Federal Court Ends Custodia Bank Bid for Federal Reserve Master Account

  • The Federal Reserve’s discretion over its own payment infrastructure access has been upheld by a federal court.
  • A federal court has put an end to the legal case brought by Custodia Bank over access to a master account with the Federal Reserve

The case had dragged on for five years. The court case involved a vote by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The judges declined the case by a vote of seven to three. The case had been Custodia Bank’s last attempt to gain access to a master account with the Federal Reserve. The court’s decision upheld previous court rulings on the Federal Reserve’s authority over its own payment infrastructure.

It appears that Custodia Bank first sought a master account in October of 2020 to gain access to central bank systems directly. A master account allows financial institutions to hold reserve accounts directly with a Federal Reserve system. This means that banks that do not have access to a master account must go through an intermediary bank to process payments. The bank argued that federal law allows state-chartered banks to access Federal Reserve services, such as a master account. The courts disagreed with this argument.

Court Ruling Reinforces Federal Reserve Authority

The law does not require the Federal Reserve to automatically approve the application of a master account, according to the ruling. The ruling reinforced the fact that the Reserve Banks have the authority to review the risks before the institutions gain access. Regulators had previously turned down Custodia Bank’s application based on the risks of the banking model, which is digital asset-focused. Regulators had previously raised concerns that crypto-related activities could potentially cause risks to the stability of the financial sector as well as the institutions. The ruling reinforced the Federal Reserve’s authority as the gatekeeper of institutions seeking access to the national payment rails.

Dissenting Judge Emphasizes the Significance of Master Accounts

Judge Timothy Tymkovich disagreed with the majority and gave his reasoning in the form of a dissent. He pointed out the importance of master accounts, stating that an account is “indispensable” for the normal operation of a bank. He went on to say that denying access could be like giving a “death sentence” to a bank. Judge Tymkovich also pointed out that Reserve Banks should not have unlimited discretion in granting master accounts.

The ruling comes at a time when crypto companies are pushing for greater access to traditional financial systems in the US. The crypto industry believes that they could be granted access to direct payments. Thus reducing their need for traditional banking partners. However, the courts have ruled that the relevant authorities have the discretion to decide on the applications of crypto-focused banks.

Highlighted Crypto News:

CLARITY Act May Not Pass Before April, Says Senate Leader John Thune

Disclaimer: The information on this page may come from third parties and does not represent the views or opinions of Gate. The content displayed on this page is for reference only and does not constitute any financial, investment, or legal advice. Gate does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information and shall not be liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Virtual asset investments carry high risks and are subject to significant price volatility. You may lose all of your invested principal. Please fully understand the relevant risks and make prudent decisions based on your own financial situation and risk tolerance. For details, please refer to Disclaimer.

Related Articles

Strengthen silver-tax interactions! China encourages banks to use blockchain, but ordinary people trading coins and tokenizing everything is all illegal.

The Chinese government encourages banks to use blockchain technology to strengthen “bank-taxpayer interactions,” improve the financing environment for small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time comprehensively ban private cryptocurrency trading and mining, treating stablecoins and tokenization as illegal activities. This shows a clear policy boundary and emphasizes official oversight and financial security.

CryptoCity1h ago

Does the party fear secret mobilization? Jack Dorsey: China is asking Apple to remove Bitchat, a decentralized communications app

Apple has removed the decentralized communications app Bitchat due to China regulatory requirements. Because of its Bluetooth and mesh network features, it was deemed to carry social mobilization risk and to violate China’s Cybersecurity Law. Bitchat’s decentralized architecture makes it difficult for the government to regulate; it has played a role in protests in multiple countries. The app remains usable outside China, and its downloads have continued to increase recently.

CryptoCity2h ago

Stablecoin issuers get closer to U.S. federal rules with FDIC's new proposal

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. formally proposed its approach to stablecoin issuers as one of the federal financial regulators required to write and oversee rules under last year's Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The FDIC's proposal —meant t

CoinDesk3h ago

Strengthen silver-tax interaction! China encourages banks to use blockchain, but people trading coins and doing tokenization are all breaking the law

The Chinese government encourages banks to use blockchain technology to strengthen “bank-tax interactions,” improve the financing environment for small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time, it fully bans private cryptocurrency trading and mining, treats stablecoins and tokenization as illegal activities, demonstrates clear policy boundaries, and emphasizes official oversight and financial security.

CryptoCity8h ago

Prediction markets win big! Court rules: New Jersey has “no authority to ban” Kalshi from launching sports event contracts

The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the state of New Jersey lacks the authority to bar Kalshi, a sports-betting prediction market platform regulated by the CFTC, from launching sports event contracts, finding that federal law takes precedence over state law. Although Kalshi prevailed, experts say this is only a temporary victory, and the Supreme Court will ultimately need to decide the jurisdiction issue.

区块客8h ago
Comment
0/400
No comments