Crypto & Digital Assets in United States

Key dates

2026-08-20

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the Innovation Advisory Committee speech and announced the prospective roadmap for crypto assets, compute markets, and prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should treat the speech as a forward-looking supervisory and rulemaking signal, not as an effective legal change, and continue applying currently effective CEA, CFTC regulations, registration, listing, reporting, customer-protection, and market-surveillance requirements.
• Crypto platforms should assess whether their products could constitute futures, swaps, or retail commodity transactions offered on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis, and should document the current jurisdictional and registration analysis for each product and customer segment.
• Crypto exchanges and protocol developers may wish to monitor CFTC releases, Federal Register notices, and any proposed rules concerning crypto asset markets, onchain finance protocols, and possible DCM designation; they should be prepared to submit comments within the applicable future comment periods rather than relying on the speech as a safe harbor.
• Designated contract markets and prediction-market operators should review event-contract listing governance, product surveillance, manipulation controls, customer disclosures, incentive programs, and state-law litigation exposure in light of the CFTC's stated intention to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Prediction-market firms should monitor developments concerning prohibited gaming-related contracts, public-interest standards, fully collateralized event-contract reporting, and enhanced consumer-protection requirements identified in independent industry coverage of the committee meeting.
• Firms developing compute-related contracts or financing products should map the underlying compute service, delivery and settlement terms, participants, and potential commodity or derivatives characterization so that they can respond meaningfully to the CFTC and Department of Commerce request for comment.
• Compliance teams may wish to update regulatory-change inventories and senior-management briefings to distinguish the Chairman's policy direction from binding Commission action, particularly because any future rules would require formal rulemaking, publication, and applicable transition periods.

What changed

The Chairman directed CFTC staff to explore rules establishing a CFTC framework for crypto asset markets using existing authorities. The proposed approach could allow current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated as a type of designated contract market called a crypto asset market, with authority to offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis under purpose-specific rules; no rule text, eligibility criteria, effective date, or compliance threshold was issued in the speech.

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-18

The SEC published the Chairman’s statement and proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, including the proposed startup exemption, fundraising exemption, and investment-contract safe harbor.

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its interpretation concerning the application of the federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions, which the Chairman identifies as a basis for the proposed framework.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to treat the package as a proposal rather than a currently usable exemption and continue applying the existing Securities Act, Exchange Act, and applicable state-law analysis until final rules become effective.
• Potential issuers should consider mapping planned token offerings against the proposed $5 million/four-year and $75 million/12-month limits, including aggregation, timing, resale, and interaction with other registration exemptions once the proposing release is reviewed in full.
• Issuers considering the fundraising exemption should consider preparing systems for principles-based crypto disclosures, financial-condition information, audited financial statements at the applicable thresholds, and ongoing reporting.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to assess whether existing investment-contract documentation contains essential managerial promises and whether operational evidence could support the proposed certification required for the safe harbor.
• Crypto trading venues and intermediaries should consider inventorying assets currently treated as securities or investment contracts and evaluating how a future safe-harbor determination could affect onboarding, trading permissions, disclosures, custody, surveillance, and state-law analysis.
• Firms may wish to monitor the Federal Register publication, the SEC comment period, any revisions to the proposal, and the status of the CLARITY Act, which the Chairman described as necessary for durable market-structure rules.
• Compliance teams may wish to review independent commentary emphasizing that the proposal is a major policy shift toward tailored token fundraising but that the practical scope remains uncertain until the detailed conditions, audit thresholds, eligibility criteria, and final text are settled.

What changed

The proposed rules would establish two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration for qualifying crypto-asset investment contracts. The startup exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period. The fundraising exemption would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period, subject to principles-based crypto-asset disclosures, financial-condition disclosures, financial statements, ongoing reporting, and audited financial statements at specified capital-raising thresholds; the publication does not state those audit thresholds.

