is clarifying jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The aim is to reduce regulatory uncertainty by defining which agency supervises which activities, a topic that has persisted since the earliest discussions of a formal digital assets framework. The draft plan notes that establishing clear jurisdiction is integral to a coherent national framework and to addressing enforcement and supervisory gaps that participants frequently cite in market reviews.

Cooperation between the two agencies has already progressed through formal channels. In March, the SEC and CFTC signed a memorandum of understanding to strengthen collaboration and information sharing as digital-asset technologies continue to reshape markets. Such inter-agency coordination is expected to underpin the regulatory evolution described in the strategic plan and may inform future memoranda, guidance and rulemaking that touch trading venues, custody solutions, and on-chain infrastructure.

Within the legislative sphere, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act remains a focal point for congressional consideration. The bill seeks to formalize a regulatory framework for digital assets and would, among other things, expand the CFTC’s authority over large portions of the market. The legislation has progressed in Congress, advancing from the Senate Banking Committee and moving toward floor consideration. Its trajectory will shape how the SEC and CFTC coordinate enforcement, oversight and market structure in the years ahead. As previously reported in industry coverage, the act’s movement signals a shift in how policymakers balance regulatory reach with the pace of innovation.

The policy landscape is also evolving in the international arena. The SEC’s plan references the broader context of global standards and cross-border enforcement considerations, including parallel developments such as the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). While MiCA operates outside the United States, its existence as a comprehensive framework for crypto-asset markets provides a comparative backdrop that can influence U.S. regulatory design, harmonization efforts and enforcement priorities for cross-border firms and activities.

From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the plan underscores the importance of robust AML/KYC controls, data governance and risk management practices that can scale with on-chain activity. For financial institutions and crypto firms seeking to participate in tokenized offerings or to operate tokenized custody and settlement services, this signals a continued emphasis on transparent disclosures, governance standards and independent oversight. The emphasis on non-duplicative regulation aims to reduce compliance fragmentation that can complicate licensing, audits and cross-border operations.

Related: Cointelegraph coverage of Paxos’ clearance agency registration

Closing perspective

The SEC’s draft Strategic Plan signals a deliberate shift toward a more structured, cross-agency approach to digital assets. By prioritizing regulatory clarity, a coherent division of oversight with the CFTC, and practical governance for custody, trading and on-chain infrastructure, the plan sets the stage for a measurable, compliant path for market participants. As Congress weighs the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and as international standards continue to take shape, stakeholders should monitor inter-agency coordination, rulemaking timelines, and the evolving balance between innovation and investor protection in the coming quarters.

Paybis said more companies now use stablecoins for international payments, based on a report released at Money20/20 Europe in Amsterdam. 

The crypto platform, which says it serves 7 million users, presented the data as payment firms and banks met at the conference.

The company said 22.5% of surveyed businesses already use stablecoins for cross-border payments or plan to do so within 12 months. The report points to a shift from retail crypto trading toward business payment use.

Paybis said stablecoins made up 86% of its crypto volume in April 2026, compared with 12% in July 2023. That change shows how dollar-linked tokens are moving deeper into business payment flows.

B2B volume drives Paybis stablecoin activity

Business clients now account for most stablecoin activity on the platform. Paybis said B2B payments represented 96.9% of stablecoin volume in 2025 and 97.8% from January to April 2026.

The company said total stablecoin volume reached $2.81 billion in May 2026. It also said volume from January to April rose 135% compared with the same period in 2025.

The data fits a wider payments trend. As previously reported by crypto.news, Mastercard has expanded stablecoin settlement support across several blockchains and regulated dollar-backed tokens, including USDC, RLUSD, and PYUSD.

Five sectors lead business stablecoin use

Paybis said stablecoin use is concentrated in sectors that often need fast international settlement. Digital Goods led with 21.4% of B2B stablecoin volume since April 2024.

Virtual Assets Business followed with 15.8%, while Technology held 15.1%. Retail and E-commerce made up 14.5%, and Financial Technology accounted for 11.6%.

Separate crypto.news coverage also showed that banks and corporates in Europe are choosing stablecoin partners under MiCA rules. The demand is tied to payments, settlement, and cross-border treasury movement.

