The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), an organization associated with some of the largest financial institutions in the US, is actively exploring the possibility of taking legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The dispute revolves around the federal regulator’s recent adjustments to rules governing national trust charters, which have opened the door for cryptocurrency firms, payment processors, and other fintech players to gain expanded operating powers.
Representing roughly 40 major lenders—including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup—the BPI argues that these charters risk undermining consumer safeguards and overall financial stability.
By granting approval, the OCC allegedly allows non-bank entities to function with many advantages of traditional banks while facing lighter supervision and fewer mandatory controls.
This could blur long-standing distinctions between what constitutes a bank, potentially creating loopholes that heighten systemic vulnerabilities.
At the center of the controversy is OCC Director Jonathan Gould, a presidential appointee with prior experience in the crypto sector.
Under his leadership, the agency has reinterpreted federal licensing provisions, making it simpler for digital asset and blockchain companies to secure nationwide trust charters.
These charters deliver key benefits, such as overriding certain state-level restrictions, direct access to Federal Reserve payment systems, and the prestige of federal oversight—advantages that fintechs have long sought to escape fragmented state-by-state licensing requirements.
The move aligns with broader efforts to integrate innovative financial services into the mainstream economy.
In January, a cryptocurrency initiative tied to the president’s family submitted its own application, drawing attention amid the policy shift.
Last October, the BPI formally urged the OCC to deny pending requests from prominent players including stablecoin issuer Circle, blockchain firm Ripple, and international payments provider Wise.
The group warned that permitting lighter-touch regulation for bank-like services could erode the integrity of the national banking system and expose the economy to unnecessary risks.
Support for the BPI’s stance has come from other quarters.
The Conference of State Bank Supervisors, representing regulators nationwide, recently cautioned that approving such entities outside core federal banking statutes would weaken competition, consumer protections, and stability.
Similarly, the Independent Community Bankers of America, which speaks for thousands of smaller institutions, has highlighted critical concerns about regulatory gaps.
The BPI’s board—featuring high-profile leaders such as JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan, and Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon—has not yet committed to filing suit.
Sources indicate internal deliberations continue, though the organization has a track record of assertive legal challenges, including a successful 2024 case against the Federal Reserve over stress-testing changes.
The OCC has defended its approvals, noting that fresh market entrants ultimately serve consumers, banks, and economic growth.
However, the BPI previously expressed reservations, questioning whether the tailored conditions adequately match the specific risks involved.
This brewing conflict highlights deepening tensions between established banking interests and the surge of digital innovation.
Traditional lenders worry that rushed integration could compromise hard-won safeguards, while proponents see charters as a pathway to modernization and broader access.
Should the BPI proceed, the lawsuit could set important precedents for how regulators balance competition, innovation, and safety in an evolving financial services sector. As discussions unfold, the outcome may influence not only charter approvals but also the future trajectory of crypto and fintech within the U.S. banking system.