Key dates

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its earlier interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework and opened the process for public comment, subject to publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map planned and existing token offerings against the proposed $5 million four-year and $75 million 12-month thresholds, including aggregation across related issuers, affiliates, projects and offering periods once the proposing release is reviewed.
• Issuers should consider documenting which exemption they would use, the relevant measurement period, investor eligibility and transfer restrictions, and controls intended to prevent exceeding the applicable offering cap.
• Firms should consider preparing draft principles-based narrative disclosures and, for the $75 million exemption, assessing financial-statement readiness and the systems needed for ongoing SEC reporting.
• Project sponsors may wish to inventory all essential managerial efforts represented or promised to investors and establish evidence, governance approvals and public communications supporting any future safe-harbor position based on completion or permanent cessation of those efforts.
• Exchanges, broker-dealers and trading platforms should consider assessing how the proposed safe harbor and state-law preemption could affect asset classification, listing reviews, customer disclosures, surveillance, custody and secondary-market controls.
• Industry participants may wish to review the full proposing release and consider submitting comments within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register; the specific deadline should not be assumed until the Federal Register publication date is confirmed.
• Firms should continue treating the proposal as non-final and should not represent that an exemption, safe harbor or state-law preemption is currently available.

What changed

The proposed framework would add two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration requirements for qualifying investment contracts involving crypto assets. The first would allow aggregate offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period on a one-time basis; the second would allow offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Issuers relying on either exemption would need to make specified principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors.

Key dates

2026-06-25

FinCEN published the underlying NPRM to amend the Huione Group definition

2026-06-25

Electronic comment filing became unavailable due to a portal issue

2026-06-30

Portal issue period ended after six days of blocked electronic filing

2026-07-22

FinCEN dated the comment-period extension notice

2026-07-24

Federal Register publication of the extension notice at 91 FR 46761

2026-08-02 Deadline

Extended deadline for written comments on the NPRM

Suggested considerations

• Consider whether to submit comments on the NPRM by the extended deadline of 2026-08-02.
• Review customer, correspondent, and payment relationships for any exposure to Huione Group, H-Pay Service PLC, or entities that may be treated as successor entities if the proposal is finalized.
• Assess whether internal screening, escalation, and due diligence procedures would need updates if FinCEN finalizes the expanded definition.
• Monitor FinCEN’s final action on the NPRM and any resulting special-measures scope changes under 31 CFR 1010.

What changed

This publication does not impose a new final obligation; it extends the public comment deadline for an existing NPRM. The underlying proposal would amend FinCEN’s definition of Huione Group, a financial institution operating outside the United States of primary money laundering concern, to include H-Pay Service PLC and to add a defined term for “successor entity.” The extension was granted because a technological issue with the comment portal prevented electronic filing from June 25 through June 30, 2026.

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Key dates

23 June 2026

- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs

TBD (2026–2027)

- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified

TBD (aligned with ongoing cases in Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island)

- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts

Suggested considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

What changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Key dates

2026-06-22

OCC bulletin announcing the notice of proposed rulemaking was issued

2026-07-22 Deadline

Planned deadline for comments, if the Federal Register publication date aligns with the bulletin date and the OCC’s 30-day comment period is measured from publication

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the entity falls within the OCC-supervised PPSI category or within the state-qualified issuer population covered by OCC authority under the GENIUS Act.
• Firms may wish to review existing AML/CFT and sanctions controls against the BSA, FinCEN, and OFAC requirements referenced in the proposal, including reporting, monitoring, and risk assessment procedures.
• Compliance teams may wish to map governance, escalation, and record-sharing workflows to the proposed OCC-FinCEN consultation framework, particularly for potential significant supervisory or enforcement matters.
• Firms may wish to consider whether their current policies, procedures, and internal controls are sufficiently tailored to stablecoin-specific risks and whether additional board or senior management oversight would be needed.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate whether they should submit comments during the 30-day Federal Register comment period if aspects of the proposed framework could affect operating models or compliance design.

What changed

The proposed rule would require OCC-supervised PPSIs to comply with the BSA, sections 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6)(B) of the GENIUS Act, and applicable FinCEN and OFAC regulations, including AML/CFT program, sanctions program, and reporting requirements. It would also create a supervision and enforcement framework for PPSI AML/CFT programs, so the OCC can take AML/CFT supervisory and enforcement action against covered issuers. The rule would establish a formal consultation process between the OCC and FinCEN when the OCC intends to initiate an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT...