Paybis says confusion still slows adoption

The report also showed a gap between business interest and basic knowledge. Paybis said 53% of respondents expected international stablecoin transfers to settle instantly, while 47% expected settlement to take between one hour and one day.

Cost expectations were also split. About 33.3% expected stablecoin transfer fees to sit near 3%, while 32% selected 0.01%. Paybis said these views may slow adoption because stablecoin payment costs are often below 1%.

“Stablecoins have moved from a crypto niche to business infrastructure,” Paybis Co-Founder and CBDO Konstantins Vasilenko said. He said companies now use stablecoins for faster cross-border settlement and treasury movement.

“What’s missing is plumbing,” he added. Vasilenko said Paybis gives companies one API for stablecoin payment flows, including dedicated IBANs, on-ramp, off-ramp, and crypto rails under its licenses.

The uptake on Israel’s crypto voluntary disclosure program remains modest relative to policymakers’ expectations, underscoring the challenges of using immunity from criminal prosecution to coax tax compliance in a rapidly evolving asset class. The policy, introduced to encourage disclosure and correct reporting of crypto holdings, became effective with an August 2025 framework that offers certain protections for filers who come clean and settle their liabilities.

Globes reported that the Israel Tax Authority has so far received disclosures totaling roughly $50 million in crypto capital, a fraction of the tens or even hundreds of billions that could be underreported, depending on holdings. The program’s design grants immunity from criminal charges for filers whose crypto asset value does not exceed the equivalent of $522,000 as of December 2024, provided reports are corrected and all taxes are paid in full before August 31, 2026. To date, only 58 filers have attempted to use the mechanism, according to the same coverage.

“In the cryptocurrency field, the difficulty of the absence of an anonymous track is even more acute,” commented Iftach Simhony, a CPA and head of the tax department at the Prof. Bein Law Office, as cited by Globes. “When the risk assessment of some taxpayers is not high, and the procedure itself does not offer certainty or anonymity in the first stage, the incentive to undergo voluntary disclosure is weakened.”

The disclosure framework announced by the tax authority describes a pathway to immunity from criminal charges for crypto holders who disclose holdings within the threshold, file accurate reports, and settle tax obligations by the deadline. The policy relies on transparency and timely reporting, with the threshold tied to December 2024 values and a rigidity around the full payment deadline, signaling a measured approach to bringing crypto gains into the tax net without immediate criminal exposure for disclosures within the cap.

Separately, data from the Bank of Israel situates the private crypto landscape within a broader national financial frame. The bank’s financial stability report covering January to June 2024 estimates that Israelis held about $1 billion worth of crypto assets, highlighting the scale of the market and the potential tax base that policy makers are trying to align with enforcement and compliance strategies.

Key takeaways

• Israel’s voluntary disclosure program has yielded about $50 million in crypto disclosures so far, far below the projected potential as of the August 2025 policy rollout.
• The program offers immunity from criminal charges if holdings stay under the equivalent of $522,000 (as of December 2024) and all taxes are paid and reported by August 31, 2026; uptake remains limited, with 58 filers reported.
• Analysts point to concerns about anonymity and risk assessment, suggesting that the lack of a clear anonymity pathway dampens participation in the early stage of the program.
• Bank of Israel data indicates Israelis hold roughly $1 billion in crypto assets, underscoring the significant scale of the market and the implications for future tax policy and enforcement.
• In the United States, lawmakers are pursuing a de minimis exemption for small crypto transactions through the PARITY Act, signaling a shift toward simpler reporting for routine, low-value activity.

Israel’s disclosure program: incentives, constraints, and what changes could matter

The August 2025 framework aims to strike a balance between enforcement and voluntary compliance by offering a shield from criminal charges for those who disclose and settle. Yet the limited early engagement—just 58 filers—suggests that farmers of crypto reporting may be deterred by a combination of perceived risk, the timing of the deadline, and the perception that the disclosure process lacks sufficient privacy guarantees. The threshold, pegged to the December 2024 value reference, creates a clear boundary: the smaller holders could leverage the immunity route, while larger holders remain under the ordinary tax regime with heavier scrutiny.

