Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
US-OH v13.3.0
content: ai_generated legal review: never_reviewed (informational) publication gate: 0 failing12 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 · 2026-08-06

Ohio, USA

US-OH schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM

Last updated · 8 categories · 25 sourced findings · 35 sources in the cumulative register

8Categoriesbaseline.
25Findings.claims[]
5Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.

United States federal law that applies in Ohio, USA is covered once, on the United States page. This page covers Ohio, USA’s own layer: its own law, regulators and enforcement.

Jurisdiction lead brief

Latest update · 18 October 2026

Lead Signal

Ohio's crypto-licensing perimeter was tested this cycle by a multistate BSA/AML enforcement settlement touching an Ohio-licensed money transmitter. Coinme Inc., which operates crypto kiosks under an Ohio Money Transmitter License, agreed to a 2.5 million dollar settlement with thirty-four state financial regulators, with Ohio named among the lead examining states, resolving allegations of BSA/AML program deficiencies. The settlement requires Coinme to exit the cryptocurrency kiosk business nationwide by 1 January 2027 or pay an additional 4 million dollars. Days later, on 14 October 2026, Polygon closed its acquisition of Coinme, assuming the Ohio money-transmitter license along with the unresolved AML remediation obligations that attach to it. This sequence underscores that Ohio treats cryptocurrency as money for licensing purposes under existing law: the Division of Financial Institutions applies Ohio Revised Code 1315.01(G)'s definition of 'money or its equivalent' to cryptocurrency transmission per its Interpretive Guidance 2022-01, effective 31 August 2022, meaning crypto kiosk and exchange operators have been subject to the general Money Transmitter License regime under Chapter 1315 since that guidance took effect, with no separate crypto-specific license track.

8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Ohio has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange and custody businesses fall under Ohio's general money-transmitter licensing regime, administered via the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), with the state banking/financial-institutions regulator as licensing authority. No independently verified Ohio Revised Code citation or crypto-specific carve-out/exemption within the money-transmitter statute could be confirmed from available sources; this is flagged for primary-source escalation per the injected seed's caution flag.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026135 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

Crypto Licensing

Ohio's crypto-licensing framework currently rests on the Ohio Money Transmitters Act, which applies to money-transmission activity broadly, but the state has not yet enacted a kiosk-specific statute. House Bill 648, introduced January 20, 2026 and pending before the House Financial Institutions Committee, would require any person who owns, operates, or facilitates a digital-asset kiosk in Ohio to register as a money transmitter, closing a gap the regulator has not yet closed by statute. This is a proposed, not yet enacted, expansion of the licensing perimeter.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-18

Crypto Licensing

Ohio has no crypto-specific licensing statute. Instead, the Division of Financial Institutions applies the general Money Transmitter License regime under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1315 to cryptocurrency activity, treating cryptocurrency as 'money or its equivalent' within the meaning of ORC 1315.01(G) pursuant to DFI Interpretive Guidance 2022-01, effective 31 August 2022. A person or entity transmitting cryptocurrency in Ohio, including exchange operators, kiosk operators and custodians, must therefore hold a Money Transmitter License before conducting that activity. This cycle's dominant development confirms the regime is actively supervised rather than merely nominal: Coinme Inc., an Ohio-licensed crypto kiosk and money-transmitter operator, agreed to a 2.5 million dollar multistate settlement with thirty-four state financial regulators, with Ohio named explicitly as one of the lead examining states, over BSA/AML program deficiencies. The settlement requires Coinme to exit the kiosk business nationwide by 1 January 2027 or pay a further 4 million dollars. On 14 October 2026, six days after the settlement, Polygon closed its acquisition of Coinme, assuming its Ohio money-transmitter license and the remediation obligations that accompany the settlement; Polygon has indicated it intends to use the assumed licenses to let businesses accept funds, settle in stablecoins, and make local-currency payouts. Separately, House Bill 195, which added UCC Article 12 'controllable electronic records' to Ohio's code and took effect in approximately early October 2026, enables perfection of a security interest in crypto assets and NFTs through 'control' — a commercial-law overlay on the licensing regime rather than a change to it. House Bill 648, which would impose a dedicated kiosk-specific licensing and consumer-protection layer (money-transmitter licensure for kiosk operators plus transaction holds, limits, and enhanced verification), remains pending in the House Financial Institutions Committee with no floor action.

