SHARE

July 29, 2022

Connecticut Department of Banking Issues Advisory on Money Transmission

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Key Takeaways

  • The Department acknowledges that many consumers do “not realize or understand the regulatory landscape that applies” to using money transmitters.

On July 20, 2022, the Connecticut Department of Banking (the "Department") issued a Consumer and Industry Advisory on Money Transmission (the "Advisory").  The Department believes the Advisory was necessary for two reasons.  First, the Department notes the "significant disruption to traditional money transmission systems" caused by the "increased use of technology to enable immediate payment mechanisms" and "the explosion of virtual currency."  Second, the Department acknowledges that many consumers do "not realize or understand the regulatory landscape that applies" to using money transmitters.

Although the Department cautions that "[e]ach circumstance is unique," the Advisory provides general guidance on what types of activities and entities must be licensed.  The Advisory lists entities that traditionally provide transmission services like bill payers, payroll processors, and issuers and sellers of prepaid cards and money orders.  It also explains that transmission can occur whenever "a person takes possession or control of monetary value belonging to another person" and either holds it for "a period of time" or transmits it to a third party.  In other words, unless a company falls within an exemption or exception, if it engages in the above activity in Connecticut or with Connecticut companies or individuals, it may need to first obtain a license.

The definition of money transmission was further broadened in 2018 when Connecticut amended its money transmitter statute to encompass transmission activities involving virtual currency.  In the advisory, the Department emphasizes that these statutory amendments cover all types of virtual currencies, stablecoins, and "any other digital asset that is used as a medium of exchange."  Moreover, the Department points out that providing a virtual currency custodial wallet (i.e., holding virtual currency on behalf of another) or virtual currency ATMs that serve as an intermediary between a buyer or seller are also engaging in money transmission.

Finally, the Department discusses Connecticut's license application and penalties for unlicensed transmission.  Like many states, licensure goes through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, NMLS, and involves submitting applications for both the entity seeking licensure and all "control persons."  Beyond these applications and related fees, Connecticut also requires submission of financials, a business plan, the proposed flow of funds, and an Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") policy, among other documents.  Posting of a surety bond valued at between $300,000 and $1 million is also required.

Seemingly in response to a noted uptick "in the number of entities engaged in unlicensed money transmission activity"—especially Internet transmission services and virtual currency companies—the Advisory ends with a warning: unlicensed transmission brings with it the risk of a $100,000 fine per violation and a felony charge.  And, of course, operating as an unlicensed money transmitter is a federal felony and a violation of the BSA.  Companies based in Connecticut or serving customers in Connecticut should be careful to examine this Advisory and their activities to ensure that they are not engaging in money transmission activities that would require licensure.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Ballard Spahr

New York Restricts Automated Decision Making in Employment

By Timothy Dickens Ballard Spahr August 29 , 2022

Businesses operating in New York City should be aware of a local law addressing the use of automated employment screening and decision-making tools coming into effect on January 1, 2023.

Status Update: Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate Injunction Narrowed

By Lila A. Sevener Ballard Spahr August 29 , 2022

On August 26, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit narrowed the nationwide injunction of Executive Order 14042, which requires federal contractors and employees who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract, or share a workplace with another employee who works on or in connection with such contracts, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Unions Cannot Force OSHA to Issue Permanent COVID Standard

By Shannon D. Farmer Ballard Spahr August 26 , 2022

On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned back efforts by a group of unions seeking to force the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to quickly issue a permanent rule establishing protections for healthcare workers from COVID-19.

More From Cryptocurrency

Guilty! Criminal Convictions In The First Ever NFT And Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Cases

By Kimberly L. Barcella Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti May 25 , 2023

Last year, we discussed the NFT-related criminal charges filed against Nathaniel Chastain, OpenSea’s former product manager.

UK Imposes New Russia Sanctions on 86 People and Companies, Including Metal and Diamond Industries

By Annabel Thomas Greenberg Traurig May 24 , 2023

The UK announced on May 19 a new wave of sanctions against Russia with the aim of increasing pressure on President Putin.

Are Syndicated Term Loans Securities Under Reves v. Ernst & Young? 2nd Circuit Solicits SEC Views

By Daria K. Boxer Greenberg Traurig May 18 , 2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to share its views on the issue of whether syndicated term loans are securities for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), under the four-prong “family resemblance” test enumerated in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990).

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...