Observers stress that successful tax collection in this space requires not just a carrot (amnesty) but also a clear, efficient path to reporting that reassures taxpayers about privacy and minimizes the friction of compliance. The Globes interview with Iftach Simhony captures a core tension: when the incentives to disclose are not compelling—especially for those who worry about privacy and potential audits—the policy’s effectiveness can falter before it starts to reshape behavior.

Global context: how U.S. policy discussions could influence Israel and broader crypto taxation

The international backdrop adds another layer of complexity for policymakers. In the United States, a bipartisan effort known as the PARITY Act seeks to relieve the burden of crypto tax reporting for small-value activity. The bill would direct the Internal Revenue Service to study establishing a de minimis exemption for digital assets, potentially allowing taxpayers to bypass reporting for minor or routine transactions. If such a threshold were adopted, it could reduce administrative costs for individuals and exchanges alike and shift how tax authorities allocate enforcement resources.

From a policy design perspective, the American approach contrasts with Israel’s emphasis on disclosure as a pathway to immunity. The divergent approaches highlight the ongoing debate over how to balance tax compliance with user privacy, enforcement risk, and the practical realities of a fast-growing asset class. For investors and users in both markets, the cross-border regulatory dialogue matters because it affects how crypto gains are reported, how accurately holdings are captured, and how compliant behavior is incentivized over time.

For Israeli readers, the question remains: will the current uptake be sufficient to close the gap between expected tax receipts and actual revenue? For U.S. stakeholders, will any de minimis exemption gain legislative traction, and how might that shape reporting standards for international crypto activity? Both questions are central to understanding how governments adapt tax regimes to the digital-asset era while striving to maintain a competitive, innovation-friendly environment.

As crypto markets continue to evolve, regulators will likely reassess thresholds, reporting formats, and enforcement priorities. Market participants should monitor updates to the Israeli policy framework, potential changes to the Bank of Israel’s regulatory stance, and any new developments in U.S. tax policy that could ripple across borders and influence how crypto profits are disclosed and taxed in the months ahead.

Readers should stay attuned to further disclosures from the Israel Tax Authority and Bank of Israel, as well as Congressional updates on the PARITY Act, to gauge how these regulatory movements might affect tax planning, compliance costs, and strategic decisions for investors and businesses operating in or collaborating with Israel and the United States.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has rescinded a long-standing policy that barred settlements in enforcement actions when defendants publicly denied the agency’s allegations. The policy, in place since 1998, was criticized for potentially conveying that the regulator could shield itself from scrutiny or rebuttal, a concern the agency said warranted correction.

The move mirrors a similar step taken earlier this year by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which rescinded a related no-deny provision in May. CFTC Chair Mike Selig framed the change as restoring parity with other regulators and reducing the risk of misperception about the Commission’s accountability. “For nearly three decades, the Commission has refused to settle cases unless the defendant promised not to publicly deny the Commission’s allegations,” Selig said. “I am pleased that we are rescinding the no-deny policy consistent with regulators throughout the government.”

Crypto firms and industry participants have long argued that the no-deny rule restricted speech rights and constrained settlements. The CFTC’s reversal raises questions about how settlements will be structured going forward, and what facts may still need to be admitted as part of any resolution. The agency stated that the policy change provides greater flexibility when resolving enforcement actions, though it cautioned that it will not automatically void all no-deny provisions and that some settlements may still require admission of certain facts or liabilities.

Source: CFTC

According to Cointelegraph, the policy adjustment arrives amid a broader debate about speech rights in enforcement actions and the balance between public accountability and settlement efficiency.

The policy shift comes with broader regulatory dynamics in the United States. Under the Trump administration, enforcement actions pursued against crypto firms that had been initiated during the Biden administration saw rollback efforts from the administration’s regulators. In a separate development on Thursday, the CFTC moved to vacate its $5 million settlement with the crypto exchange Gemini, a case that the chair described as “politically targeted.”