Outlook

The principal item to track is how Polygon integrates the Coinme Ohio license and its outstanding AML remediation obligations following the 14 October 2026 acquisition closing, particularly against the 1 January 2027 kiosk-exit deadline. Whether House Bill 648 advances out of committee would also materially affect the licensing landscape specifically for kiosk operators, layering additional conditions onto the existing Money Transmitter License framework.

2 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Crypto Licensing

Ohio has no crypto-specific licensing regime. The Division of Financial Institutions applies the general money-transmitter licensure test under Revised Code 1315.02(A) to virtual-currency money-transmission activity, a position confirmed by the 2023 consent order against Metallicus, Inc., which requires registration before offering a virtual-currency money-transmission service in the state. This general-purpose test remains the operative licensing gateway for virtual-currency businesses in Ohio today, with no indication this cycle of any narrower crypto-specific licence category having been introduced.

The principal development affecting this module is House Bill 648, the ELDER Act, which would extend the general money-transmitter licence explicitly to digital-asset kiosk operators, deeming them engaged in money transmission under Chapter 1315 and adding kiosk-specific disclosure, transaction-hold, and senior-verification duties for customers aged 60 and above. The bill has been pending in the House Financial Institutions Committee since a third hearing on May 20, 2026, and its status as reported out of committee has not been confirmed this cycle. If enacted, HB 648 would represent a material tightening of the licensing perimeter for kiosk-based digital-asset businesses specifically, layering new consumer-facing obligations onto the existing general MTL test rather than replacing it.

Outlook

Whether HB 648 advances out of committee is the key near-term question for this module. Enactment would formalise kiosk-operator licensure under the existing MTL framework with added senior-protection duties; absent enactment, the general-purpose licensure test, as applied in the Metallicus precedent, remains the operative standard for all virtual-currency money-transmission activity in Ohio, including kiosk operation.

Periodic update · new data 2026-09-29

Crypto Licensing

Ohio's crypto-licensing regime is anchored in the general Ohio Money Transmitters Act, ORC Chapter 1315. The Ohio Division of Financial Institutions has confirmed, through its 2022 interpretive guidance, that a person buying or selling cryptocurrency as a business in the state generally must hold a money-transmitter licence under that Act. This is a confirmed, in-force requirement and applies to crypto businesses as a subset of the state's broader money-transmission licensing perimeter, rather than through a crypto-specific licensing category.

The live development this cycle is HB 648, the ELDER Act, which would require owners and operators of digital-asset kiosks specifically to register as money transmitters under the same Ohio Money Transmitters Act, alongside new mandatory risk and fee disclosures and transaction limits. The bill had its first committee hearing on 18 March 2026 and has not been enacted. If passed, it would formalise a kiosk-specific registration and disclosure track within the existing OMTA framework rather than replacing it, targeting a channel that has drawn particular legislative attention because of its association with elder-fraud typologies.

Ohio's money-transmitter regime also carries a general extraterritorial-reach feature relevant to crypto businesses: OMTA licensure requirements apply regardless of the location of the person, its facilities, or its agents, so long as money or its equivalent is received for transmission from a person located in Ohio. This is a confirmed, in-force, generally applicable provision, not one drafted with crypto specifically in mind, but it bears directly on any digital-asset business transacting with Ohio-located customers from outside the state.

Outlook

HB 648's progress through the Ohio General Assembly is the primary item to watch for this module. The bill remains at a pre-enactment, committee stage as of its 18 March 2026 hearing, with an expected further-development window in the 2027 first quarter. Whether the bill advances to a floor vote, and whether its kiosk-specific registration and disclosure requirements survive committee amendment intact, will determine whether Ohio moves from a general money-transmitter licensing perimeter for crypto businesses to one that names digital-asset kiosks as a distinct regulated channel.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — Crypto exchange and custody businesses operating in Ohio are regulated under the state's general money-transmitter licensing law rather than a dedicated crypto statute, with licensing administered through NMLS.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — Ohio money-transmitter license applications and public licensee verification are processed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), the common multistate licensing infrastructure used by most U.S. states.retrieved M3bindingin force
  3. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No independently verified evidence was located confirming or denying a crypto-specific exemption or carve-out within Ohio's money-transmitter statute; the exact Ohio Revised Code section governing virtual-currency money transmission remains unconfirmed.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run

#

Ohio has not enacted a state-specific token taxonomy. Token characterisation for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. In March 2026 the SEC issued an interpretive release applying the Howey test to establish a crypto-asset taxonomy (digital securities, payment stablecoins, digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools), and in March 2025 SEC staff clarified that proof-of-work mining does not itself trigger federal securities registration. These federal determinations apply to Ohio market participants by preemption; no Ohio Division of Securities crypto-specific guidance was identified.

