Stop Crypto ATM Scams Act
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Bank Secrecy Act to require operators of digital asset kiosks (machines that buy and sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin) to register with federal authorities and follow anti-money laundering and fraud-prevention rules similar to those that apply to banks and money transmitters. Currently, many digital asset kiosk operators operate with minimal federal oversight; this bill closes that gap.
Who benefits
Banks, licensed money transmitters, and cryptocurrency exchanges that are already regulated and compliant with AML/KYC rules (they face reduced competitive pressure from unregulated kiosk operators); law enforcement and federal financial crime agencies (expanded visibility into digital asset transactions); compliance technology vendors and consulting firms specializing in AML programs.
Who pays / loses
Digital asset kiosk operators (particularly smaller and independent operators without existing compliance infrastructure); consumers who use kiosks (transaction costs may increase to cover compliance expenses); businesses operating unregistered or lightly-regulated digital asset machines; international kiosk networks operating in the U.S. without federal oversight.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Financial institutions and traditional money transmitter companies have long lobbied for tighter regulation of cryptocurrency and digital asset service providers to level the compliance playing field. Compliance software and consulting firms (e.g., Lexis-Nexis, Thomson Reuters, FICO, AML-focused technology vendors) benefit from increased regulatory requirements that drive demand for compliance solutions. Law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Treasury's FinCEN division benefit from expanded regulatory authority and visibility. No sponsor finance data was provided, but this bill aligns with positions taken by the American Bankers Association and the Financial Services Roundtable, which have opposed unregulated competition from digital asset operators.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 8,000–20,000 digital asset kiosk operators globally (U.S. subset unknown from bill text, but significant in urban areas); cryptocurrency users who rely on kiosks for access (estimated 5–10% of U.S. crypto transactions occur via ATMs/kiosks based on industry reports); small and medium-sized independent kiosk operators in rural and underserved areas; consumers in low-banking areas who depend on kiosks as alternative financial access points.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill closes a critical AML/fraud loophole by subjecting digital asset kiosks to the same anti-money laundering rules that apply to banks and money transmitters, preventing criminals from using unregulated machines to launder proceeds from drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism financing. Critics (including libertarian groups and some cryptocurrency advocates) argue the bill imposes compliance burdens that will disproportionately harm small kiosk operators, reduce financial access in underserved communities, and stifle innovation in digital assets. The non-partisan policy consensus (reflected in FinCEN statements and Congressional Research Service analysis) supports AML compliance for all financial service providers handling customer funds, but debate persists over whether kiosks—which facilitate one-off transactions rather than account relationships—pose the same risk profile as traditional money transmitters.
Real-World Stakes
If this passes, digital asset kiosk operators will face compliance costs (legal, technology, staffing) similar to money transmitters, estimated at $50,000–$500,000+ annually for smaller operators depending on transaction volume. Kiosk operators may exit the market, reducing consumer access to cash-to-crypto conversion in underserved areas. Transaction fees at remaining kiosks will likely rise 5–15% to cover compliance. Law enforcement will gain visibility into previously opaque digital asset transactions, potentially disrupting money laundering schemes but also enabling broader financial surveillance. New York's BitLicense (enacted 2015) and FinCEN's 2013 guidance on virtual currency money transmitters provide analogous precedent: compliance costs drove consolidation in the virtual currency industry and reduced retail access points, while improving AML visibility. States that have imposed stricter digital asset regulation (New York, California) saw fewer kiosk locations but higher transaction volumes per remaining operator.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (2)
RRep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]RRep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$101,083.23
Finance$17,850
Construction$9,330
Transportation$3,750
Healthcare$1,605
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.