The Bank Policy Institute is preparing a lawsuit against the OCC to void the first wave of national trust charters granted to crypto firms, arguing they create a shadow banking system without equivalent regulatory burden.
What the BPI Is Actually Arguing
The Bank Policy Institute, which represents JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and most of the largest American financial institutions, is drafting legal action targeting the OCC’s new National Trust Charters for crypto firms including Circle and Zero Hash. The core argument has three layers.
The first is competitive asymmetry. BPI contends that crypto firms receiving national charters gain access to the federal payment system and the credibility of a national banking designation without carrying the costs that designation requires of traditional banks. No FDIC insurance obligation. No equivalent capital requirements. Access to the same infrastructure at a fraction of the compliance cost.
🇺🇸 NEW: The Bank Policy Institute is weighing a lawsuit against the OCC over new crypto banking licenses it says put consumers at risk, The Guardian reports. pic.twitter.com/un6q7dd2uj
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) March 10, 2026
The second is systemic risk. The legal draft, as reported by The Guardian, frames these licenses as creating a shadow banking system. The argument is that if a crypto trust bank collapses, the contagion reaches traditional banks that are required to interact with them, socializing losses across institutions that had no choice in the relationship.
The third is consumer protection, the framing the BPI is leading with publicly. Crypto trust banks lack the safety and soundness standards that protect depositors, the argument goes, and the OCC is stretching its legal authority by classifying digital asset companies as banks in the first place.
The Real Concern Behind the Legal Arguments
The deposit flight argument buried inside the BPI’s position is the one that explains the urgency. The OCC granted the first wave of these charters on March 4. Traditional banks are watching the CLARITY Act debate — covered in this publication yesterday — where the stablecoin yield provision is the central point of contention. That provision would allow crypto firms to pay interest on stablecoin holdings.
A crypto trust bank with a national charter paying yield on dollar-denominated digital accounts is structurally competitive with a checking account paying near zero. The BPI’s member institutions understand this arithmetic. A lawsuit that ties the OCC in years of litigation creates enough legal uncertainty that crypto firms may avoid applying for additional charters regardless of the outcome. That is the strategic objective the consumer protection framing covers.
This pattern appeared earlier this week in the CLARITY Act context. Former CFTC Chairman Giancarlo identified the banking industry as the primary obstacle to legislation it ostensibly needs, because the stablecoin yield provision threatens deposit bases. The BPI lawsuit is the same conflict expressed through litigation rather than lobbying.
What the OCC’s Position Creates
Acting Comptroller Michael Hsu’s shift toward integrating crypto firms into the federal banking system represents a meaningful policy departure. National trust charters for Circle and Zero Hash give those companies something that no amount of regulatory tolerance previously provided: explicit federal legitimacy. BPI wants a federal court to declare those charters illegal and void entirely.
Whether the legal argument holds depends on how courts interpret the OCC’s statutory authority to define what constitutes a bank. That question does not have an obvious answer, which is precisely why the litigation strategy works as a delay mechanism regardless of the eventual ruling.
The banks that spent years calling crypto a systemic risk are now arguing in court that crypto firms should be kept out of the regulated banking system. Both positions serve the same institutional interest. The framing changed. The objective did not.