Standing sub-brief · as of 11 October 2026236 words · last cycle 2026-10-11

Token Classification

Ohio introduced a new commercial-law classification for digital assets this cycle. House Bill 195, effective October 6, 2026, amended the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code to add Article 12, classifying cryptocurrency, NFTs and similar digital assets as controllable electronic records for purposes of control, transfer and security-interest perfection. This classification addresses commercial law: it defines how a digital asset is controlled and transferred, and how a security interest in it is perfected, under Ohio's version of the UCC. It is distinct from, and does not resolve, any question of whether a given digital asset is a security, a commodity, or money for regulatory-status or licensing purposes; Ohio has no state-level token taxonomy addressing those questions, and HB 195 does not create one.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — In March 2026 the SEC issued an interpretive release establishing a crypto-asset taxonomy under Howey, with categories including digital securities, payment stablecoins, digital tools, digital collectibles, and digital commodities that are generally not securities absent specific issuer representations of managerial effort.retrieved M4non-binding
  2. T1 · U.S. SEC, Division of Corporation FinanceU.S. SEC, Division of Corporation Finance — SEC staff stated in March 2025 that proof-of-work crypto mining, whether solo or pooled, does not trigger federal securities registration obligations, a determination applicable to Ohio-based mining operations under federal preemption.retrieved M3non-binding
  3. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio state-specific token classification statute or Division of Securities guidance was identified; token characterisation for securities purposes in Ohio is governed exclusively by the federal SEC/CFTC framework.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Ohio has no in-force statutory framework specific to staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, node operation, or validator activity. The pending Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (HB 116), passed by the Ohio House in June 2025, would provide protections for crypto mining businesses against discriminatory local government action, but the bill remains before the Ohio Senate and is not yet law. Federally, SEC staff have clarified that proof-of-work mining does not trigger securities registration.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026119 words · last cycle 2026-08-21

On-Chain Activity Regime

The Ohio Blockchain Basics Act, House Bill 406, passed a House vote and protects digital-asset mining businesses from discriminatory local zoning ordinances, including a notice-and-comment requirement before a locality may rezone an industrial area to prohibit mining. The bill carries an enacted-not-yet-effective regulatory stage. This is a liberalising, protective development for on-chain mining activity in Ohio, warranting a green traffic-light assessment, and stands in contrast to the tightening posture visible elsewhere in the state's digital-asset regulatory activity this cycle.

No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.

Sources and findings (8)
  1. T3 · The BlockThe Block — The Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (HB 116) passed the Ohio House 70-26 in June 2025 and would protect crypto mining businesses from being unfairly targeted by local government policy, but the bill had not been enacted into law and remained pending in the Ohio Senate as of the research date.retrieved M4non-binding
  2. T1 · U.S. SEC, Division of Corporation FinanceU.S. SEC, Division of Corporation Finance — SEC staff determined in March 2025 that proof-of-work crypto mining, conducted solo or in pools, falls outside federal securities-registration jurisdiction, a determination applicable to Ohio-based mining operations pending any future state-level mining statute.retrieved M3non-binding
  3. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute, license, or registration requirement governing crypto staking activity was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
  4. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute, license, or registration requirement governing DeFi lending activity was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
  5. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute, license, or registration requirement governing decentralized-exchange (DEX) operation was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
  6. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute, license, or registration requirement governing blockchain node operation was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
  7. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute, license, or registration requirement governing validator activity was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
  8. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Ohio's 2021 amendment to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (via SB 220, incorporating SB 300 language) recognizes that a record or contract secured through blockchain technology is considered an electronic record with equivalent legal standing, providing indirect legal support for tokenized-record use cases, though the state has no dedicated tokenization licensing regime.retrieved M3bindingin force

