--- title: "Utah, USA Crypto Regulation Monitor | cryptoassets.gi" canonical: https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/utah-usa/ source_html: /jurisdictions/utah-usa/index.html description: "Utah, USA crypto asset regulation: 7 categories, 53 sourced findings, updated 2026-10-25. Licensing, token classification, stablecoins, tax treatment." generated_at: 2026-10-29T04:42:37Z content_sha256: aa4ddf3e21b8f0059848fa58ad81bd03ae52598c53a7bb5811a390f99029506d generator: "fe-fleet/md-twin@1.0" --- # Utah, USA US-UT schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not yet assessed regulated Also covered: [Financial Integrity](https://sentinel.gi) · [World Payments](https://payments.gi) Last updated 2026-10-25 · 7 categories · 53 sourced findings · 32 sources in the cumulative register Download report (PDF) Expand all Evidence re-verified: 2026-10-25 · Position last changed: 2026-10-25 · Record history & provenance ▾ Methodology & record provenance: Module confidence is derived from the underlying claims (source tier and primary excerpt retention), while statutory legal force is tracked independently. Review status: AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified · As-of date: 2026-10-26 [Open in Co-Pilot ↗](/reports/?type=copilot&j=UTAH-USA)[Build Report](/reports/?j=UTAH-USA)[Compare](/compare/?j=UTAH-USA) Framework posture Regulated 7 of 9 modules populated · AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified Lead supervisory authority Utah Department of Financial Institutions Primary statutory & supervisory perimeter Next milestone (> 2026-10-26) 2026-Q4 HB 141 international money transmission tax enactment status pending Module coverage & confidence 7 / 9 modules assessed 0 Confirmed · 7 Probable · 0 Uncertain · 2 Not yet assessed 7 Categories 0 Moved this cycle 0 Key judgments 3 Open gaps 53 Findings 20 Tier-1 sources Confidence mix 7 unpopulated (sums to 7 rendered categories; click to filter) No categories moved this cycle. United States federal law that applies in Utah, USA is covered once, on the [United States](/jurisdictions/united-states/) page. This page covers Utah, USA’s own layer: its own law, regulators and enforcement. ## Jurisdiction lead brief ###### Latest update · 25 October 2026 #### Lead Signal Utah's crypto regulatory posture tightened with the enactment of HB 72, the Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments, which creates a new registration and conduct regime for virtual-currency kiosk operators under Title 13, Chapter 82, administered by the Division of Consumer Protection and effective 6 May 2026. Kiosk operators must register or obtain authorisation, comply with graduated transaction limits of $2,000 per day for the first three days of a customer relationship and $5,000 per day thereafter, and satisfy disclosure and fraud-warning duties, with DCP empowered to pursue administrative penalties and civil actions. This sits alongside, not in place of, Utah's long-standing exclusion of blockchain tokens from the statutory definition of money transmission under Utah Code Section 7-25-102(9)(b), which leaves pure token-to-token custody and exchange activity outside general money-transmitter licensing even as HB 72 brings fiat-crypto kiosk transactions under a new sector-specific authorisation track. #### Other Developments Alongside the kiosk regime, HB 72 imposes specific consumer-protection duties on kiosk operators: bilingual English/Spanish fraud-prevention warnings must be posted, and a 24-hour toll-free customer service line must be maintained, giving defrauded customers an immediate escalation channel. On token classification, SB 298, the Programmable Money Amendments, defines and excludes "programmable money" from the Uniform Commercial Code's definition of money without classifying it as a security, e-money instrument or stablecoin, and expressly does not prohibit the purchase or sale of cryptocurrency; it is confirmed and enacted but not yet effective, with a legal effective date of 5 May 2027. On tax treatment, HB 141, the International Money Transmission Amendments, would impose new tax and reporting duties on licensed money transmitters, potentially reaching crypto kiosk operators, but its final enactment status remains unconfirmed this cycle from a primary legislative source. #### Cross-Monitor Connections HB 72 and SB 298 are also tracked by the world payments monitor from a payments-infrastructure and market-access angle; that coverage addresses kiosk licensing architecture and payment-rail non-discrimination duties in more operational depth, while this brief focuses on the crypto-specific licensing, classification and tax dimensions of the same instruments. No advennt or financial integrity overlap is evidenced for Utah. #### Outlook The most consequential near-term date is 5 May 2027, when SB 298's exclusion of programmable money from the UCC money definition and its associated issuer duties become enforceable. On the tax side, HB 141's final enactment status and effective date remain unconfirmed and are worth tracking into the fourth quarter of 2026, since a tax/reporting obligation on licensed money transmitters could extend to virtual-currency kiosk operators newly registered under HB 72. The final disposition of SB 173 relative to HB 72 for kiosk licensing also remains an open question with no primary confirmation. 