TRM Labs 2025 Global Crypto Report provided a clear view of how global policymakers accelerated crypto oversight throughout the year. Stablecoins shaped regulatory priorities, institutional adoption gained traction through clearer licensing frameworks, and supervisors strengthened AML expectations across major markets. Authorities in regions including the US, EU, UK, and Asia Pacific focused on consistent enforcement, stronger reporting standards, and cross-border coordination. The result was a maturing global regulatory landscape that aligned digital asset activity more closely with established financial crime controls.

Stablecoin Oversight as the Primary Focus Keyword

Stablecoins dominated regulatory agendas in 2025 as confirmed by official publications from regulators and central banks across multiple regions. Jurisdictions progressed frameworks to address issuance, redemption, reserves, governance, and AML reporting requirements. In the United States, federal legislation introduced the first nationwide standards for stablecoins, supported by federal agencies working on implementation guidance. The framework reflected a coordinated policy shift toward transparency and risk alignment.

Across the European Union, MiCA entered its practical phase, requiring stablecoin issuers to comply with standards tied to capital, governance, and consumer protection. National authorities published supervisory expectations and highlighted supervisory gaps linked to inconsistent implementation. Germany approved a euro-denominated stablecoin under MiCA, while France integrated MiCA rules into its national code to support supervised migration of existing providers. The Netherlands issued a significant number of MiCA licenses and deepened AML guidance for crypto service providers. These actions reflected a broader trend toward harmonized guidelines that aim to reduce fragmentation.

Asia Pacific jurisdictions also advanced stablecoin oversight. Hong Kong implemented a new licensing regime and required issuers to meet strict reserve and redemption standards. Singapore restricted offshore targeting by domestic entities and tightened governance requirements. Japan advanced its stablecoin licensing program following earlier legislative changes and increased enforcement coordination with financial institutions and law enforcement. Collectively, these initiatives underscored a global recognition that stablecoins carry meaningful financial crime and consumer-protection risks, and therefore require structured regulatory treatment.

Institutional Adoption Driven by Regulatory Clarity

Clearer regulatory frameworks supported rapid growth in institutional involvement with digital assets. According to official sources across the US, EU, and Asia Pacific, financial institutions have progressed new initiatives aligned with clarified licensing, custody, and disclosure rules. Jurisdictions with comprehensive regulatory regimes experienced stronger institutional momentum, while those with uncertain rules saw more cautious engagement.

In the United States, federal agencies advanced coordinated policies clarifying custody expectations, securities classifications, exchange standards, and prudential requirements. The approach incentivized greater participation from banks and registered firms using public blockchains for payments, settlements, and tokenized assets. State-level supervisors, such as those overseeing New York and California markets, advanced licensing and consumer-protection initiatives that tightened AML requirements and strengthened on-chain monitoring expectations for supervised firms.

Across the European Union, institutional adoption benefited from MiCA’s transition into a functioning supervisory framework. France, Germany, and the Netherlands issued significant CASP authorizations, each imposing local supervisory expectations related to AML, governance, and market integrity. Germany, in particular, authorized multiple institutions to offer stablecoin-linked services and supervised institutions providing MiCA-compliant offerings. EU-level bodies also emphasized the importance of AML adherence across crypto markets and highlighted risks stemming from inconsistent national implementation.

In Asia Pacific, markets such as Hong Kong advanced licensing for additional trading platforms and expanded permissible activities under supervision. Singapore imposed restrictions designed to ensure compliance expectations remained aligned with anti-financial-crime obligations. Australia pursued new legislative packages to support digital asset licensing and oversight, increasing clarity for firms planning to offer custody, trading, or tokenization services. These measures supported responsible adoption among financial institutions seeking activity within structured regulatory perimeters.

Impact of Regulation on Illicit Finance

Regulators consistently highlighted the effect of clear frameworks on reducing illicit finance risks. Official assessments demonstrated that virtual asset service providers operating under regulated regimes exhibited lower rates of illicit activity compared to unregulated segments of the ecosystem. Authorities cited improved customer identification, more robust governance, and strengthened transaction-monitoring standards as contributing factors.

