Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

OFAC Announces Second Enforcement Action Targeting a Digital Asset Company

By Brian Egan, Alan Cohn, Jack Hayes, Evan Abrams & Jack Ritossa on February 19, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On February 18, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets control (OFAC) announced a $507,375 settlement with BitPay, Inc. (BitPay).  This civil settlement resolved apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs related to digital currency transactions, and is the second OFAC enforcement case brought against a business in the blockchain industry.  This case follows OFAC’s December 2020 civil enforcement action against another blockchain industry company, BitGo, Inc. (BitGo), for alleged violations of multiple US sanctions programs related to digital currency transactions.  See our prior blog post on the BitGo action here.

BitPay, based in Atlanta, Georgia, offers a payment processing solution for merchants to accept digital currency as payment for goods and services.  The apparent sanctions violations relate to digital currency transactions on the BitPay platform between individuals located in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and the Crimea region of Ukraine (annexed by Russia) and merchants in the United States and elsewhere.  OFAC acknowledged that BitPay screened its customers, the merchants, against US sanctions lists, but stated that BitPay had reason to know that purchasers dealing with the merchants were located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions because the company had location information, including Internet Protocol (IP) address data, about those persons.  This case was not voluntarily disclosed, but OFAC found that the violations were not egregious.

According to OFAC, BitPay allowed persons in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions to conduct approximately $129,000 worth of digital currency transactions with BitPay’s merchant customers.  As described in OFAC’s enforcement release, between approximately June 10, 2013, and September 16, 2018, BitPay processed 2,102 transactions from individuals with IP addresses located in the sanctioned jurisdictions.  The transactions related to BitPay’s payment processing service.  BitPay allegedly received digital currency payments on behalf of its merchant customers from those merchants’ buyers, who were located in sanctioned jurisdictions.  BitPay then converted the digital currency into fiat, and then relayed that currency to its merchant customers.

BitPay collected certain pieces of information on the buyers including the buyers’ name, address, email address, and, starting in November 2017, the buyer’s IP addresses.  However, BitPay’s transaction review process did not appropriately analyze this location and identification information, resulting in persons located in the comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions making purchases from US merchants.

OFAC has previously cited companies for violations based, at least in part, on a failure to implement IP geo-blocking in a number of non-blockchain contexts, including actions targeting Amazon, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Standard Chartered Bank, and in the BitGo action noted above.

Pursuant to OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines, OFAC identified two factors that it determined to be aggravating factors:

  • BitPay failed to exercise “due caution or care for its sanctions compliance obligations” by allowing persons in sanctioned jurisdictions to transact with BitPay’s merchants using digital currency for approximately five years, while BitPay allegedly had sufficient location information to screen those customers; and
  • BitPay conveyed $128,582.61 in economic benefit to individuals located in several sanctioned jurisdictions, thereby damaging the integrity of those sanctions programs.

However, OFAC also found a number of mitigating factors:

  • BitPay implemented certain sanctions compliance controls as early as 2013, including due diligence and sanctions screening efforts on its merchant customers, and formalized its sanctions compliance program in 2014;
  • BitPay provided employee training, including to senior management, that merchant sign-ups from Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Crimea, as well as trade with sanctioned individuals and entities, were prohibited;
  • BitPay is a small business and had not received a penalty notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years from the date of the earliest apparent violation;
  • BitPay cooperated with OFAC’s investigation into the apparent violations and terminated the conduct that led to the violations; and
  • BitPay implemented a series of measures intended to minimize the risk of a recurrence of the conduct in question. The controls included blocking IP addresses that appear to originate in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions, checking physical and email addresses of merchants’ buyers to prevent completion of an invoice if BitPay identifies a sanctioned jurisdiction address or email domain associated with a sanctioned jurisdiction, and launching BitPay ID, a customer identification tool that is mandatory for merchants’ buyers who wish to pay a BitPay invoice of $3,000 or above.

The company could have faced a statutory maximum civil monetary penalty of $619,689,816, but the penalty was reduced to $507,375 in accordance with OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines.

