The Strengthening Agency Frameworks for Enforcement of Cryptocurrency Act (SAFE Crypto Act) would create a Task Force for Recognizing and Averting Cryptocurrency Scams. The Task Force would be chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and include senior officials from law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and representatives from the cryptocurrency industry and consumer protection stakeholders.
It would examine current scam trends, develop cross‑sector prevention and enforcement strategies, and publish findings and recommendations. A key feature is real‑time information sharing and enhanced asset‑recovery capabilities, with a final, independent report due within one year and updated annually; the program would sunset after three years, unless extended by law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes the Task Force, defines its cross‑agency and industry composition, and sets out its core duties and reporting requirements.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies, state regulators, digital asset service providers, stablecoin issuers, law enforcement, and consumers who may be victims of crypto scams.
Why It Matters
Creates a formal, multidisciplinary mechanism to detect, prevent, and prosecute digital asset scams, align cross‑agency efforts, and improve data sharing and asset recovery.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill stands up a Task Force to fight cryptocurrency scams. It requires the Treasury Secretary to form the group within 180 days, with leaders from core law enforcement and financial agencies and with direct participation from stablecoin issuers, digital asset service providers, custodians, and other stakeholders.
The Task Force is charged with studying how scams operate, identifying effective prevention and enforcement tools, and ensuring a cross‑sector approach that reflects the diverse industries touched by digital assets. It also creates formal channels for public‑private information sharing to disrupt scam networks and supports asset recovery efforts, including freezing or reissuing assets tied to illicit activity, subject to due process.
The Task Force will produce an initial report within one year, then annual updates, and it will terminate three years after submitting its first report unless Congress acts to extend it.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates the Task Force within 180 days of enactment, chaired by the Treasury Secretary.
Membership spans federal agencies, law enforcement, and representatives from stablecoin issuers, DASPs, custodians, and other industries.
It authorizes real‑time information sharing networks to detect and disrupt crypto scams.
It provides asset‑recovery tools for assets proven to be proceeds of scams, governed by due process.
An initial report is due within a year, followed by annual updates; the Task Force sunsets after three years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Cites the act as the SAFE Crypto Act. The title sets the framework for establishing the Task Force and related enforcement frameworks without altering other statutory programs.
Definitions
Defines references to digital assets, digital asset service providers, permitted payment stablecoin issuers, and the Secretary as used throughout the act, tying these terms to the GENIUS Act for alignment with existing financial‑crime authorities.
Task Force on Cryptocurrency Scams
Establishes the Task Force within 180 days of enactment, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, and includes a broad slate of federal officials, representatives of stablecoin issuers, DASPs, custodians, blockchain intelligence providers, victims’ groups, and law enforcement. The section lays out the Task Force’s purposes (scam detection, cross‑sector coordination, and stakeholder input), the meeting cadence, and the duties that guide its work, including data reviews, best‑practice development, and international coordination.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims of cryptocurrency scams and scam‑support networks, who gain clearer pathways for reporting, prevention, and recovery efforts.
- Digital asset service providers (exchanges, wallets) and custodians, who receive structured coordination, information sharing, and enforcement support.
- Permitted payment stablecoin issuers, which participate in interagency efforts and benefit from aligned compliance expectations.
- Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that gain access to enhanced data and cross‑jurisdictional cooperation.
- State bank regulatory authorities and other financial regulators who align supervision with digital‑asset enforcement efforts.
- Blockchain intelligence providers and related tech partners who contribute to monitoring and interdiction networks.
Who Bears the Cost
- DASP and stablecoin issuers incur compliance, data‑sharing, and operational costs to participate in the Task Force’s network and to support asset‑recovery tools.
- Federal, state, and local agencies may shoulder additional coordination and staffing requirements to support cross‑agency information sharing and investigations.
- Industry participants contributing to information sharing networks may face increased regulatory scrutiny and reporting obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing aggressive, cross‑jurisdictional enforcement and information sharing with due process, privacy, and the risk of stifling innovation in a rapidly evolving digital asset landscape.
The act creates a high‑level mechanism for cross‑agency action against crypto scams, but it also raises tensions around privacy, due process, and the potential for regulatory burden on innovative financial technologies. Information sharing across public and private entities must be balanced with privacy protections and legal safeguards.
The sunset provision—three years after the initial report—means that sustained legislative attention will be required to maintain or extend these authorities, and there is no explicit funding authorization to support the Task Force’s activities. Questions remain about the operational funding, data governance, and potential overlaps with existing agencies’ powers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.