- Education & Events
- Advocacy
- Products & Services
- Membership
- Resources
- SDBANKER Magazine
- SDBA eNews
- SDBA eNews Archives
- Legislative Update/Bill Watch
- South Dakota Bank Directory
- Women in Banking
- Scenes of South Dakota Calendar*
- Holiday Signs
- Regulatory Report
- South Dakota Banking Code
- Record Retention Manual
- Advertising & Sponsorship Guide
- COVID-19 Resources
- Mental Health and Crisis Prevention
- About
|
News
SDBA Updates
SDBA Events
Online EducationABA Banking Journal: ABA urges regulators to uphold AML/CFT, sanctions requirements for all stablecoin issuersJune 10, 2026
In April, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control – both part of the Treasury Department – proposed a rulemaking to establish anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism and sanctions compliance standards for stablecoin issuers. In a letter to the agencies, ABA said any rulemaking must also cover secondary market payment stablecoin activities, such as individuals purchasing payment stablecoins from an intermediary. “Without greater clarity around the obligations of secondary market actors, regulated financial institutions will face challenges in assessing and managing the risks associated with payment stablecoins,” ABA said. The association had four recommendations:
Back to TopABA Banking Journal: ABA backs proposed overhaul of BSA program ruleJune 10, 2026
In April, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and federal banking agencies proposed new minimum standards for what financial institutions should include in their anti-money laundering programs, and require all AML programs to include countering the financing of terrorism. The proposal would be the first major overhaul of the BSA in more than two decades if adopted. ABA said that for the first time, the proposal would expressly permit banks to allocate BSA compliance resources based on risk, establish a floor and corresponding safe harbor from significant supervisory and civil enforcement actions, and promote greater coordination between FinCEN and the federal banking agencies. It is also a welcome shift toward highly useful outcomes rather than prescriptive processes, the association added. Still, ABA offered several recommendations to improve the proposal. The agencies should incorporate into their final rules key preamble language that supports innovation, defers to banks’ reasonable risk assessments, and recognizes that an effective program cannot identify every illicit finance risk, the association said. The agencies should clarify that regulators should not second-guess banks’ reasonable judgments about risk assessments and resource allocation, ABA added. Also, the agencies should move quickly to reform the individual BSA operational rules, and the proposed rule’s 12-month implementation period should begin only after the agencies train examiners and update critical guidance. “Without these changes, banks will remain tied to check-the-box compliance exercises that divert resources from higher-risk customers and activities,” ABA said. “With them, the proposals can better achieve the purpose of having a BSA compliance program: protecting the U.S. financial system and national security while reducing unnecessary and ineffective compliance burdens on banks.” Back to TopABA Banking Journal: Proposed tax break for crypto yield could reshape how Americans saveJune 8, 2026 | Joey Connor | ABA Viewpoint
Throughout the Clarity Act debate, ABA has stressed the importance of requiring crypto companies and other nonbanks to meet the same rigorous requirements as banks if they want to offer bank-like services. Not everyone on the other side has embraced that approach. Now, as the Clarity Act debate moves to the Senate floor, Congress is turning to a new issue raised by digital assets — how to fairly tax crypto investments. Once again, some of the initial ideas are not encouraging. A proposal in the House for taxing digital assets would allow income earned from “staking” or “mining” cryptocurrency to go untaxed until an investor chooses to sell the earned crypto. This would give one category of investment — cryptocurrencies — a significant advantage over nearly every other way Americans save, invest and earn returns today. The 83 percent of Americans not currently invested in crypto should be deeply concerned by this proposal. A preferential rule for the same kind of incomeWhen a company pays a dividend, shareholders receive the value of the dividend and pay tax that year. There is no option to defer that income to another year, or to pay tax on that income in another year. The same is true for bank interest. When a consumer earns interest in a savings or checking account, that interest income is taxed annually on his or her tax return, even if the interest remains in the account and is never withdrawn. The proposed treatment for staking and mining rewards under the House Ways and Means draft legislation, the Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act, would work very differently — and show clear favoritism for cryptocurrencies over other asset classes. Specifically, the draft legislation would permit an investor who receives new cryptocurrency assets via staking or mining to elect not to include staking/mining rewards in gross income — and thus not owe tax on those rewards — until the investor sells or disposes of the underlying crypto asset. This means crypto investors would have an indefinite election to choose when they pay their tax bill on staking or mining rewards. Notably, this proposed tax treatment also would override existing tax guidance from the IRS — Rev. Rul. 2023-14 — which confirms that staking or mining rewards are taxable in the year they are received, at fair market value, once the taxpayer “gains dominion and control over the rewards.” This is the standard rule across the tax code: income is taxed