Skip to content

Menu

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

OCC Conditionally Approves Digital Asset Trust Bank Charters, Signaling Cautious Expansion of Federal Oversight

By A.J. Dhaliwal, John Mysliwiec & Maxwell Earp-Thomas on December 19, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Consumer-Finance-and-FinTech-Blog-Image-Crypto-Wallet-660x283

On December 12, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced conditional approval for five national trust bank charter applications from five major crypto companies. These conditional approvals mark a notable development in the federal supervision of crypto-native business models, underscoring the OCC’s continued caution in extending the national banking framework to firms engaged in digital asset custody and stablecoin-related activities.

National trust banks operate under a limited charter. Unlike full-service national banks, trust banks generally may not accept deposits or make loans as principal and instead focus on fiduciary and custodial activities. In recent years, several digital asset firms have pursued this charter as an alternative to operating under a patchwork of state money transmission and trust company regimes, seeking the benefits of a single federal regulator and nationwide authority without becoming insured depository institutions.

The conditional nature of these approvals reflects broader policy debates surrounding the role of national trust banks in the digital asset ecosystem. Banking trade groups have questioned whether the trust charter framework, historically designed for fiduciary and custodial services, is appropriate for the applicants’ business models, which involve high-volume payment settlement, stablecoin reserve management, and other crypto-related activities. Banking trade groups have also expressed concerns about charter arbitrage and the potential for trust banks to engage in bank-like functions without being subject to the full prudential regime applicable to federally insured depository institutions.

At the same time, the OCC’s conditional approvals suggest a willingness to engage with digital asset firms seeking to operate within the federal banking system, provided that such firms accept meaningful constraints and enhanced supervision. In this sense, the approvals may be understood not as an endorsement of any particular business model, but as a controlled experiment in bringing certain crypto activities under a uniform federal supervisory framework.

Putting It Into Practice: Digital asset firms considering a national trust bank charter should expect a highly conditioned and supervisory-intensive process. Applicants should be prepared to demonstrate mature governance structures, detailed activity-level risk assessments, and conservative operational plans aligned with the traditional fiduciary role of trust banks. Firms should anticipate ongoing reporting requirements and potential OCC-imposed restrictions on permissible activities. Market participants should also continue to monitor whether future applications face heightened scrutiny or a narrower range of permissible activities as the trust charter pathway evolves.

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 John Mysliwiec John Mysliwiec

John Mysliwiec is an associate in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm’s San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Read more about John MysliwiecEmail
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:
    Law of The Ledger
  • 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