According to OFAC’s statement, CoinList had allowed clients from Crimea to use their services, in direct violation of the sanctions. The exchange’s employees were found to have opened a total of 89 accounts for these clients, all of whom indicated Russia as their country of residence but provided postal addresses on the Crimean Peninsula.

During the period from April 2020 to May 2022, CoinList conducted financial transactions for these clients, which amounted to a staggering 989 apparent violations of the sanctions regime. As a consequence, the exchange is now obliged to pay the substantial fine.

OFAC emphasized the importance of virtual currency companies abiding by sanctions in a risk-based manner, especially when catering to a global client base.

This incident comes on the heels of ATAIX Eurasia, a licensed cryptocurrency exchange in Kazakhstan, urging Russian users to close their accounts prior to December 15, 2022. This decision was driven by EU sanctions, which now prohibit the exchange from offering its services to Russian individuals and legal entities.

In another significant development, Binance, a major cryptocurrency exchange, made the decision to completely exit the Russian market at the end of September. The exchange sold its local business to CommEX as a result.

Delaware, New Jersey Move Ahead With Crypto ATM Bans as Regulators Close In

Delaware and New Jersey are moving toward outright bans on crypto ATMs, and the signal is not subtle. Lawmakers are tired of machines that scammers can steer victims toward in real time. Cash goes in. Crypto leaves. The victim often has no clean way back. My take: this is where the old “easy retail on-ramp” pitch starts sounding a lot less charming.

On Tuesday, the Delaware House Economic Committee passed House Bill 441, which would ban people from owning, installing, or operating a cryptocurrency kiosk. A day earlier, on Monday, the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously to send its own crypto ATM ban to the full Senate. Indiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota have already passed full bans this year. So no, this is not one state having a weird week.

The numbers are why this moved so fast. The FBI received nearly 13,500 complaints about crypto ATMs in 2025, with reported losses above $388 million. Complaints rose 23% from 2024. Losses climbed 58%. More than half of the complaints came from people over 50, and that group reported more than $302 million in losses. Hard to shrug off. Cyndie Romer, who sponsored the Delaware bill, said crypto ATMs “reduce digital currency to a predatory cash grab.” She pointed to fees that can top 20% of a transaction, compared with roughly 0.4% to 1% on online exchanges, and said there is “no reason to support a business structure that enables scammers to extort money from our most vulnerable populations.”

For crypto investors, this plugs straight into the regulation pressure story. Most guides treat crypto ATMs like a niche compliance issue. That is only half right. They are also one of crypto’s most visible cash entry points, especially for people who do not already have exchange accounts or easy banking access. Why does that matter? Because removing a visible on-ramp changes who can enter the market quickly. I would not argue that this alone moves Bitcoin (BTC) or Ethereum (ETH). It probably does not. But it adds friction, and crypto has never handled friction well. If retail interest cools because of these bans, BTC’s retail driven growth could slow from the kind of 15% quarterly gains often seen during bull runs.

Delaware’s bill is broader than a kiosk ban. It would also ban fiat-to-crypto sales that “replicate or substitute” crypto ATMs, including sales through point-of-sale systems or cashiers. Existing kiosks would have to come out within 90 days after the bill becomes law. Violations could cost up to $10,000. If a kiosk operates illegally, the operator would have to refund user fees or pay into a consumer protection fund. New Jersey’s bill uses a similar model, citing “a significant rise in scams associated with their use.” Penalties would start at $10,000 for a first offense and rise to $20,000 after that.

Then there is the timing. Indiana passed its ban in March. Tennessee followed in April. Minnesota did the same in May. Delaware and New Jersey are now pushing from committee to the next stage. That is a fast sequence, not a scattered set of complaints. Bitcoin Depot, once the world’s largest crypto ATM operator with more than 9,000 kiosks, blamed regulatory pressure as one major reason for its bankruptcy filing last month. Operators say they are not responsible for scammers and that they already use warnings and transaction limits. I’ll be honest: that defense may be true in a narrow legal sense, but it is not winning the political argument.

What this means

States are showing they will ban crypto services they see as harmful, instead of just tightening rules around them. Counter to the usual advice, this is not just about compliance teams reading bill text. It matters for any crypto business with physical locations, cash handling, direct fiat access, or a customer base that includes first-time buyers. BTC and ETH probably will not move much just because ATM kiosks disappear in a few states. The larger issue is market mood. If traders start expecting more state level crackdowns, prices could drift sideways or pull back.

Altcoins are more exposed. Yes, this slightly contradicts the point above about BTC and ETH being insulated, but bear with me. Retail enthusiasm matters more for smaller tokens, where big moves can still depend on fresh buyers showing up fast. Is this overkill for a few state bans? For a 50-page site, maybe. For a market that still reacts hard to regulatory headlines, no.

Traders should watch whether other states follow Delaware and New Jersey, especially states with large populations or heavy crypto use. Enforcement is the next test. If complaints fall after bans take effect, lawmakers elsewhere will have a simple argument for copying them. If scams just move to other channels, the debate gets messier. California and Arizona are worth watching because they have already capped transaction values and could move toward stricter rules. A steady run of bad regulatory headlines could test Bitcoin’s $60,000 support level. If the bans stop here, the market may have room to settle and try for recent highs again.