Supervisors and law enforcement agencies emphasized that cross-border consistency remained essential to reduce regulatory arbitrage. International bodies highlighted vulnerabilities stemming from jurisdictions lacking meaningful implementation of AML standards. Several authorities issued warnings about illicit actors exploiting unregulated intermediaries, decentralized infrastructure, or weakly supervised service providers to move or obscure illicit funds.

Multiple enforcement events throughout 2025 demonstrated the importance of cohesive supervision. Authorities across the EU and the United States coordinated actions against high-risk platforms involved in sanctions evasion or money laundering. Germany supported international takedowns targeting unlicensed operators and confiscated illicit proceeds linked to major crypto-related hacking events. The United Kingdom published a crypto-specific sanctions threat assessment and provided detailed expectations for tracing transaction flows involving sanctioned entities. These measures reflected a global trend toward integrating blockchain intelligence with supervisory and enforcement practices.

Jurisdictions such as Mexico, South Africa, and Indonesia advanced AML reforms requiring risk-based controls, transaction-monitoring standards, enhanced reporting, and supervisory engagement. These reforms aligned crypto oversight with broader national AML frameworks, ensuring that digital-asset activity operated under the same expectations as traditional financial institutions. Other jurisdictions, such as the Cayman Islands, introduced stricter licensing models and supervisory powers to enforce governance, cybersecurity, and audit requirements.

Looking Ahead to a More Structured Global Framework

Regulatory clarity across jurisdictions suggests a continued acceleration of structured, risk-aligned oversight in 2026. Stablecoin regulations are expected to be implemented across multiple regions, with rulemaking and licensing decisions influencing institutional adoption. Supervisors are likely to strengthen expectations on transaction monitoring, beneficial ownership verification, customer identification, and sanctions-screening protocols.

Cross-border coordination between supervisors, international bodies, and law enforcement agencies remains central to combating illicit finance. As regulated service providers expand, authorities continue to view compliant intermediaries as essential partners for detecting and interrupting financial crime activity across borders. Assessments from FATF, the Financial Stability Board, and other international forums confirm ongoing concern regarding inconsistent implementation of global standards. These concerns are likely to influence discussions around supervisory convergence in key areas such as licensing, due diligence, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement.

Institutional adoption, supported by clearer rules, is expected to continue shaping the digital-asset landscape. Jurisdictions focusing on governance, consumer protection, prudential expectations, and operational resilience may serve as models for coordinated frameworks elsewhere. As regulatory regimes mature, authorities emphasize the need for responsible innovation supported by strong AML controls and transparent market practices.

The developments highlighted across the US, EU, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and other regions collectively point toward a more structured, compliance-driven ecosystem. Progress across licensing, AML expectations, stablecoin frameworks, and supervisory cooperation reinforces the trajectory toward a digital-asset sector integrated into mainstream financial oversight. These trends, documented across official regulatory and supervisory sources, set expectations for increased consistency, stronger enforcement, and continued maturation of the global crypto environment.

---

Key Points

• Stablecoins drove regulatory action across major markets and shaped global AML expectations
• Institutional adoption expanded as clearer licensing, governance, and disclosure rules took effect
• Supervisors emphasized consistent AML implementation and cross-border cooperation
• Enforcement actions targeted unlicensed platforms and high-risk intermediaries
• Regulatory convergence trends are likely to influence policymaking in 2026

---

Related Links

• FATF, Enhancing Global AML Standards on Virtual Assets
• European Banking Authority, MiCA Implementation Updates
• US Treasury, Digital Asset Policy Guidance
• Bank of England, Stablecoin Regulatory Framework Consultation
• Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Stablecoin Issuer Licensing Framework

Source: TRM Labs

You can find TRM Labs page in the FinCrime Central AML Solution Provider Directory here.

Want to know which solutions can be envisaged for your specific needs?
Access the full feature-based AML Solution Provider Directory here

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand with us or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.