1 earlier update not shown here. ###### Standing brief · as of 28 September 2026 Written before the update above. Where they differ, the update is the more recent position. #### Lead Signal Utah's crypto regulatory posture continues its multi-year liberalising trajectory, anchored by H.B. 230's expansion of statutory protections for self-custody, node operation, and staking. Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 25 (the Money Transmitter Act) has excluded "Blockchain Token" from the statutory definition of money transmission since 2020, and H.B. 230 builds on that foundation by exempting self-custody, node operation, and staking participation from money-transmission licensure outright. The practical effect is a jurisdiction where core on-chain activity carries materially less licensing friction than the general MTL regime would otherwise impose on money-services businesses. At the same time, a newly introduced fiscal instrument, 1st Substitute H.B. 141, would impose a tax on international money transmissions with an identification-based exemption, quarterly remittance and annual reporting duties -- a proposal whose applicability to blockchain-token transfers is unresolved given the standing 2020 token carve-out. The combination is a jurisdiction moving in two directions on two different axes: on-chain activity itself (custody, staking, node operation, mining) is being affirmatively protected and de-licensed, while cross-border money movement generally is facing a new, as-yet-unenacted fiscal control whose reach into crypto rails remains genuinely open. #### Other Developments Crypto exchange and custody licensing remains anchored to the general MTL pathway. The Utah Department of Financial Institutions administers state money-transmitter licensure via NMLS, and this general regime -- not a bespoke crypto statute -- is what a crypto exchange or custody business must navigate to operate in Utah. The unresolved question is scope: whether the 2020 Blockchain Token exclusion removes exchange/custody businesses from MTL entirely, or only exempts the token-transfer mechanic while fiat-proceeds custody remains licensable. This ambiguity has not been resolved this cycle. On-chain activity received the most concrete liberalising treatment. H.B. 230 explicitly protects the right to run blockchain nodes and the right to participate in staking, with staking participation exempted from money-transmission treatment. The statute additionally restricts political subdivisions from imposing industrial-zone sound restrictions on qualifying digital-asset mining businesses exceeding 1 megawatt beyond generally applicable limits, treating mining as a protected industrial land use as of mid-2026. Cross-border transfer sits at the centre of unresolved risk. 1st Sub. H.B. 141 would require licensed money transmitters to pay a new tax on international money transmissions unless the customer presents valid identification, alongside quarterly remittance and annual reporting obligations to the State Tax Commission. Confidence in this development is only Uncertain: the bill's enactment status was not confirmed this cycle, and its applicability to blockchain-token transfers specifically is unresolved against the standing 2020 exclusion. #### Cross-Monitor Connections The H.B. 141 development is jointly tracked with the financial-integrity and world-payments monitors, both of which flag the same instrument as a new fiscal/identification control layered atop the existing MTL regime. Financial-integrity's framing treats the ownership/control-attribution parameters of the underlying Financial Institutions Act as directly relevant to customer due diligence on licensed transmitters, while world-payments frames the same bill as tightening licensing and market-access conditions for non-bank payment institutions. All three readings trace to the same underlying instrument and the same open enactment-status gap; none supersedes the others. #### Outlook The near-term picture depends heavily on H.B. 141's legislative fate: if enacted as introduced, licensed transmitters would face a new international-transmission tax with quarterly and annual reporting obligations, and the unresolved question of whether blockchain-token transfers fall inside or outside that tax's scope would become a live compliance question rather than an academic one. Absent enactment, Utah's crypto posture remains defined by the H.B. 230 protections for self-custody, node operation, staking, and mining, with the underlying scope ambiguity in the 2020 token exclusion as the standing item to watch for exchange and custody operators. Read full brief · 1075 words × 7 of 7 categories Signal Moved Judgment Gap Density Comfortable Compact Expand all sources Reset all Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search. ### C1Crypto LicensingAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah does not operate a crypto-specific licence. Money transmission is licensed by the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) under the Money Transmitter Act, Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 25, through NMLS. Since S.B. 213 (2019) the statutory