The enforcement release highlighted the importance of having an appropriate risk-based compliance program and emphasized that companies providing digital asset services should take steps to mitigate sanctions risks associated with such services.  The agency’s Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments lays out factors it looks for when reviewing such programs.  With respect to sanctions screening, OFAC noted that this case “emphasizes the importance of screening all available information, including IP addresses and other location data of customers and counterparties, to mitigate sanctions risks in connection with digital currency services.”  Taken together, OFAC’s recent actions against BitGo and BitPay suggest the agency is placing increased focused on the blockchain industry and that companies that have not adopted and implemented a robust OFAC compliance program may be at risk in future enforcement actions.

Photo of Brian Egan Brian Egan

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and…

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and issues of public international law. He has worked in various senior legal positions for the US government, giving him keen insight into domestic and international legal matters that influence US government national security and foreign relations policies and programs. Before joining Steptoe, Brian served as the Legal Adviser to the US Department of State, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, Deputy White House Counsel, and Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence with the US Department of the Treasury. Brian has regularly appeared in public fora to speak on international legal issues, including testifying before Congress, public speaking engagements, and panel presentations.

Read Brian’s full bio.

Email
Show more Show less
Photo of Alan Cohn Alan Cohn

Alan Cohn counsels clients on a range of blockchain- and cryptocurrency-related issues, from regulatory best practices for cryptocurrency companies to legal issues associated with novel uses of blockchain technology. In addition to co-leading Steptoe’s Blockchain & Cryptocurrency practice, Alan also co-leads the firm’s…

Alan Cohn counsels clients on a range of blockchain- and cryptocurrency-related issues, from regulatory best practices for cryptocurrency companies to legal issues associated with novel uses of blockchain technology. In addition to co-leading Steptoe’s Blockchain & Cryptocurrency practice, Alan also co-leads the firm’s National and Homeland Security practice, and has experience across homeland security, emergency management, and emergency response services at the federal and local level. Read Alan’s fill bio.

Read more about Alan CohnEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jack Hayes Jack Hayes

Jack Hayes has extensive experience providing clients with advice and assistance under ITAR and EAR, as well as US economic sanctions and anti-boycott regulations. Jack frequently handles complex export control matters, including voluntary disclosures, internal investigations of apparent export control violations, pre-closing and…

Jack Hayes has extensive experience providing clients with advice and assistance under ITAR and EAR, as well as US economic sanctions and anti-boycott regulations. Jack frequently handles complex export control matters, including voluntary disclosures, internal investigations of apparent export control violations, pre-closing and post-closing acquisition export compliance due diligence, export control audits, and assessments of compliance obligations and risks in accordance with relevant international trade regulations. He also provides guidance on brokering requirements and reporting obligations for certain fees, commissions, and political contributions related to sales of defense articles and defense services, prepares export and reexport license and agreement applications for submission, undertakes commodity jurisdiction and export classification analyses of items and services under the ITAR and EAR, drafts registration material change notifications, and develops compliance policies, programs, and training materials.

Read Jack’s full bio.

Read more about Jack HayesEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Evan Abrams Evan Abrams

Evan Abrams counsels multinational corporations, financial institutions, and individuals on various international regulatory and compliance matters. He assists foreign and domestic companies in navigating national security reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). He has represented companies in…

Evan Abrams counsels multinational corporations, financial institutions, and individuals on various international regulatory and compliance matters. He assists foreign and domestic companies in navigating national security reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). He has represented companies in industries including semiconductors, metals, and digital security. Evan’s anti-money laundering (AML) practice focuses on helping financial institutions comply with federal and state AML rules, particularly money transmitters and entities involved in creating, exchanging, or dealing in cryptocurrencies and tokens. Evan counsels clients in a variety of export controls and sanctions matters related to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and various sanctions programs under US and international law. In addition, Evan routinely assists clients on anti-corruption investigations and enforcement actions.

Read Evan’s full bio.

Read more about Evan AbramsEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    International Compliance Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo