Crypto news

Complaints about blocked accounts and transfers related to cryptocurrency have long become a routine reality for the Russian market. However, my analysis shows that the root of the problem lies not in banks' bias against digital assets, but in the rigid structure of legislation that forces credit institutions to over-insure themselves.

The key reason for rejections is not the attitude toward the technology itself, but the requirements of Federal Law No. 115-FZ, Federal Law No. 161-FZ, and, more recently, Federal Law No. 369-FZ. These regulations oblige banks to monitor transactions, request documents, and even freeze transfers at the slightest suspicion. The impact of Federal Law No. 369-FZ is especially paradoxical: from the good intention of protecting clients from fraudsters, banks have developed a practice of total over-insurance. Blocking a hundred suspicious transactions turns out to be cheaper than compensating a loss out of their own pocket even once.

Not for crypto, but for risk indicators

Crypto transfers often come under fire due to the "triangular" scheme, where a seller of digital assets receives money from a fraud victim's card and becomes the final link in the chain. Analysis shows that the set of triggers used by banks is almost universal:

• a sharp increase in turnover and frequent transfers from different individuals;
• splitting amounts and transit operations;
• transactions that do not match the client's profile;
• lack of clear economic sense, working through P2P;
• inability to confirm the source of funds or the purpose of the payment;
• direct wording in the purpose: "USDT," "exchange."

It is important to understand: bank loyalty is an extremely unstable criterion. Today a transaction goes through, tomorrow the risk model changes, and the client receives a request for documents or a block. Many banks are not against working with cryptocurrency, but they fear losing their license due to regulatory pressure.

From lists of loyal banks to the Bank of Russia registry

Officially, the term "loyalty to cryptocurrency" does not exist. No credit institution publishes a list of permitted operations. It is only a matter of differences in monitoring practices. For example, USDT arbitrage through a Kyrgyz broker with a full package of documents and licenses still led to a refusal from T-Bank — simply because of an unwillingness to work with digital assets. In another case, a client with notarized statements was denied service and advised to come back in September.

The situation is radically changed by the adopted law "On Digital Currencies and Digital Rights." From September 1, 2026, cryptocurrency operations will be allowed only through regulated intermediaries — exchanges, brokers, management companies, depositories, and exchange offices. The transition period will last until July 1, 2027, after which banks will be obliged to refuse operations outside the legal framework.

Key parameters of the new regulation

• Limit for non-qualified investors: about 300 thousand rubles per year through one intermediary.
• Available assets: the most liquid ones — Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT.
• Qualified investors: no amount restrictions, status is determined by property threshold, experience, or education.
• Withdrawal abroad: no restrictions, but full identification when withdrawing in rubles.
• Rosfinmonitoring control: operations exceeding 100 thousand rubles.
• Criminal liability: organizers of gray exchange offices face up to seven years.

There are separate requirements for exchange offices: activity from two transactions per month totaling over 3.5 million rubles, inclusion in the Bank of Russia registry, membership in a self-regulatory organization, own capital of at least 15 million rubles, and an obligation to compensate the client for the value of stolen assets.

What this means for the market

The very question of bank loyalty is becoming outdated. Alfa-Bank, T-Bank, VTB, and Sber have already announced their intention to provide crypto services. As legal infrastructure is launched, loyalty will mean not leniency toward gray schemes, but the presence of their own licensed crypto service.

My conclusion: blocks will not disappear entirely, but within the legal framework they will become predictable. However, for gray P2P and transit schemes, requirements will, on the contrary, become stricter. A practical tip — keep proof of transactions, do not split amounts, do not accept payments from third parties, and do not indicate words referring to cryptocurrency in the transfer purpose. In the new reality, the winner will not be the one who looks for a bank without questions, but the one who builds a transparent operating model.