definition of money transmission expressly 'does not include a blockchain token' (Utah Code 7-25-102(9)(b)), and H.B. 230 (2025), codified at Title 7 Chapter 29, adds that running a node, developing software, and operating a business or decentralised protocol that exchanges one digital asset for another without exchanging into legal tender or bank deposits do not require a money transmitter licence. Fiat on-ramp and off-ramp activity is the unsettled edge: the blockchain-token exclusion reads broadly, but the 2025 exemption is expressly limited to digital-asset-to-digital-asset exchange, so a business that receives US dollars for transmission should assume the Act can apply until DFI confirms otherwise. Virtual currency kiosks are regulated separately from 6 May 2026 by the Division of Consumer Protection under the Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (H.B. 72, Title 13 Chapter 82); a 2026 bill that would have made kiosk operation money transmission (S.B. 173) was not passed. Standing sub-brief · as of 28 September 2026 294 words · last cycle 2026-10-25 #### Crypto Licensing Utah has no bespoke crypto licensing statute. Crypto exchange and custody businesses instead fall under the general Money Transmitter Act, Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 25, administered by the Utah Department of Financial Institutions, which requires a state money-transmitter license obtained via the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System. This general regime predates and was not written for crypto-specific business models, and its application to them proceeds by analogy rather than express statutory design. A standing complication sits atop this general pathway: since 2020, the statute has excluded "Blockchain Token" from the definition of money transmission. H.B. 230 (2025/2026) has since gone further, exempting self-custody, node operation, and staking participation from money-transmission licensure outright. Together these carve-outs narrow the practical reach of MTL over crypto-native activity, but they leave open exactly how far the exclusion extends: whether it removes an exchange or custody business from licensure scope entirely, or whether it exempts only the token-transfer mechanic while fiat-proceeds custody remains a licensable activity. This scope question was not resolved this cycle and remains the central open item for any entity assessing its licensing exposure in Utah. The net effect is a liberalising trajectory built on a foundation of ambiguity: the direction of travel favors reduced licensing friction for crypto-native activity, but the precise boundary of what is licensable and what is exempt has not been authoritatively settled. #### Outlook Resolution of the scope question -- whether the 2020 token exclusion and the H.B. 230 exemptions reach exchange and custody businesses as a whole -- is the key item to watch. Absent further legislative or regulatory clarification, entities operating exchange or custody services in Utah should expect the general MTL pathway to remain the operative licensing regime pending any DFI guidance that directly addresses this boundary. Read full sub-brief · 294 words Periodic update · new data 2026-10-25 #### Crypto Licensing Utah's crypto licensing landscape is defined by two distinct instruments operating on different activity types. Utah Code Section 7-25-102(9)(b) excludes blockchain tokens from the statutory definition of money transmission, meaning pure token-to-token exchange or custody activity is not independently licensable under the state's general Money Transmitter Act; this exclusion is a standing feature of Utah law and was not changed. Layered on top of that standing exclusion, HB 72, the Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments, enacted a new registration and authorisation track specifically for virtual-currency kiosk operators under new Title 13, Chapter 82, effective 6 May 2026. Kiosk operators must register or obtain authorisation from the Division of Consumer Protection, comply with graduated daily transaction limits, 2,000 dollars per day for the first three days of a customer relationship and 5,000 dollars per day thereafter, and satisfy disclosure and fraud-warning duties; DCP is empowered to pursue administrative penalties and civil actions against non-compliant operators. The practical result is that Utah runs no comprehensive crypto-asset-service-provider licensing regime of the kind seen in jurisdictions with a unified CASP framework; instead it combines a narrow MTL exclusion for tokens generally with a sector-specific registration requirement targeted only at the kiosk delivery channel. An operator running a non-kiosk exchange or custody business in Utah accordingly faces neither the general MTL requirement, because of the token exclusion, nor the HB 72 kiosk track, because that track is scoped to kiosk operators specifically; such an operator's licensing exposure in Utah therefore turns on whatever fiat-handling activity it separately conducts. A further bill, SB 173, reportedly would have required virtual-currency kiosk operators to obtain money transmitter licenses directly as an alternative to the HB 72 registration route, but its final disposition was not confirmed this cycle from a primary legislative-status source. #### Outlook Watch for confirmation of SB 173's final disposition relative to HB 72, since an eventual convergence of the two kiosk-access routes, or a formal confirmation that HB 72 stands alone, would resolve a live structural ambiguity in Utah's kiosk-licensing architecture. No development changes the standing token exclusion from money transmission. 