#

Ohio has no state-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption statute. The field is governed by the federal GENIUS Act, signed into law July 18, 2025, which establishes reserve-backing, redemption-at-par, and disclosure requirements for payment stablecoins nationally, including for Ohio-based issuers and consumers. As of mid-2026, federal regulators (OCC, FDIC, NCUA, Treasury, Federal Reserve) had missed the Act's one-year rulemaking deadline, leaving final implementing rules on reserves, custody, and AML/sanctions compliance still in proposal form, with a statutory effective date no later than January 18, 2027.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T4 · The BlockThe Block — The federal GENIUS Act, signed into law on July 18, 2025, establishes a national framework requiring permitted payment-stablecoin issuers to back tokens one-to-one in high-quality liquid reserves, publish monthly reserve disclosures, and support redemption at par, applicable to any Ohio-based issuer or user absent a distinct state stablecoin statute.retrieved M4bindingenacted not yet effective
  2. T4 · The BlockThe Block — As of the GENIUS Act's one-year rulemaking deadline in mid-2026, the OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and Treasury had not finalized their implementing rules on reserves, capital, custody, and risk management for stablecoin issuers, leaving compliance details unresolved nationally, including for Ohio market participants.retrieved M4non-binding
  3. T4 · The BlockThe Block — No Ohio-specific stablecoin issuance-authorisation, reserve, redemption, or systemic-designation regime was identified; the state relies entirely on the federal GENIUS Act framework once its implementing rules and effective date (no later than January 18, 2027) are finalized.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Ohio has no bespoke crypto consumer-protection statute covering marketing restrictions, custody segregation, or suitability specific to digital assets; general Ohio consumer-fraud and securities anti-fraud enforcement apply by default. National FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) data show crypto-related fraud losses reaching $11 billion in 2025 (a 22% year-on-year increase) with over 181,000 complaints, and Ohio has seen enforcement activity against crypto investment fraud, illustrating reliance on general fraud statutes rather than a dedicated crypto consumer-protection framework.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026134 words · last cycle 2026-10-04

Consumer Protection

The Ohio Division of Financial Institutions issued a consumer alert after a nationwide crypto-ATM kiosk operator filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations, a regulator-issued warning to Ohio consumers who had used the kiosk network. Separately, and not yet enacted, House Bill 648 would require digital-asset kiosk operators to disclose that transactions are irreversible and not government-insured, and to impose new-transaction approval holds for elderly customers. Together, an active regulator alert and a pending statutory disclosure-and-hold regime place Ohio's consumer-protection posture for digital-asset kiosks at amber: real regulatory attention exists, but the strongest protective measure remains proposed rather than in force.

Periodic update · new data 2026-09-29

Consumer Protection

Ohio's crypto-specific consumer-protection development this cycle is contained entirely within HB 648, the ELDER Act. The bill would require digital-asset kiosk operators to disclose material risks associated with digital assets to customers before a transaction is completed, specifically naming the irreversibility of digital-asset transactions and the absence of government deposit insurance as risks that must be disclosed. This is a proposed, not-yet-enacted requirement, and it is explicitly targeted at the elder-fraud risk profile associated with physical crypto kiosks rather than at digital-asset consumer protection generally.

No other Ohio-specific crypto consumer-protection finding was identified this cycle. The disclosure mandate in HB 648 would sit alongside, and depend on, the bill's parallel licensing provision requiring kiosk operators to register as money transmitters; the two provisions are part of the same legislative vehicle and would take effect together if the bill is enacted.

Outlook

The disclosure mandate's fate is tied to HB 648's broader legislative progress. Following its first committee hearing on 18 March 2026, the bill has not advanced to a floor vote. An expected development window in the first quarter of 2027 is the horizon marker for this provision; passage would give Ohio a specific, named point-of-sale disclosure requirement for digital-asset kiosk transactions where none currently exists in statute.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T4 · The BlockThe Block — The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center reported that crypto-related fraud losses in the United States topped $11 billion in 2025, a 22% increase from 2024, with more than 181,000 crypto-related complaints received, underscoring the scale of consumer risk that general fraud enforcement in states like Ohio must address absent crypto-specific consumer-protection statutes.retrieved M4non-binding
  2. T4 · The BlockThe Block — An Ohio resident was sentenced in 2026 to nine years in federal prison for operating a $10 million cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, illustrating that crypto investment fraud in Ohio is prosecuted under general federal and state fraud statutes rather than a dedicated crypto consumer-protection law.retrieved M3non-binding
  3. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific statute mandating custody segregation, marketing restrictions, or suitability/appropriateness standards for crypto-asset service providers was identified.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Ohio has no currently enacted crypto-specific tax statute. Ohio previously permitted businesses to remit state taxes in bitcoin via the OhioCrypto.com program launched in late 2018, but the program was discontinued after a newly elected State Treasurer halted it. The pending Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (HB 116), passed by the Ohio House in June 2025, would exempt crypto transactions under $200 from state capital-gains tax and bar local governments from imposing additional taxes on crypto payments, but remains before the Ohio Senate and is not yet law.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 202691 words · last cycle 2026-08-21

Tax Treatment

The Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (House Bill 406) prohibits local governments from charging additional taxes or fees on an individual using digital currency to pay for legal goods or services, a narrow local-tax provision carrying an enacted-not-yet-effective regulatory stage. No Ohio-specific state income- or capital-gains-tax guidance for digital assets was identified this cycle.