Key dates

10 June 2024

– Earlier CFTC NPRM on event contracts was published in the Federal Register as “Event Contracts; Proposed Rule, 89 FR 48968,” later withdrawn on 06 February 2026; the new NPRM effectively replaces that initiative with a more targeted framework

06 February 2026

– CFTC formally withdrew the 2024 Event Contracts proposed regulatory action (91 FR 5386), clearing the path for the current, more targeted NPRM on enumerated activities

12 March 2026

– CFTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on prediction markets and a staff advisory to DCMs, launching a broader process to develop a tailored regulatory framework for prediction markets

30 April 2026 Deadline

– Comment deadline for the March 2026 prediction‑markets ANPRM, which this NPRM is described as addressing in part and which may lead to additional rulemaking

10 June 2026

– CFTC announces the new NPRM on amendments to Regulation 40.11 and addition of Appendix F to Part 40 regarding event contracts involving enumerated activities

Suggested considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

What changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Key dates

02 July 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Strategic Plan

Suggested considerations

• Submit written comments by 02 July 2026 if your firm wants to influence the SEC’s strategic priorities, especially on disclosure modernization, private markets, digital assets, or enforcement posture.
• Include File Number DSP-3 on all comments and use only one submission method, because the SEC requires the file number on email subject lines and asks commenters to choose a single channel.
• Review internal compliance roadmaps for likely impacts from disclosure simplification, rule retrospectives, and enforcement refocusing, and identify where current controls may become redundant or need redesign.
• Assess whether your firm’s digital asset, tokenization, or distributed ledger activities may benefit from future SEC guidance or may face new framework requirements.
• Monitor developments on EDGAR modernization and filing technology changes, and test whether internal reporting, tagging, or submission processes would need upgrades.

What changed

• - The SEC is proposing a strategic reorientation toward core statutory objectives: investor protection, fair and orderly markets, and capital formation.
• The plan emphasizes clearer, fit-for-purpose rules intended to support innovation while deterring misconduct.
• The SEC says it will prioritize modernizing and simplifying disclosure practices, which may affect reporting frameworks and issuer-facing compliance processes.
• The draft plan highlights expanded access to private markets and new capital-raising pathways, signaling possible future changes in offering, exemptive, and disclosure regimes.
• The SEC identifies digital assets and distributed ledger technologies as an area needing a “firm regulatory foundation,” indicating continued policy development for crypto-related activities.

Key dates

29 May 2026

– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings

Suggested considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

What changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

Key dates

19 May 2026

- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters

Suggested considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

What changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Key dates

September 4, 2024

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Matos and Aureus

April 13, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida enters consent order resolving claims against Matos (action against Aureus remains pending).[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

What changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Key dates

March 2026

- Arizona files 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against prediction market platform Kalshi, alleging illegal gambling and election betting

Week prior to April 2, 2026

- CFTC files complaints (with DOJ involvement) against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois seeking declaratory judgments on exclusive jurisdiction and permanent injunctions

April 9, 2026

- CFTC files motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to halt state enforcement

April 10, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants CFTC's requested TRO, barring Arizona from pursuing criminal charges against CFTC-regulated DCMs. (Note: Ongoing litigation timelines for preliminary injunction and permanent relief remain undetermined.)

Suggested considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

What changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Key dates

May 2025

- Arizona issued initial cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi

December 2025

- Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood Derivatives

March 2026

- Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi executives

April 2, 2026

- CFTC and DOJ filed coordinated lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois

April 9, 2026

- CFTC filed motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Suggested considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

What changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Key dates

March 2026

- Prior Director Margaret Ryan resigned after approximately six months in the role amid reported disagreements on enforcement priorities

May 4, 2026

- David Woodcock assumes role as Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Acting Director Sam Waldon

Suggested considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

What changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Key dates

October 1, 2024

December 31, 2024; - FY 2025 Q1; record 200 enforcement actions filed

January 20, 2025

- Inauguration Day; marker for post-transition enforcement slowdown (only 4 public company actions afterward)

April 21, 2025

- Paul Atkins sworn in as SEC Chair

September 30, 2025

- End of FY 2025; period covered by the announcement

Suggested considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

What changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Key dates

March 31, 2026

Speech delivery; Outlines priorities and previews new cooperation policy advisory

