Crypto firms continue to face banking refusals for account and partnership access, even as regulatory frameworks have expanded across jurisdictions. According to Jelizaveta Paskovskaja, Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) at CryptoProcessing by Coinspaid, the core issue is that regulation does not automatically translate into bank confidence—banks still need hard evidence that a crypto business operates with institutional-grade governance and risk controls.
Paskovskaja’s comments also point to a shift in how money-laundering risk is assessed: conversations are becoming more specific and evidence-based, yet “de-risking” can still turn into blanket exclusion when banks stop performing company-by-company evaluations.
Key takeaways
- No change in banking access despite more rules: Crypto firms still get turned away when banks cannot verify operational and compliance maturity.
- Trust must be demonstrated, not claimed: Banks are looking for governance, clear ownership, authority for compliance, and documented onboarding and escalation processes.
- Evidence is replacing assumptions: Industry AML discussions increasingly focus on specific typologies, transaction patterns, and source-of-funds or wealth considerations.
- Over-exclusion undermines transparency: Excessive de-risking that bypasses individual assessments can push activity into less transparent channels.
- Credibility becomes a competitive edge: Firms that prove controls work under pressure are more likely to secure long-term market access.
What drives banking refusals in crypto
While banks now operate within a more formal regulatory framework, Paskovskaja said that “framework” is not the same as trust. Many institutions, she argued, find it easier to issue a flat refusal than to conduct the deeper, risk-based assessment required for crypto partnerships.
In her view, the bank’s decision process typically hinges on whether the crypto firm looks and behaves like a serious financial institution rather than a technology startup with payments capabilities. That includes clear governance and ownership structures that can be mapped quickly by a bank’s own compliance team.
Equally important is whether the compliance function has the authority to pause or block high-risk deals. Paskovskaja added that documentation alone is insufficient; banks look for documented onboarding practices, escalation steps that occur on time, regular review cycles, and proof that previously flagged issues are actually resolved—not merely recorded.
Transparency and consistency also matter. A firm that can clearly explain its products, customer base, risk exposure, and risk management approach tends to earn confidence faster than one that provides high-level assurances.
From vague AML talk to fact-based risk assessment
Paskovskaja said AML risk understanding in crypto has become more concrete over time. Earlier conversations often relied on broad assumptions about how risk worked. Now, the dialogue is more likely to be tied to specific typologies and observable behaviors.
In Europe, she pointed to the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework as part of a more detailed expectations-setting environment. She also highlighted growing focus on sanctions, the Travel Rule, transaction monitoring, and source-of-funds requirements. As a result, industry discussions increasingly cover transaction patterns, wallet behavior, and distinctions tied to source of funds and source of wealth.
The implication for compliance is straightforward: rather than being judged primarily on presumptions, crypto providers are increasingly assessed on evidence.
Common misunderstandings that can lead to blanket exclusion
Paskovskaja described several recurring misconceptions that can distort banking decisions. One is the belief that crypto activity is automatically anonymous and therefore untraceable. She said blockchains are typically pseudonymous rather than anonymous, and that—using appropriate analytics tools—transactions can usually be traced and analyzed.
Another misconception is treating all crypto businesses as interchangeable. Paskovskaja argued that licensed entities with different operating models—such as payments providers, custodians, exchanges, or peer-to-peer platforms—often carry very different risk profiles and serve different customer bases. Their control setups also differ significantly, so grouping them into a single risk bucket misses the point of risk-based compliance.
She also cautioned against assuming that blockchain analytics alone can solve money-laundering risk. In her account, analytics are an important component but only function effectively when paired with KYC and KYB processes, sanctions screening, source-of-funds checks, ongoing monitoring, and governance.
Finally, Paskovskaja drew a line between legitimate risk management and excessive de-risking. She said overreacting can begin when a bank stops assessing firms individually and instead excludes an entire category purely based on sector exposure—without evaluating clients, controls, or whether monitoring frameworks hold up.
In her view, that approach can fail to make the financial system safer. Instead, it can reduce transparency and push activity toward channels that are harder to monitor.
What “good compliance” looks like operationally
Paskovskaja said strong compliance heading into 2026 should be proactive and embedded into the business rather than bolted on after the fact. She emphasized the need for governance, clear accountability, risk assessments that stay current, robust onboarding, and ongoing monitoring, alongside sanctions controls and a compliance team with authority to influence decisions.
In describing how CryptoProcessing by Coinspaid approaches compliance, she pointed to a routine built around regular maintenance rather than one-time policy creation. This includes keeping risk assessments updated, running onboarding through KYB checks, screening customers and transactions on a rolling basis, monitoring activity across both on-chain and off-chain layers, and escalating alerts through pre-mapped routes rather than improvised responses.
Controls, she added, should evolve as new typologies emerge. However, she argued that technical machinery is only part of what banks and regulators want. They also want discipline—straight answers, and accountability when risk is identified.
Beyond documentation, the operational requirement is clear: a crypto firm should run like a financial institution, with consistent onboarding, regular review cycles, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, staff training, and a compliance function that receives adequate resources.
She also noted that the regulatory backdrop is increasingly harmonized. In Europe, MiCA has created a single rulebook for crypto asset service providers, potentially making cross-border scaling less complicated than in the past. In the United States, the GENIUS Act became law in July 2025 and established a federal framework for payment stablecoins, though standards can still differ by jurisdiction and counterparty.
The next currency is credibility
For infrastructure providers operating in a fast-moving payments environment, Paskovskaja said the competitive dividing line will increasingly be credibility. She argued that speed and scale require layered controls—onboarding, ongoing monitoring, sanctions screening, transaction monitoring, and crypto-specific intelligence—but building that capability requires resources and time.
Looking ahead, she said firms that win market access will be those that are well governed and well controlled, and that can be read clearly from a risk perspective. The market will increasingly demand proof that AML and related controls work under pressure rather than relying on claims embedded only in policy documents.
For crypto businesses seeking broader banking relationships, the near-term focus remains on operational readiness: demonstrating governance, maintaining evidence of monitoring effectiveness, and preparing for regulator- and bank-specific thresholds that can still vary. Upcoming proof points will likely come through ongoing compliance testing, the continued rollout of jurisdiction-specific standards, and how banks respond to increasingly detailed expectations around sanctions and transaction monitoring.