2 earlier distinct update(s) Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11 #### Crypto Licensing Utah's crypto licensing landscape is defined by two distinct instruments operating on different activity types. Utah Code Section 7-25-102(9)(b) excludes blockchain tokens from the statutory definition of money transmission, meaning pure token-to-token exchange or custody activity is not independently licensable under the state's general Money Transmitter Act; this exclusion is a standing feature of Utah law and was not changed this cycle. Layered on top of that standing exclusion, HB 72, the Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments, enacted a new registration and authorisation track specifically for virtual-currency kiosk operators under new Title 13, Chapter 82, effective 6 May 2026. Kiosk operators must register or obtain authorisation from the Division of Consumer Protection, comply with graduated daily transaction limits, 2,000 dollars per day for the first three days of a customer relationship and 5,000 dollars per day thereafter, and satisfy disclosure and fraud-warning duties; DCP is empowered to pursue administrative penalties and civil actions against non-compliant operators. The practical result is that Utah runs no comprehensive crypto-asset-service-provider licensing regime of the kind seen in jurisdictions with a unified CASP framework; instead it combines a narrow MTL exclusion for tokens generally with a sector-specific registration requirement targeted only at the kiosk delivery channel. An operator running a non-kiosk exchange or custody business in Utah accordingly faces neither the general MTL requirement, because of the token exclusion, nor the HB 72 kiosk track, because that track is scoped to kiosk operators specifically; such an operator's licensing exposure in Utah therefore turns on whatever fiat-handling activity it separately conducts. A further bill, SB 173, reportedly would have required virtual-currency kiosk operators to obtain money transmitter licenses directly as an alternative to the HB 72 registration route, but its final disposition was not confirmed this cycle from a primary legislative-status source. #### Outlook Watch for confirmation of SB 173's final disposition relative to HB 72, since an eventual convergence of the two kiosk-access routes, or a formal confirmation that HB 72 stands alone, would resolve a live structural ambiguity in Utah's kiosk-licensing architecture. No development this cycle changes the standing token exclusion from money transmission. Periodic update · new data 2026-10-04 #### Crypto Licensing Utah's crypto-licensing landscape tightened this cycle with the enactment of HB 72, Utah Code Chapter 13-82, effective 6 May 2026, which creates a narrower, kiosk-specific compliance track for virtual currency kiosk operators. The law imposes administrative fines of up to 2,500 dollars per violation for deceptive acts by kiosk operators, a new binding enforcement provision that did not exist prior to this session. This sits alongside, rather than replacing, Utah's general Money Transmitter Act framework, which continues to serve as the backbone licensing regime for payment-type businesses, including some crypto-adjacent activity, in the state. The Money Transmitter Act's own crypto-specific feature remains the 2020 amendment to Section 7-25-102(9)(b), which excludes node operation, protocol software development, and token-for-token exchange not involving legal tender or bank deposits from the statutory definition of money transmission. This exclusion is unchanged this cycle, though it was not independently re-verified against primary statutory text and is sourced to secondary commercial-law commentary. Separately, general money-transmitter licensees face statutory minimum requirements understood to include a 50,000 dollar surety bond and a 1,000,000 dollar audited net-worth threshold, again sourced to secondary commentary rather than primary statute this cycle. The net effect is a licensing landscape with a real, binding, and newly-enforceable kiosk-specific track layered onto an otherwise stable general money-transmission framework that continues to exempt standalone token-layer activity from licensing altogether. #### Outlook The kiosk enforcement provisions are now in force and represent the most concrete near-term compliance obligation for crypto-ATM operators in Utah. The broader money-transmitter prudential requirements and the scope of the token exclusion remain items warranting primary-source verification in a future cycle, as both rest currently on secondary vendor commentary rather than independently confirmed statutory text. Evidence 10 Sources and findings (10) - T1 · Utah Department of Financial Institutions[Utah Department of Financial Institutions](https://dfi.utah.gov/money-services/money-transmitters/) — A person engaging in money transmission in