The Traditional Banking Lobby Is Threatening to Sue Over Crypto Charters

The Bank Policy Institute hasn't filed a lawsuit yet. But they're preparing one.

The target: Jonathan Gould's OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and its new approach to crypto banking charters.

Members include Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, and dozens of other large financial institutions. They've retained outside counsel to explore litigation.

The complaint: Gould is using a lighter regulatory pathway to approve crypto trust bank charters than he applies to traditional banks.

The Timeline of Approvals

In December 2025, Gould issued conditional approvals to five companies in rapid succession: Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, Circle, Fidelity.

Then in early 2026, three more followed: Stripe's Bridge subsidiary, Crypto.com, Protego.

ZeroHash filed March 4. Kraken's Fed master account approval same day.

That's 11 approvals or filings in 83 days. The prior pace under different leadership was measured in years between approvals.

What BPI Actually Wants

The complaint isn't that crypto companies shouldn't have charters. It's that the approval process is asymmetrical.

BPI argues traditional banks face stricter capital requirements, more extensive regulatory oversight, higher compliance costs, and deeper regulatory scrutiny before charter approval.

Crypto companies, BPI alleges, are getting conditional approvals with lighter requirements. That creates unfair competitive advantage - crypto operators can offer bank-like services without the same supervision.

If that's true, it is a valid complaint. Regulatory arbitrage harms competition.

If it's false, BPI's lawsuit fails on substance.

Other Regulatory Opposition

BPI isn't alone. The American Bankers Association, Independent Community Bankers of America, and Conference of State Bank Supervisors are all critical of the rapid crypto charter pace.

They've issued public statements. Some sent letters to Congress. But none have filed or committed to litigation yet.

BPI moving first signals escalation beyond comment letters.

The Comptroller's Defense

Gould's argument is straightforward: the OCC has authority to issue trust bank charters to crypto companies. The law allows it. The companies meet requirements. Approval follows.

He'd argue conditional approvals include substantial oversight requirements: Enhanced risk management frameworks. Segregated digital asset custody. Regular regulatory exams. Capital and liquidity requirements tailored to crypto risk.

Those aren't lighter requirements. They're different requirements.

The burden on BPI's litigation: proving the OCC's criteria are inconsistent across applicant types.

The Political Layer

Gould was appointed by Trump. The banking lobby is politically diverse - JPMorgan is represented in multiple administrations. But their interest in protecting regulatory advantage is constant.

If a future Democratic administration takes over the OCC, litigation pressure might increase. If Republicans remain, Gould can ignore it.

The lawsuit isn't primarily legal - it's political. It signals to Congress: your regulators are moving too fast without your approval.

Why Congress Matters

Congress hasn't passed crypto banking legislation. The OCC is acting under existing authority granted decades ago, before anyone thought about digital assets.

If BPI wins litigation, it might force Congress to clarify authority. That could lock crypto charters into a specific statute rather than allowing OCC discretion.

BPI might prefer that - it gives them input into the terms of the law.

The Merits Question

Let's assume BPI files and survives motions to dismiss. Do they have a strong case?

Strength depends on evidence: Are crypto charter approval criteria actually lighter than traditional charter criteria? Discovery would prove or disprove this. Are conditional approvals actually enforced, or are they theater? Examination reports would show. Are the crypto companies actually operating under the conditions, or is the OCC looking the other way? Regulatory exam history matters.

Those are factual questions. BPI would need to discovery OCC internal documents comparing approval standards.

The OCC would argue the standards are comparable but tailored to different risk profiles. That's a defensible position if the record supports it.

No Filed Lawsuit Yet

As of mid-March 2026, no lawsuit has been filed. BPI has retained counsel and is considering options. That's the stage of seriousness before litigation.

If they file, expect a motion to dismiss. If they survive that, discovery becomes the battle. The OCC will argue the suit is political and lacks merit. BPI will argue disparate treatment.

The court will decide on the record.

What It Means for Crypto Charters

Litigation doesn't stop new approvals. Gould can keep issuing conditional charters while the case proceeds. By the time a verdict comes down, there could be 20 approved crypto trust banks.

So the lawsuit's real function is signaling to Congress: regulate this, or courts will.

Congress hasn't moved. So litigation becomes the pressure tactic.

Follow @DailyStackHQ @21RatesHQ @avinmash @JodyFlournoy