Federal enforcement in December 2025 landed squarely on a major peer‑to‑peer crypto marketplace, underscoring that traditional Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations apply to noncustodial and marketplace operators as much as to exchanges. Regulators from FinCEN and the Department of Justice brought parallel actions against Paxful for systemic compliance failures — a civil money penalty from FinCEN and criminal resolution under DOJ — that crystallize what examiners will expect from crypto platforms going forward.

What the enforcement found

• Timing and sanctions: In December 2025 FinCEN imposed a $3.5 million civil penalty; Paxful also pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to pay a $4 million penalty under the DOJ resolution.
• Core violations: regulators cited failure to register as a money services business (MSB), ineffective anti‑money‑laundering (AML) controls, and delayed filing of suspicious activity reports (SARs).
• Regulatory scope: FinCEN explicitly reinforced that peer‑to‑peer crypto platforms fall within the BSA regulatory perimeter and must meet the same registration and AML expectations as other MSBs.

FinCEN’s “Compliance Considerations”
Alongside the penalty, FinCEN released a structured set of “Compliance Considerations” that reads like a playbook for examiners. The document outlines expectations across several domains: registration, programmatic AML controls, geolocation and sanctions screening, timely SAR filing and recordkeeping, and integrated compliance governed by senior management. Those considerations emphasize that compliance is not just a checkbox but must be embedded in product design, operations, and vendor relationships. Source reference: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/fincen-publishes-first-set-of-compliance-considerations-in-parallel-civil-and-doj-enforcement-actions-against-crypto-company-paxful

Operational implications for crypto platforms

• Registration and legal assessment: Platforms offering fiat on‑ramps, peer matching, or facilitation of transfers must assess MSB status proactively and register where required. Late registration creates regulatory and criminal exposure.
• AML program design: Effective programs require integrated customer identification, ongoing risk assessment, transaction monitoring calibrated to product risk, escalation protocols, and independent testing. Superficial or siloed controls — e.g., KYC collected but not linked to transaction surveillance — will not satisfy expectations.
• SAR timing and quality: Delays in SAR filing were a central failure. Firms need playbooks and automation to ensure timely, actionable filings that document investigative steps and decisions.
• Geolocation and sanctions filtering: Peer‑to‑peer models that rely on user‑reported location require robust technical controls to prevent access from prohibited jurisdictions and to block sanctioned parties. Device, IP, and payment‑flow signals should be part of enforcement logic.
• Governance and third‑party risk: Compliance must be resourced and accountable at the board or senior‑management level; vendor controls and contract terms must allocate obligations and audit rights.

Market mechanics and cost of compliance
This enforcement recalibrates the tradeoffs projects make between growth, decentralization, and regulatory risk. Expect higher compliance costs, slower onboarding for higher‑risk cohorts, and product design changes to bake in geofencing and stronger identity linkage. For peer‑to‑peer liquidity providers, those changes can reduce frictionless cross‑border flows and push some activity toward self‑custodial or informal channels, which in turn raises illicit‑finance risks that regulators are incentivized to counter.

What firms should prioritize now
Regulated entities should treat the Compliance Considerations as prescriptive guardrails for product design, operations, vendor selection, and resourcing.