Utah must hold a money transmitter licence from the Department of Financial Institutions under the Money Transmitter Act (Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 25), applied for through NMLS.retrieved 2026-09-26M4bindingin force - T1 · Utah Department of Financial Institutions[Utah Department of Financial Institutions](https://dfi.utah.gov/money-services/money-transmitters/) — DFI states that a money transmitter licensee must maintain a net worth of at least $1,000,000 and submit audited financial statements.retrieved 2026-09-26M4bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/sbillenr/SB0213.pdf) — Utah Code 7-25-102(9)(b), inserted by S.B. 213 (2019 General Session), provides that 'money transmission' does not include a blockchain token; a blockchain token is defined in 7-25-102(4) as an electronic record recorded on a blockchain and capable of being traded between persons without an intermediary.retrieved 2026-09-26M5bindingin force - T1 · Utah Department of Financial Institutions[Utah Department of Financial Institutions](https://dfi.utah.gov/money-services/money-transmitters/) — DFI describes the blockchain-token exclusion as a 2020 amendment to the Money Transmitter Act, whereas the enrolled S.B. 213 is a 2019 General Session bill; the exclusion itself is not in doubt, only the date DFI attaches to it.retrieved 2026-09-26M1non-binding - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title7/Chapter29/C7-29_2025050720250507.pdf) — Under Utah Code 7-29-104 (H.B. 230, 2025), a person is not required to obtain a money transmitter licence solely for running a node, developing software, or operating a business or decentralised protocol that exchanges one digital asset for another digital asset, provided it does not exchange digital assets for legal tender or bank deposits.retrieved 2026-09-26M5bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — From 6 May 2026 a virtual currency kiosk operator in Utah is regulated by the Division of Consumer Protection under the Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 82, enacted by H.B. 72), including an annual report of kiosk locations and 30 days' notice before installing or removing a kiosk; the Act does not itself create a kiosk licence.retrieved 2026-09-26M4bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/SB0173.html) — S.B. 173 (2026 General Session), which would have required virtual currency kiosk operators to obtain a money transmitter licence and would have deemed kiosk operation to be money transmission regardless of whether blockchain tokens were involved, was not passed: the Senate struck the enacting clause and filed the bill on 6 March 2026.retrieved 2026-09-26M3non-binding - T1 · Financial Crimes Enforcement Network[Financial Crimes Enforcement Network](https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/application-fincens-regulations-certain-business-models) — At federal level FinCEN issued guidance FIN-2019-G001 on 9 May 2019 on how its money services business regulations apply to business models involving convertible virtual currencies; federal MSB registration is analysed under the United States (US) jurisdiction and the FIM aml_ctf subscription, not in this state baseline.retrieved 2026-09-26M2non-binding ### C2Token ClassificationGreenEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah classifies digital assets for property and commercial-law purposes rather than through a securities or e-money taxonomy. The Digital Asset Management Act (Title 13 Chapter 62, 2022) splits a digital asset into a 'digital security' (a digital asset that is a security under Utah's UCC Article 8 definition) and a 'digital user asset' (bought primarily for consumptive, personal or household purposes, including an open blockchain token). H.B. 230 (2025) defines digital asset to include stablecoins and non-fungible tokens, and H.B. 474 (2026) adopts UCC Article 12 on controllable electronic records from 6 May 2026. Whether a particular token is a security for offering purposes remains a federal question (SEC/CFTC, see the US jurisdiction) and, for state purposes, a matter for the Utah Division of Securities, which has publicly urged Congress to preserve state anti-fraud enforcement over crypto markets. Horizon · 2027-05-05 (± a quarter) SB 298 Programmable Money Amendments take effect Adopted · Tier 1 source C2 · Token Classification — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 8 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-10-25 The decision headline, regulatory posture (Green), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) . [Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/) ### C3On-Chain Activity RegimeGreenEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah is among the most permissive US states on on-chain activity by statute. H.B. 230 (2025), codified at Title 7 Chapter 29, protects the right to accept digital assets as payment, to self-custody through a self-hosted or hardware wallet, to run a node, to develop software, to transfer digital assets and to participate in staking, and bars state and local measures that prohibit them. The same bill amends the municipal and county land-use codes to protect digital-asset mining in industrial zones. Utah also offers a statutory