Former CFTC Chair Tim Massad, who led the agency during the Obama era, characterized the reversal as “extraordinarily unusual,” noting the unusual nature of reopening or reversing settled matters. Massad’s remarks underscore the ongoing scrutiny surrounding how U.S. regulators handle crypto enforcement and the potential implications for settlement architecture and public accountability.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC has scrapped a no-deny settlement policy that required defendants to refrain from publicly denying agency allegations as a condition of resolution.
• The change aligns the CFTC with a comparable move by the SEC and signals a broader regulatory shift toward flexibility in enforcement settlements.
• Existing no-deny provisions are not automatically voided, and some settlements may still require admission of certain facts or liabilities.
• The decision has immediate implications for how crypto-enforcement matters might be settled and how public speech rights are balanced in regulatory actions.
• Separately, the CFTC has sought to vacate the Gemini settlement, prompting debate over political targeting and the stability of settled cases in the crypto enforcement landscape.

Policy change and practical implications for enforcement

The CFTC’s reconsideration of the no-deny policy marks a noteworthy shift in how the agency constructs settlements with regulated entities. Historically, the requirement that defendants refrain from denying allegations served to streamline resolutions but raised concerns about defendants’ free-speech rights and the optics of enforcement agency behavior. By removing the blanket no-deny constraint, the Commission moves toward a settlement framework that emphasizes accountability without automatically constraining public dialogue.

From a regulatory‑compliance perspective, the change introduces greater nuance in the settlement negotiating process. While some settlements may still include agreed representations of fact or liability—as dictated by case specifics—the agency’s broader posture is to permit more flexibility in how disputes are publicly resolved. This could affect how financial firms, exchanges, and blockchain operators assess settlement risk, communications strategies, and the potential need for post-settlement disclosures.

Enforcement landscape, political context, and cross-agency alignment

The policy revision comes amid a broader environment of recalibration among U.S. regulators regarding crypto enforcement. The SEC’s May action to rescind a similar no-deny practice sets a precedent that the CFTC now follows, signaling closer alignment within federal agencies on how settlements should address defendants’ speech rights while maintaining enforcement credibility.

Observers note the political undertones in ongoing regulatory actions. The CFTC’s attempt to vacate Gemini’s $5 million settlement has drawn attention to how enforcement matters may be revisited, especially when they intersect with contemporary political narratives. The agency argued that the Gemini disposition was unusually targeted politically, a charge that underscores the sensitivity of enforcement actions in the crypto sector as administrations transition and policy priorities shift.

In addition to the Gemini development, industry participants continue to weigh how these changes affect licensing, cross-border operations, and the integration of crypto activities with traditional financial infrastructure. As the regulatory framework evolves, firms may reassess risk controls, disclosure protocols, and the interplay between enforcement actions and reputational risk in settlements and regulatory filings.

Regulatory context and potential governance implications

Although the immediate policy change is focused on settlement mechanics, the broader implications extend to governance, compliance, and international considerations. The U.S. stance on settlement language can influence how abroad regulators view consent orders, admissions, and post-settlement obligations, potentially affecting cross-border investigations and cooperation with foreign authorities. For entities operating across jurisdictions, harmonization of settlement practices—while preserving national sovereignty over enforcement—remains a central area of scrutiny for legal counsel and compliance teams.

Looking ahead, observers will monitor how the CFTC and other agencies implement the revised approach in practice. Key questions include whether future settlements will routinely allow denials or require limited admissions, how the public record will reflect those settlements, and how parallel actions across different agencies will be coordinated in multi-agency investigations.

According to Cointelegraph, the evolving approach to settlement denials reflects a broader rebalancing of enforcement strategies and speech rights in the crypto regulatory regime. The emphasis on transparency, accountability, and proportionality in settlements is likely to shape legal risk management and compliance programs across crypto firms, exchanges, and financial institutions engaging with digital assets.

As the regulatory dialogue continues, firms should remain attentive to upcoming guidance or rulemaking initiatives that could further redefine settlement language, admissions standards, and the disclosure requirements that accompany enforcement resolutions.

Closing perspective: The no-deny policy reversal represents a meaningful adjustment in the CFTC’s enforcement toolkit, with potential implications for how settlements are negotiated, disclosed, and perceived by markets and the public. The coming months will reveal how this shift interacts with ongoing enforcement actions and cross‑agency coordination efforts in a rapidly evolving crypto regulatory landscape.