Soon after March 31, 2026

New cooperation policy advisory issuance; Expected imminently; firms should monitor CFTC site for formal release

Suggested considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

What changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Key dates

March 26, 2024

CFTC files civil enforcement complaint; against Peken Global and affiliates for CEA violations (Press Release 8884-24)

July 28, 2025

FINTRAC imposes $19,552,000 penalty; on Peken Global (KuCoin) for Canadian AML failures (failure to register, report large virtual currency transactions, submit suspicious transaction reports)

March 30, 2026

U.S. District Court enters consent order; imposing injunction, penalty, and dismissals.[1 from provided content]

Suggested considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

What changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Key dates

March 17, 2026

SEC-CFTC Joint Interpretation Effective; The foundational joint interpretation establishing crypto asset taxonomy and digital commodity classification became effective upon Federal Register publication

March 20, 2026

FAQs Published; CFTC Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk issue clarifying FAQs effective immediately

January 18, 2027 (Estimated)

GENIUS Act Stablecoin Exclusion; Final implementing rules for payment stablecoins issued by permitted issuers; interim staff position applies now

Within 30–60 Days Deadline

Disclosure & Program Updates; Firms must revise Form ADV, disclosure documents, offering materials, and custodial arrangements to reflect the new regulatory framework

Immediate Deadline

Compliance Review Required; Asset classification audits, staking arrangement reviews, and investment contract assessments must begin now; enforcement posture is live

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (0–30 days):
• *Asset Classification Audit: Map every crypto asset in your portfolios, products, or platforms against the five-category framework (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) established in the March 17 joint interpretation.
• *Investment Contract Review: Identify any assets subject to active issuer promises of essential managerial effort—those remain securities regardless of category and cannot be treated as digital commodities.
• *FAQ Implementation Review: Obtain and review the full CFTC FAQs (available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9200-26) to identify specific operational questions relevant to your entity type.
• *Notification Protocol Establishment: If relying on the no-action relief for tokenized collateral, establish procedures to notify the CFTC of significant operational, system, or cybersecurity issues affecting digital asset collateral use (required for first three months of relief).

What changed

• The CFTC FAQs address implementation questions arising from two prior staff positions:
• Tokenized Collateral Guidance (CFTC Staff Letter 25-39): Established the framework allowing futures commission merchants (FCMs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) to accept digital assets as...
• No-Action Position (CFTC Staff Letter 26-05): Provided temporary relief permitting FCMs to accept payment stablecoins, Bitcoin, and Ether as customer margin collateral, subject to specific...
• How registered entities should operationalize tokenized collateral acceptance
• Compliance with notification and operational risk management requirements

Key dates

April 26, 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for public comments (45 days after Federal Register publication; ANPRM published March 12, 2026). Comments via CFTC Public Comments Portal. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9194-26)

Suggested considerations

• Submit comments: Affected parties should prepare and file written comments within 45 days via the CFTC Public Comments Portal, addressing ANPRM questions on CEA principles, prohibited contracts, and costs/benefits.
• Monitor developments: Track Federal Register publication, related litigation (e.g., state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction), and CFTC Enforcement Division advisories. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26)

What changed

• This ANPRM proposes no immediate changes, as it is an early-stage consultation seeking input on:
• Application of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) core principles and existing CFTC regulations to prediction markets.
• Criteria for prohibiting event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest (e.g., potentially sports, politics, or sensitive topics like government employee outcomes).
• Cost-benefit analyses for regulating prediction markets. It builds on prior actions, including withdrawal of a 2024 proposed ban on certain event contracts and a 2025 staff advisory on sports-related...

Key dates

June 2025

Paul Hayeck began as acting director; (historical context; Hayeck transitions to Complex Fraud Task Force chief)

March 02, 2026

Announcement and effective start of David I. Miller as Director of Enforcement

Suggested considerations

• Review internal controls for fraud, manipulation, and abusive trading, prioritizing digital asset activities (e.g., derivatives, prediction markets).
• Assess exposure from Miller's past cases (e.g., BitMEX, ICOs, Ooki DAO) and strengthen defenses against similar enforcement theories.
• Monitor CFTC enforcement dockets and coordinate with counsel experienced in CFTC/SEC/DOJ matters for upcoming investigations.
• Update training on "core" violations (fraud, abuse, manipulation) to align with stated enforcement focus.