legal-entity wrapper for decentralised autonomous organisations (the DAO Act, Title 48 Chapter 5, effective 1 January 2024), with registrations accepted by the Department of Commerce. No Utah regime for DeFi lending, DEX operation or real-world-asset tokenisation specifically was found beyond the licensing exemptions above. C3 · On-Chain Activity — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 9 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-10-25 The decision headline, regulatory posture (Green), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) . [Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/) ### C4Stablecoin RegimeAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah has no state stablecoin issuance regime. Stablecoins fall within the Title 7 Chapter 29 definition of digital asset, so the payment-acceptance and self-custody protections apply to them, but authorisation, reserves and redemption are governed federally by the GENIUS Act (Public Law 119-27, 18 July 2025). That Act lets a nonbank issuer with under $10 billion of outstanding payment stablecoins opt into a state regime that the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee finds substantially similar to the federal one. No Utah state-qualified issuer framework was found, so a Utah-based issuer currently has only the federal routes. Horizon · 2027-05-05 (± a quarter) SB 298 'Programmable Money Amendments' takes effect Adopted · Tier 3 source C4 · Stablecoins & EMTs — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 6 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-10-25 The decision headline, regulatory posture (Amber), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) . [Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/) ### C5Consumer ProtectionAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah's crypto-specific consumer protection is concentrated on virtual currency kiosks. The Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (H.B. 72, Title 13 Chapter 82, effective 6 May 2026) caps transactions at $2,000 per customer per day for the first three calendar days after a customer's first transaction and $5,000 per day thereafter, per operator; requires disclosure of terms and of the fact that virtual currency is not FDIC or SIPC insured, a consent acknowledgment, a fraud warning in English and Spanish, a detailed receipt and a 24/7 toll-free helpline; and makes violations a deceptive act under the Consumer Sales Practices Act, enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection with fines of up to $2,500 per violation. The Act contains no fee cap and no substantive refund right; the 3% fee cap and $1,000 limit proposed in S.B. 173 were not enacted. Outside kiosks, consumers rely on general securities anti-fraud law and the Consumer Sales Practices Act; no Utah custody-segregation or suitability rule specific to crypto platforms was found. Open gap — crypto-int-3 No primary or secondary source located addressing crypto market abuse/prudential capital at Utah state level. no under-indexing note recorded Standing sub-brief · as of 4 October 2026 248 words · last cycle 2026-10-25 #### Consumer Protection Utah's consumer-protection posture toward crypto tightened materially this cycle with HB 72, which imposes binding fraud-prevention disclosure and transaction-limit requirements on virtual currency kiosk operators, effective 6 May 2026. Operators must provide fraud-prevention warnings in both English and Spanish and observe graduated daily transaction caps: 2,000 dollars per day for the first three days of a new customer relationship, rising to 5,000 dollars per day thereafter. Violations characterised as deceptive acts carry administrative fines of up to 2,500 dollars per instance. This is a genuinely new and binding consumer-protection regime specific to the kiosk retail channel, where consumer fraud risk from crypto-ATM scams has been a documented concern. It is administered by the Division of Consumer Protection rather than through the state's financial-institutions regulator, reflecting Utah's choice to treat kiosk-channel consumer harm as a deceptive-practices matter. Broader crypto consumer-protection areas, including custody standards, promotional and marketing conduct, and market-abuse rules for digital-asset trading generally, remain outside the scope of this instrument and are not addressed by any other state-specific framework identified this cycle. #### Outlook The bilingual-disclosure and transaction-cap requirements are now in force and represent the operative consumer-protection standard for kiosk operators in Utah going forward. Enforcement activity under the new administrative-fine provision, once any cases emerge, would be the next indicator of how actively the Division of Consumer Protection polices this channel. Broader crypto consumer-protection gaps, such as custody and promotional conduct standards, remain unaddressed and are not expected to change absent further legislative action. Read full sub-brief · 248 words Periodic update · new data 2026-10-25 #### Consumer Protection HB 72, the Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments, effective 6 May 2026, imposes new kiosk-specific consumer-protection duties that did not previously exist under Utah