Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

DFPI Imposes Up to $1 Million Penalty on Crypto Kiosk Operator for Alleged Digital Financial Assets Law Violation

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas on January 29, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Consumer-Finance-and-FinTech-Blog-Image-Crypto-660x283

On January 16, the DFPI entered into a consent order with a digital financial asset kiosk operator, based on DFPI’s allegations that the operator violated the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL), the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). According to the consent order, the kiosk operator:

  • Processed transactions above the daily dollar cap. The kiosks accepted more than $1,000 from a customer in a single day, in violation of the DFAL and the CCFPL.
  • Charged fees above the permitted limits. Transactions included charges that exceeded the applicable fee cap, in violation of the DFAL and the CCFPL.
  • Completed transactions without required pre-transaction disclosures. Customers did not receive required written disclosures before certain transactions, including required fee and pricing information,
  • Printed receipts missing spread transparency information. Receipts omitted the spread amount and the exchange used to calculate the spread.
  • Maintained an AML program DFPI viewed as insufficient for kiosk risks. The operator did not maintain an effective anti-money laundering program with controls commensurate with its kiosk activity, including customer identification related controls, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.

Under the consent order, the operator agreed to stop engaging in digital financial asset business activity with California residents within 30 calendar days unless and until it obtains a license from DFPI. The order also imposes a $1,000,000 administrative penalty that becomes due and payable if the operator fails to comply with the consent order’s requirements.

Putting It Into Practice: DFPI’s crypto kiosk enforcement posture continues to emphasize transaction caps, fee limits, and transaction-level disclosures for cash-to-crypto activity (previously discussed here and here). Kiosk operators should validate California-specific controls for daily limit logic, fee and spread calculations, disclosure delivery at the point of sale, receipt fields, and escalation processes for suspected fraud, including scams affecting older adults.

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Maxwell Earp-Thomas Maxwell Earp-Thomas

Max is an associate in the Finance & Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Maxwell Earp-ThomasEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

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

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • 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