What changed

This announcement introduces no new regulatory rules, requirements, or statutory changes; it is a personnel appointment reshaping enforcement leadership. Chairman Selig highlighted Miller's role in refocusing the Enforcement Division on "policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy," potentially signaling reduced pursuit of novel legal theories and a narrower enforcement scope.

Key dates

May 2025

- First enforcement case (political candidate trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

February 25, 2026

- CFTC Enforcement Division issues Prediction Markets Advisory

August

September 2025; - Second enforcement case (YouTube editor trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

No specific future deadlines Deadline

- Advisory does not establish new compliance deadlines; it clarifies existing obligations

Suggested considerations

• *For Prediction Market Platforms (DCMs):
• *Implement robust surveillance systems to detect trading by individuals with material nonpublic information or direct/indirect influence over contract outcomes
• *Establish clear trading prohibitions in exchange rules addressing:
• Trading in contracts where the trader has influence over the outcome
• Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through breach of duty

What changed

• The advisory does not introduce new rules but rather reaffirms existing CFTC enforcement authority over prediction markets and clarifies the scope of prohibited conduct:
• Insider trading/misappropriation: Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty or pre-existing duty of trust and confidence (Section 6(c)(1) of the...
• Fraud and manipulation: Use of manipulative schemes or artifices to defraud, including trading in contracts where the trader has direct or indirect influence over the outcome
• Pre-arranged and wash trades: Noncompetitive trading under Section 4c(a)(1) and (2)(A) and Regulation 1.38(a)
• Disruptive trading practices: Violations under Section 4c(a)(5) The advisory demonstrates the CFTC's commitment to enforce these prohibitions on prediction market platforms, reinforcing that...

Key dates

June 10, 2024

- Publication of withdrawn "Event Contracts" Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

September 30, 2025

- Issuance of withdrawn CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (Sports Event Contracts Advisory)

February 4, 2026

- CFTC announcement withdrawing both the 2024 proposal and 2025 advisory; no final rules from 2024 proposal; new rulemaking to advance

Suggested considerations

• Review and disregard prior compliance programs built around the 2024 proposal or 2025 advisory (e.g., cease preparations for prohibiting political/sports contracts).
• Monitor CFTC docket for new event contracts rulemaking notice and provide comments during any future consultation period.
• Assess current offerings for event contracts under existing Commodity Exchange Act prohibitions (e.g., gaming, manipulation); document reliance on CFTC's innovation stance pending new rules.
• Evaluate litigation exposure, especially state gaming regulator actions; prepare for potential CFTC intervention asserting exclusive jurisdiction.
• No immediate prohibitions lifted or mandates imposed—continue operating within current CEA framework (e.g., anti-fraud, market integrity).

What changed

• - Withdrawal of the June 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Event Contracts,” which proposed prohibiting political event contracts as contrary to public interest (e.g., akin to war or...
• Withdrawal of CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (issued Sept. 30, 2025), a Staff Advisory cautioning designated contract markets (DCMs) against offering sports event contracts due to litigation risks and state...
• Commitment to new event contracts rulemaking based on a "rational and coherent interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act" to promote innovation, with clear standards for prediction markets; CFTC...

Key dates

September 2019

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Smith and Nowak

December 2021

- CFTC complaint filed against Miller and Omerta Capital; DOJ criminal charges filed

December 2022

- CFTC complaint amended against Miller and Omerta Capital

August 2023

- Smith and Nowak sentenced to prison (criminal case)

June 2024

- Miller sentenced to prison (criminal case)

Suggested considerations

• *For Registered Futures Firms and Banks:
• trade and post-trade compliance controls
• *For Commodity Pool Operators and Investment Advisors:
• by-jurisdiction licensing analyses before soliciting investors
• *For All Market Participants:

What changed

The enforcement actions establish precedent in three critical areas: Market Manipulation (Spoofing): The CFTC secured consent orders against precious metals futures traders for spoofing—placing and canceling orders to create false market impressions. The orders impose three-year and six-month trading bans and require cease-and-desist compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act's spoofing prohibition. Misappropriation and Fictitious Trading: The CFTC obtained permanent injunctive relief requiring disgorgement of unlawful gains ($135,788) plus civil penalties ($200,000), with 18-month trading...

