In our practice serving cryptocurrency firms across dozens of jurisdictions, we’re witnessing contrasting regulatory approaches between two major economies that illustrate the complex compliance landscape facing global operators. The Trump administration’s dismantling of enforcement policies put in place by earlier administrations stands in sharp relief against Brazil’s consultative approach toward comprehensive crypto regulation. This contrast between permissive deregulation and structured oversight offers valuable lessons for cross-border compliance strategies.
The Regulatory Contrast
In Washington, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s recent memo directs prosecutors to avoid charging regulatory violations unless there’s clear intent and knowledge — effectively ending the “regulation by enforcement” era. The SEC has dropped major lawsuits against Ripple, Binance, and Coinbase, signalling a dramatic shift toward industry accommodation. Across all regulatory and enforcement agencies, the US is shifting its focus towards innovation and growth, with federal agencies directing enforcement and oversight resources towards consumer protection and groups (particularly Transnational Criminal Organizations) abusing cryptocurrency platforms.
Meanwhile, in Brasília, Brazil’s Central Bank is moving full speed ahead with VASP licensing requirements and stablecoin oversight. With 90% of Brazil’s crypto transactions involving stablecoins, regulators are stepping up. The Virtual Assets Act implementation continues through phased public consultations, creating a comprehensive regulatory framework while the US retreats from oversight.
The Stablecoin Significance
Brazil’s stablecoin focus reveals a structured consultative approach to regulatory thinking and phased implementation which contrasts sharply with the US reframing to lighter touch regulation. While the US has recently passed the GENIUS act to create a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins, Brazilian regulators recognize that stablecoins represent the actual infrastructure of their crypto economy. The Central Bank has flagged systemic risks posed by unregulated stablecoin use and is preparing formal oversight mechanisms (see speech by Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil, 20 May 2025).
This approach reflects fundamentally different views of crypto’s role in national financial systems. The US is betting on industry self-regulation and market forces. Brazil is building comprehensive oversight that treats cryptocurrency as integral to national financial infrastructure.
Practical Implications for Global Operations
This regulatory contrast creates three critical risk categories that global firms must navigate:
Building a crypto-specific AML compliance and investigations program
A key consideration when creating a crypto-specific AML program is to design a framework tailored to the unique characteristics of digital assets and blockchain technology. Unlike traditional financial institutions, which often rely on centralized banking controls and predictable transaction patterns, crypto firms face additional risks which require enhanced monitoring and risk management. Such risks include pseudonymous transactions, decentralized networks, and rapid cross-border transfers.
The standard compliance program principles remain: for example, risk assessments tailored to regulatory guidance, refreshing policy and procedures to address the inherent risks, and maintaining robust CDD and EDD procedures. However, in the evolving crypto space, certain features become more important, such as:
Looking Ahead
The regulatory divergence between the US and Brazil represents more than policy differences — it signals competing visions for cryptocurrency’s role in the global financial system. For compliance professionals managing global operations, this moment demands strategic thinking about regulatory architecture that can accommodate both permissive and structured oversight regimes.
The rules governing cryptocurrency transactions, investigations, and enforcement are fragmenting along philosophical lines. Success will require understanding not just what regulations say, but how different regulatory philosophies shape compliance expectations across multiple markets. The US-Brazil split offers a case study in navigating this new reality.
