Blab Crypto
Crypto Firms Still Face Bank Rejections Despite Growing Regulation, Says CryptoProcessing MLRO
Even as regulators roll out sweeping rules, banks continue to turn crypto firms away. On 23 June 2026, Jelizaveta Paskovskaja, Money‑Laundering Reporting Officer at CryptoProcessing by Coinspaid, warned that the industry still struggles to gain reliable banking services.
Paskovskaja explained that the root problem is not a lack of regulation, but a lack of trust. Frameworks such as the EU’s MiCA or the U.S. GENIUS Act lay out clear rules, yet banks still demand a deeper understanding of a crypto company’s day‑to‑day operations before opening an account.
In practice, many institutions prefer to refuse service outright rather than build a risk‑based view of a new partner. The decision hinges on whether the firm resembles a traditional financial institution. Key signals include clear governance structures, ownership that can be mapped in an afternoon, and a compliance function empowered to halt risky transactions.
Beyond paperwork, banks look for documented onboarding procedures, timely escalation of alerts, regular review cycles, and proof that flagged issues are resolved rather than merely logged. Transparency and consistency are therefore non‑negotiable.
The industry’s grasp of money‑laundering risk has sharpened. Earlier conversations were vague; today regulators and firms discuss specific typologies, transaction patterns, sanctions exposure, wallet behaviour, and the source of funds and wealth. In Europe, MiCA combined with the Travel Rule, transaction‑monitoring and sanctions‑screening requirements has made the risk profile more concrete.
Paskovskaja highlighted several persistent misconceptions. First, crypto is not automatically anonymous; most transactions are pseudonymous and can be traced with analytics tools. Second, treating all crypto businesses the same ignores the different risk profiles of licensed payment providers, custodians, exchanges, and peer‑to‑peer platforms. Third, blockchain analytics alone cannot replace KYC, KYB, sanctions checks, source‑of‑funds verification, ongoing monitoring, and strong governance.
At CryptoProcessing, compliance is proactive rather than reactive. The firm maintains up‑to‑date risk assessments, performs KYB‑based onboarding, screens customers and transactions on a rolling basis, and monitors on‑chain and off‑chain activity side by side. Alerts follow pre‑mapped escalation paths, and controls are refined as new typologies emerge.
The regulatory backdrop is shifting toward a single harmonised rulebook. MiCA, fully applicable since December 2024, eases cross‑border scaling for crypto‑asset service providers. The GENIUS Act, enacted July 2025, establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. Despite these advances, individual banks and partners often apply higher internal thresholds than the legal minimum, so differences remain.
In short, the path to banking access now depends on credibility. Firms that demonstrate real, operational AML controls, clear governance, and a risk‑based approach are more likely to win market access. CryptoProcessing’s MLRO says the company is building a compliance program that aligns with these expectations, aiming to prove that its operations run like a traditional financial institution rather than a tech startup.
Over the next few months, banks and regulators will test these claims as they evaluate crypto firms’ readiness to meet evolving AML and sanctions requirements. Until then, the gap between regulation and trust will continue to shape the industry’s relationship with the banking sector.
Paskovskaja explained that the root problem is not a lack of regulation, but a lack of trust. Frameworks such as the EU’s MiCA or the U.S. GENIUS Act lay out clear rules, yet banks still demand a deeper understanding of a crypto company’s day‑to‑day operations before opening an account.
In practice, many institutions prefer to refuse service outright rather than build a risk‑based view of a new partner. The decision hinges on whether the firm resembles a traditional financial institution. Key signals include clear governance structures, ownership that can be mapped in an afternoon, and a compliance function empowered to halt risky transactions.
Beyond paperwork, banks look for documented onboarding procedures, timely escalation of alerts, regular review cycles, and proof that flagged issues are resolved rather than merely logged. Transparency and consistency are therefore non‑negotiable.
The industry’s grasp of money‑laundering risk has sharpened. Earlier conversations were vague; today regulators and firms discuss specific typologies, transaction patterns, sanctions exposure, wallet behaviour, and the source of funds and wealth. In Europe, MiCA combined with the Travel Rule, transaction‑monitoring and sanctions‑screening requirements has made the risk profile more concrete.
Paskovskaja highlighted several persistent misconceptions. First, crypto is not automatically anonymous; most transactions are pseudonymous and can be traced with analytics tools. Second, treating all crypto businesses the same ignores the different risk profiles of licensed payment providers, custodians, exchanges, and peer‑to‑peer platforms. Third, blockchain analytics alone cannot replace KYC, KYB, sanctions checks, source‑of‑funds verification, ongoing monitoring, and strong governance.
At CryptoProcessing, compliance is proactive rather than reactive. The firm maintains up‑to‑date risk assessments, performs KYB‑based onboarding, screens customers and transactions on a rolling basis, and monitors on‑chain and off‑chain activity side by side. Alerts follow pre‑mapped escalation paths, and controls are refined as new typologies emerge.
The regulatory backdrop is shifting toward a single harmonised rulebook. MiCA, fully applicable since December 2024, eases cross‑border scaling for crypto‑asset service providers. The GENIUS Act, enacted July 2025, establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. Despite these advances, individual banks and partners often apply higher internal thresholds than the legal minimum, so differences remain.
In short, the path to banking access now depends on credibility. Firms that demonstrate real, operational AML controls, clear governance, and a risk‑based approach are more likely to win market access. CryptoProcessing’s MLRO says the company is building a compliance program that aligns with these expectations, aiming to prove that its operations run like a traditional financial institution rather than a tech startup.
Over the next few months, banks and regulators will test these claims as they evaluate crypto firms’ readiness to meet evolving AML and sanctions requirements. Until then, the gap between regulation and trust will continue to shape the industry’s relationship with the banking sector.