crypto law. Virtual-currency kiosk operators must post bilingual English and Spanish fraud-prevention warnings at the point of transaction, and must maintain a 24-hour toll-free customer service line so that a customer who suspects they are being defrauded has an immediate channel to seek help or halt a transaction. These duties sit alongside HB 72's graduated transaction-limit structure, which caps a new customer's kiosk transactions at $2,000 per day for the first three days of the relationship before allowing up to $5,000 per day thereafter, a structure plainly aimed at limiting exposure during the window when a customer is most likely to be a fraud victim rather than an established user. Beyond this kiosk-specific layer, Utah has no broader crypto-asset-service-provider-style consumer-protection regime: there is no state-level custody-segregation requirement, prudential-capital requirement, market-abuse prohibition, or order-handling rule applicable to crypto exchanges, custodians or brokers generally. The consumer-protection perimeter that does exist is therefore narrowly targeted at the kiosk delivery channel, leaving exchange, custody and brokerage activity conducted through other channels without a Utah-specific consumer-protection overlay beyond generally applicable consumer-protection law. #### Outlook No further Utah-specific crypto consumer-protection instrument beyond HB 72's kiosk duties is evidenced as pending. The absence of a market-abuse or custody-segregation regime for non-kiosk crypto activity remains a structural gap; no primary or secondary source located addresses crypto market abuse or prudential capital requirements at the Utah state level, and this gap should be monitored for any future legislative attention. 1 earlier distinct update(s) Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11 #### Consumer Protection HB 72, the Criminal Use of Cryptocurrency Amendments, effective 6 May 2026, imposes new kiosk-specific consumer-protection duties that did not previously exist under Utah crypto law. Virtual-currency kiosk operators must post bilingual English and Spanish fraud-prevention warnings at the point of transaction, and must maintain a 24-hour toll-free customer service line so that a customer who suspects they are being defrauded has an immediate channel to seek help or halt a transaction. These duties sit alongside HB 72's graduated transaction-limit structure, which caps a new customer's kiosk transactions at $2,000 per day for the first three days of the relationship before allowing up to $5,000 per day thereafter, a structure plainly aimed at limiting exposure during the window when a customer is most likely to be a fraud victim rather than an established user. Beyond this kiosk-specific layer, Utah has no broader crypto-asset-service-provider-style consumer-protection regime: there is no state-level custody-segregation requirement, prudential-capital requirement, market-abuse prohibition, or order-handling rule applicable to crypto exchanges, custodians or brokers generally. The consumer-protection perimeter that does exist is therefore narrowly targeted at the kiosk delivery channel, leaving exchange, custody and brokerage activity conducted through other channels without a Utah-specific consumer-protection overlay beyond generally applicable consumer-protection law. #### Outlook No further Utah-specific crypto consumer-protection instrument beyond HB 72's kiosk duties is evidenced as pending this cycle. The absence of a market-abuse or custody-segregation regime for non-kiosk crypto activity remains a structural gap; no primary or secondary source located this cycle addresses crypto market abuse or prudential capital requirements at the Utah state level, and this gap should be monitored for any future legislative attention. 1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown. Evidence 8 Sources and findings (8) - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-102 a virtual currency kiosk operator may not accept transactions from one customer exceeding $2,000 per day during the first three calendar days after the customer's first transaction with that operator, or $5,000 per day thereafter.retrieved 2026-09-26M5bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must disclose the terms of the transaction and that virtual currency is not insured by the FDIC or SIPC, obtain the customer's acknowledgment, and display a fraud warning in English and Spanish.retrieved 2026-09-26M4bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must give the customer a receipt showing, among other things, the transaction hash, the sending and receiving addresses, the fees charged, the exchange rate and a statement of the operator's refund policy.retrieved 2026-09-26M3bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must provide a toll-free customer service line available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.retrieved 2026-09-26M3bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-104 a kiosk operator must keep transaction records and cooperate with law enforcement investigations.retrieved 2026-09-26M3bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0072.pdf) — Under Utah Code 13-82-106 the Division of Consumer Protection enforces the Kiosk Act, may impose administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation and $5,000 for violating an order, and a violation is a deceptive act or practice under the Consumer Sales Practices Act (Title 13 Chapter 11).retrieved 2026-09-26M4bindingin force - T1 · Utah State Legislature[Utah State Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/SB0173.html) — The Kiosk Act as enacted contains no cap on kiosk fees and no substantive right to a refund; the $1,000 daily limit and 3% fee cap proposed in S.B. 173 (2026) were not enacted.retrieved 2026-09-26M4non-binding ### C6Tax TreatmentGreenEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah has no crypto-specific income-tax rules. Utah individual income tax starts from federal adjusted gross income (Utah Code 59-10-103 adopts the Internal Revenue Code section 62 definition), so the federal treatment of digital assets as property, with gains and losses realised on sale or exchange and income recognised on receipt, flows into the Utah return. Utah taxes that income at a single flat rate, cut to 4.45% by S.B. 60 (2026) for taxable years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. The Utah State Tax Commission accepts cryptocurrency, via PayPal, for individual income tax payments. No Tax Commission publication on sales and use tax treatment of digital assets or NFTs was found. Horizon · 2026-Q4 (± six months) HB 141 international money transmission tax enactment status pending Proposed · Tier 1 source Periodic update · new data 2026-10-25 #### Tax Treatment HB 141, the International Money Transmission Amendments, would impose new tax and reporting duties on licensed money transmitters under proposed amendments to Utah Code Sections 59-10-1002.2, 59-10-1049, and 59-35-101 through 104, administered by the Utah State Tax Commission. Because HB 72's new kiosk registration track places virtual-currency kiosk operators within a licensed-money-transmitter-adjacent category, HB 141's tax and reporting obligations could potentially extend to kiosk operators registered under HB 72, depending on how the final bill text defines its scope of application. However, HB 141's final enactment status was not confirmed from a primary legislative-status source, and its effective date accordingly remains unconfirmed. No other Utah-specific crypto tax instrument is evidenced. Utah has no bespoke capital-gains or income-tax treatment for cryptocurrency transactions beyond the generally applicable state tax code, and HB 141's proposed amendments are narrower in scope, targeting the tax and reporting obligations of licensed money transmitters generally rather than crypto assets specifically. #### Outlook The principal item to watch is whether HB 141 reaches final enactment during the fourth quarter of 2026, as presently projected, and if so, whether its tax and reporting duties are drafted to reach virtual-currency kiosk operators registered under HB 72. Confirmation of final enactment status from a primary Utah legislative source is the specific gap to close before this module's status can be upgraded from proposed to settled. C6 · Tax Treatment — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 8 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-10-25 The decision headline, regulatory posture (Green), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) . [Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/) ### C7Cross-Border TransferGreenEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾# Utah imposes no state restriction on transferring digital assets across borders; Utah Code 7-29-103 affirmatively protects a person's right to transfer digital assets to another person or business using a blockchain protocol. Cross-border controls are federal: OFAC sanctions obligations apply to virtual currency transactions in the same way as to fiat and bind all US persons, including blocking and reporting within 10 business days. Federal travel-rule and reporting-threshold obligations are covered by the FIM aml_ctf subscription and the United States (US) jurisdiction, not reproduced here. Horizon · 2027-Q1 (± six months) Utah H.B. 141 international-transmission tax possible impact Proposed · Tier 1 source Horizon · 2027-Q1 (± six months) HB 141 international remittance tax — final disposition unresolved Proposed · Tier 1 source C7 · Cross-Border & Travel Rule — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 4 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-10-25 The decision headline, regulatory posture (Green), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) . [Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/) No categories match. Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups. Reset all filters ## 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. Not shown on this page. Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-10-27. 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 ; 7 module(s), 53 finding(s), 32 source(s) in the cumulative register. Audit trail Machine check Challenged on 24 Oct 2026: upheld (7 confirmed against the cited source; 9 could not be checked). An automated, adversarial test run by a second model; no person has assessed the result. Think something on this page is wrong? [Report an error](/legal/#contact).