No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Ohio became the first U.S. state to allow businesses to pay state taxes in bitcoin through the OhioCrypto.com program launched in late 2018, but the initiative was subsequently halted after a newly elected State Treasurer discontinued it, and no equivalent program is currently in force.retrieved M2non-binding
  2. T3 · The BlockThe Block — HB 116 (Ohio Blockchain Basics Act), passed by the Ohio House 70-26 in June 2025, would exempt crypto transactions under $200 from state capital-gains tax and prohibit local governments from imposing additional taxes or fees on individuals using crypto for payments, but the bill remained pending before the Ohio Senate as of the research date and is not yet enacted.retrieved M4non-binding
  3. T3 · The BlockThe Block — Absent enactment of HB 116, no primary Ohio Department of Taxation source was located confirming the precise state income-tax treatment of cryptocurrency capital gains; this is flagged for primary-source verification.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run

#

Ohio has no distinct state-level cross-border crypto-transfer regime. Cross-border transfers conducted by Ohio-based money transmitters and virtual-currency businesses are governed by the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN framework, including the Funds Travel Rule for convertible-virtual-currency transmittals and OFAC sanctions screening, applied uniformly regardless of state.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T1 · Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — FinCEN guidance confirms that where convertible-virtual-currency transactions fall under the definition of a 'transmittal of funds,' the host must comply with the Funds Travel Rule based on its position in the transmission chain, a requirement applicable to Ohio-based money transmitters engaged in cross-border crypto transfers.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial InstitutionsNationwide Multistate Licensing System / Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institutions — No Ohio-specific outbound restriction or state-level cross-border reporting threshold beyond the federal BSA/OFAC framework was identified for crypto-asset transfers.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Crypto AML/CFT obligations applicable to Ohio-based virtual-currency businesses (customer due diligence, travel rule, SAR/STR filing, sanctions screening, recordkeeping, risk assessment) arise under the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN money-services-business regime. Per fleet module-subscription doctrine, crypto subscribes to the Financial Integrity Module (FIM) for aml_ctf content; this baseline therefore does not duplicate aml_cft_regime claims and defers to the FIM feed for substantive AML/CFT findings.

Standing sub-brief · as of 18 October 2026225 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

AML/CFT Regime

Ohio's AML/CFT exposure for crypto activity runs through the same Money Transmitter License framework under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1315 that governs licensing generally, rather than through a crypto-specific AML statute; this module notes the active enforcement signal while the fuller AML typology and penalty record sits with the financial-integrity monitor. The relevant development this cycle is the settlement reached by Coinme Inc., an Ohio-licensed crypto kiosk operator, with thirty-four state financial regulators over BSA/AML program deficiencies, a 2.5 million dollar resolution with Ohio named among the lead examining states. The settlement requires Coinme to exit crypto-kiosk operations nationwide by 1 January 2027 or face a further 4 million dollar payment. Polygon's subsequent acquisition of Coinme, which closed 14 October 2026, means that whatever BSA/AML remediation program Coinme is obligated to implement under the settlement now becomes an obligation Polygon inherits for the Ohio-licensed entity. This is the clearest evidence available this cycle that Ohio's AML supervision of crypto money transmitters, though sourced from the general money-transmission statute rather than a dedicated crypto-AML regime, is being actively applied and enforced at the licensing-authority level.

no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief

No categories match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Publication gate

No failing checks.

schema_validpass
min_quoted_text_presentwaived — floor 0%
egress_verifiedpass
every_practical_object_has_source_idn/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_okpass
jurisdiction_source_floor_metpass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct41.67
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count0
manual_override

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for Ohio, USA
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewerno reviewer on record
trust.content_sourceai_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.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-10-20. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 0 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 8 module(s), 25 finding(s), 35 source(s) in the cumulative register.

Think something on this page is wrong? Report an error.