Key dates

January 6, 2026

- Paul H. Tzur joins SEC as Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement.

January 12, 2026

- SEC announces appointments of Paul Tzur and David Morrell as Deputy Directors.

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal protocols for SEC investigations to align with centralized reporting structures, anticipating uniform standards across regions.
• Train legal/compliance staff on refined Wells process (e.g., prepare for four-week timelines and evidence access requests).
• Monitor upcoming SEC communications for Enforcement Director Judge Margaret Ryan's guidance on fraud-focused priorities.
• Assess current or potential matters for earlier engagement with Deputy Directors on case theories and resolutions.

What changed

• This announcement reflects structural reforms rather than new substantive regulations:
• Replacement of Regional Directors with Deputy Directors, centralizing reporting from local offices (e.g., Boston, Fort Worth, Atlanta) and specialized units directly to headquarters-led Deputy...
• Enhanced supervision of enforcement decisions, aiming for consistency and reduced regional variations in handling investigations.
• Complements parallel Wells process reforms under Chairman Paul Atkins, including a baseline four-week response period, greater access to evidence, and senior-level meetings for transparency and due...

Key dates

~December 2020

May 2022; - Alleged fraudulent solicitation and trading period

2021

- Prior CFTC administrative order against Mitchell (Press Release 8427-21) prohibiting trading and registration activities for three years

November 21, 2025

- CFTC files complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Suggested considerations

• Verify registration: Check CFTC/NFA BASIC database before engaging with pools or advisors; unregistered status warrants avoidance.
• Implement controls: Segregate pool funds (Regulation 4.20), avoid commingling, disclose risks fully, prohibit profit guarantees/misrepresentations, and issue accurate statements.
• Conduct due diligence: Screen principals for prior CFTC orders; cease activities if barred.
• Train staff: On fraud red flags (e.g., Ponzi payments, high-yield promises) and report suspicions via CFTC hotline (866-FON-CFTC) or online tip form.
• For SEC-registered advisers: Evaluate eligibility for CFTC Letter 25-50 relief to avoid dual registration while ensuring pools limit to qualified eligible persons (QEPs).

What changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements. It reinforces longstanding CEA and CFTC rules on:
• Mandatory registration as a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and Associated Persons (APs) for pools trading commodity futures (CFTC Regulation 4.13 exemptions do not apply here due to fraud and public...
• Prohibitions on fraud, misrepresentations, guarantees of profit, non-disclosure of risks, commingling funds, and operating pools as non-separate entities (CEA Section 4o, Regulations 4.20, 4.21).
• Compliance with prior CFTC orders barring trading or registration-required activities.

Key dates

February 1, 2022

- CFTC and states file initial complaint alleging fraud scheme

May 5, 2022

- Plaintiffs file First Amended Complaint

September 6, 2023

- Second Amended Complaint filed

May 2, 2025

- Court enters SEC remedies judgment ($25.6M disgorgement/penalty, with offsets)

September 30, 2025

- Court issues Statement of Decision granting restitution ($25.6M) and civil penalty ($25.6M)

Suggested considerations

• Conduct immediate fraud risk assessments on precious metals sales scripts, disclosures, and pricing markups to ensure no material misrepresentations or undisclosed overcharges.
• Enhance senior investor protections, including suitability reviews, cooling-off periods, and training on vulnerable customer targeting bans.
• Review controlling person policies for good faith oversight, documenting supervisory failures to avoid personal liability.
• Audit parallel SEC/CFTC exposures in commodity-linked activities, preparing for offset calculations in multi-agency actions.
• Update compliance manuals with this case as precedent for CEA fraud in physical commodities; monitor whistleblower notices for internal reporting incentives.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements. It reaffirms existing CEA prohibitions on fraud, including Section 6(c)(1), 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), covering material misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptive schemes in precious metals sales.