Indiana has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange, custody and transmission businesses fall under Indiana's general Uniform Money Services Act (IC 28-8-4.1), administered by the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and processed through the multistate NMLS system, consistent with the disambiguation seed. Two 2026 enactments materially reshape the landscape: HB 1042 (signed March 3, 2026, effective July 1, 2026) carves out DFI as the only public agency permitted to regulate individuals' digital-asset activity, while barring all other state/local agencies from restricting acceptance of crypto payments or self-hosted wallet custody; and a companion bill (commonly referenced as HB 1116) enacted a full statewide prohibition on virtual-currency kiosks (crypto ATMs), making Indiana the first U.S. state with a blanket kiosk ban, enforced by the Attorney General under deceptive consumer sales law.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Indiana has no state-level token-classification regime. Per the disambiguation seed, characterisation of tokens as securities or commodities is governed exclusively by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction (see US JID), not by Indiana-specific rules. The only Indiana statutory definition touching classification is a narrow carve-out in HB 1042's retirement-plan provisions (IC 2-3.5-5-3.3), which defines 'digital asset' for public-fund investment purposes and explicitly excludes stablecoins from that definition.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Indiana's 2026 legislative package (new IC Article 5-36 and amendments to IC 36-1) is the first Indiana statutory framework to define and protect on-chain activities. It establishes definitions for blockchain, blockchain protocol, digital asset mining, digital asset mining business, node, private digital asset mining, self-hosted wallet, hardware wallet, and staking, and separately bars local units of government from adopting ordinances that restrict digital-asset mining operations (IC 36-1-30.5).
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Indiana has no bespoke state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, redemption or disclosure regime; issuance authorisation for payment stablecoins is governed at the federal level (see US JID), and Indiana's only stablecoin-adjacent provision is a definitional exclusion (HB 1042, IC 2-3.5-5-3.3) removing stablecoins from the 'digital asset' definition used for state retirement-plan crypto-ETF investment eligibility.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Indiana's 2026 legislative package provides two consumer-protection-relevant strands: (1) HB 1042's protection of individuals' right to accept crypto as payment and to self-custody assets via self-hosted or hardware wallets, insulating this activity from restrictive agency rulemaking; and (2) the statewide crypto-ATM/kiosk ban, motivated by rising elder-fraud losses (approximately $400,000 in Evansville-area scams reported in 2025), enforceable by the Attorney General under Indiana's deceptive consumer sales law.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Federal tax treatment governs crypto in Indiana absent state override: the IRS treats virtual currency as property (Notice 2014-21), so dispositions generally trigger capital gains/loss treatment and mined/staked tokens are includible in gross income at fair market value on receipt. Indiana layers on a narrow non-discrimination protection: HB 1042 prohibits the state and local governments from imposing special taxes or fees on crypto used as payment for lawful goods/services, or on individuals maintaining self-hosted-wallet custody, that do not apply to other financial transactions.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Indiana has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus and cross-border reporting matters are governed federally. OFAC-administered sanctions programs apply to crypto transactions involving sanctioned persons/jurisdictions regardless of Indiana licensing status, and FinCEN's federal Funds Travel Rule (cross-border limb of AML, subscribed via FIM) applies to qualifying money transmitters, including Indiana-licensed virtual-currency businesses.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Crypto AML/CFT obligations are handled at the fleet level via the FIM aml_ctf module subscription; this baseline does not produce AML/CFT claims for US-IN. For disambiguation context only: virtual-currency exchangers/administrators operating from or into Indiana are subject to FinCEN's federal Bank Secrecy Act money-transmitter regime (registration, recordkeeping, SAR/CTR filing) regardless of Indiana state licensing status, and FinCEN's 2025 kiosk notice specifically flags CVC kiosk operators as subject to BSA obligations.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.
Sources and findings (1)
T?source not recordedM1non-binding
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for United States – Indiana
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
not recorded
trust.content_source
ai_generated
Provenance and declared absence
Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.
Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.
Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.