when it is received and usable, not at the taxpayer’s election. Shifting capital and distorting financial competitionMillions of Americans rely on savings accounts and certificates of deposit as straightforward, low-risk ways to earn a return. This interest is taxed on a current basis — every year — with no flexibility on timing. Under the proposed Ways and Means rules, a crypto-based yield product could generate a similar economic return while allowing that earned income to compound without tax until the investor elects to sell the asset. This deferral would clearly increase after-tax returns by reducing the drag on compounding accumulation in an uneven manner — but this change could also have broader economic implications that should matter to policymakers. Bank deposits are not solely passive savings. They are the primary funding source for loans, small business investment, and economic growth. Banks also are subject to extensive regulatory obligations, like the Community Reinvestment Act, which ensures capital is reinvested back into local communities. Legislative favoritism to reroute bank deposits toward tax‑advantaged, crypto-yield products could shift capital away from the banking system and directly hinder community lending, small businesses, and broader economic development. This is a risk we have separately highlighted in the debate over the Clarity Act, where interest-like incentives for holding stablecoins threaten to draw away bank deposits unless Congress strengthens the legislation. A break from longstanding principles of tax neutralityIn addition to the substantial macroeconomic concerns that could result from the Ways and Means proposal, it also raises a familiar problem in tax policy: treating economically similar activities differently. The tax code has been developed and refined over decades to ensure things like interest, dividends and other returns on capital are taxed on a current-year basis to maintain neutrality across financial products. Where differences exist, they are narrow and deliberate — not open-ended timing advantages. The proposed legislation would depart from that framework by allowing income that has been earned, received, and which can be used essentially immediately, to be deferred indefinitely solely due to the type of the asset. This is not an argument against digital assets, the need for clearer rules or parity amongst asset classes. Certainty is important, but it does not require creating a system where one type of yield can choose when to pay tax while others cannot. Parity is also important — though parity would mandate equality amongst similar financial products rather than clear favoritism towards one asset class. At its core, the question is simple. If two investments generate similar returns, should one be taxed annually while the other is taxed only when the investor decides? Departing from the key principle of tax parity would not clarify the rules. It would tilt the playing field across the financial system with significant implications. Back to TopABA Banking Journal: ABA seeks level playing field in stablecoin regulation
The FDIC has advanced proposed rules to establish a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, as required under the Genius Act. Among other things, the agency would amend its deposit insurance rules to prevent payment stablecoins from being eligible for pass-through insurance. The rulemaking would also clarify that tokenized deposits that satisfy the statutory definition of “deposit” would be treated no differently under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act than other types of deposits. In a letter, ABA pointed to multiple areas of divergence between the rules proposed by the FDIC and those proposed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which will be the primary regulator of nonbank stablecoin issuers. The association urged the two agencies and other federal regulators to align their rulemakings so that regulatory differences “do not become a competitive variable that drives activity toward less rigorous regimes.” It also urged agencies to establish a unified timeline for implementing regulations. ABA cited several examples where the FDIC and OCC rules could be harmonized. For example, both agencies defined “customer” differently, and there are several areas where the two fail to align on issues such as privacy, custody, reserves and redemption, and capital and risk management. Also, ABA recommended that the FDIC’s proposals on pass-through insurance and tokenized deposits should be adopted as proposed. However, a proposed prohibition on stablecoin issuers extending credit to customers for the purpose of purchasing stablecoins needs clarification so it won’t apply to the issuers’ parent banks or bank affiliates, the association said. Back to TopCISA News: Safeguarding Our Secrets
|
As federal regulators draft anti-money laundering and sanctions regulations for payment stablecoin issuers, they need to address the financial crime risks posed by secondary market payment stablecoin activities, the American Bankers Association said.
In recent weeks, significant attention on Capitol Hill has rightly been focused on the Clarity Act and efforts by members of Congress to establish the first-ever regulatory rules of the road for crypto companies.
The American Bankers Association today urged the FDIC to harmonize its proposed rulemaking to implement the Genius Act with rules put forward by other federal agencies to ensure a fair and competitive regulatory landscape for payment stablecoin issuers.
Fraud Academy is a pioneering initiative designed to arm bankers with the skills needed to detect and combat fraud. Our unique program features insights from experts across the DEA, FBI, the Secret Service, law enforcement, AARP, and the financial industry, offering a robust education in fraud prevention from those who know it best.
