Breaking Down Treasury’s “Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Non-fungible Tokens”

On Wednesday, May 29, the U.S Treasury Department released the “Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Non-Fungible Tokens.” The Risk Assessment, required under Treasury’s 2022 “Action Plan to Address Illicit Finance Risks of Digital Assets,” provides a comprehensive overview of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) market structure, delving into the specific illicit finance threats and vulnerabilities associated with NFTs. It outlines mitigation actions to combat criminal activities and concludes with recommended actions. Treasury risk assessments do not carry any legal weight and are not official executive regulation but can serve to guide the regulatory and policy discussions and debates of the future. Their primary goal is to analyze potential harm posed to consumers, industry participants, and the general public from the threats outlined. These assessments are crucial for maintaining the stability and integrity of our financial systems. 

Analogous to Treasury’s Illicit Finance Risk Assessment for Decentralized Finance (DeFi), the report explicitly statesthat illicit finance activities utilizing NFT products and markets, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and proliferation financing, are uncommon in the space and that these activities primarily take place in traditional finance. 

NFT Illicit Finance Concerns 

However, the Risk Assessment did highlight prevalent issues of fraud, scams, and theft in the NFT space. It noted that between July 2021 and July 2022, $100 million worth of NFTs were stolen through scams, with $24 million stolen in May 2022 alone. Key types of scams include: 

  • Rug Pulls: Creating fake projects to attract investment, then shutting down the project and stealing funds. “Slow rug pulls” involve using funds from an initial project to fund a second scam. 
  • Market Manipulation: Deceptive behavior to mislead investors about an asset’s value. 
  • Fake and Counterfeit Sales: Misrepresenting an NFT’s value, brand association, or access rights. This includes “sleepminting,” where hackers mint an NFT to appear as if created by a legitimate source, then sell it as authentic. 
  • Fraudulent NFT Platforms: Scammers may fail to honor NFT exchange agreements or create fake platforms to steal NFTs. 
  • Theft: Criminals can spread malware through social media links, fake advertising, or airdropped NFTs, draining victims’ digital asset wallets, and often use fake NFT creator accounts with phishing links to ask victims to connect their wallets. Vulnerabilities and bugs in smart contracts allow criminals to steal NFTs or buy them at reduced prices, and due to the immutability of many smart contracts, developers often cannot fix or recover funds from these exploits. 

NFT Vulnerabilities 

NFTs have vulnerabilities due to their nature, referenced assets, and regulatory gaps. Criminals exploit cyber vulnerabilities, trademark and copyright challenges, and market hype. Non-compliance with U.S. regulations and foreign regulatory gaps also present risks. 

  • Copyright and Trademark Protection: Criminals misrepresent NFT rights, violating copyright and trademarks, inflating prices, and selling counterfeit NFTs. Identifying infringers is challenging due to anonymity and jurisdictional issues. 
  • Hype and Fluctuating Pricing: Scammers use time-sensitive offers to pressure victims, and fluctuating prices can mask price manipulation and money laundering. 

Mitigation Measures 

The report outlines several mitigation efforts considered effective against these threats, including: 

  • Industry Tools: Tools include scam databases, transaction controls, and blockchain analytics. These can identify scams, prevent wash trading, and flag risky users. Enhanced software reviews and cybersecurity measures are also recommended. 
  • Applicability of Law Enforcement Authorities, Public Announcements: NFTs are considered property for asset recovery. Victims can report fraud to the FBI or IC3.gov. Public announcements raise awareness and guide users on preventing fraud. 
  • Public Blockchain Transparency: Public blockchains allow tracking of pseudonymous transactions, aiding investigations. However, anonymity-enhancing technologies and off-chain activities limit this transparency. 
  • Involvement of Covered Financial Institutions and Other Sources of Government Information: NFT buyers, sellers, and traders often rely on traditional financial institutions to purchase NFTs. Compliance with AML/CFT and sanctions obligations by these institutions can mitigate risks. Non-compliance, especially by foreign VASPs, poses additional risks. 

Recommendations 

  • Regulation and Enforcement: Authorities should consider specific regulations and guidance for NFTs, clarify existing obligations, and raise awareness among NFT platforms. Regulatory agencies should continue to enforce current laws and take action against non-compliant entities in the NFT sector. 
  • Engagement and Education: The U.S. government should continue engaging with the private sector to monitor NFT developments, promote innovation to mitigate scams and fraud, and educate consumers on NFT rights. Additionally, collaborating with foreign partners to assess and address illicit finance risks in the NFT ecosystem is crucial. 

For media inquiries, please contact press@digitalchamber.org

The Digital Chamber Applauds House Passage of the FIT for the 21st Century Act 

The Digital Chamber is pleased to see H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21st Century Act has successfully passed the House with a vote of 279-136 and is now advancing to the Senate.  

The current regulatory environment in the U.S. has created uncertainty, driving businesses overseas, stifling innovation, and resulting in a loss of jobs and investment. This lack of regulatory clarity has allowed other jurisdictions to advance significantly in creating guidelines, leaving the U.S. behind. Addressing these issues, the FIT for the 21st Century Act establishes clear guidelines for the classification, trading, and regulation of digital assets while preserving and strengthening consumer protection.   

The passage of this bill is the result of over four years of dedicated policy work. The Digital Chamber has been instrumental in advancing this legislation through several key strategies: 

  • Policy Development: Since 2020, we have worked with Congressional stakeholders to create comprehensive market structure legislation, initially introduced as the “Digital Commodity Exchange Act” in 2020.  
  • Industry Engagement: We have collaborated with over 200 digital asset businesses over four years to weigh in on the legislative text, playing a key role in ensuring the bill promotes market integrity, protects consumers, and reduces the risk of fraud and manipulation. 
  • Advocacy: The Digital Chamber has reached all 535 Members of Congress, urging the support of market structure legislation passage.  

The Digital Chamber’s Founder and CEO, Perianne Boring, said the following passage: 

“We are proud to see the FIT for the 21st Century Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Today’s vote was not about the merits of crypto but instead was about acknowledging the need to create a safe market and trading environment for the over 50 million Americans using digital assets today.” 

We thank Congressmen G.T. Thompson (R-PA), French Hill (R-AR), Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Tom Emmer (R-MN) for their leadership and the leadership of the congressional staff who worked tirelessly to craft rules of the road for digital asset market participants, without compromising consumer protection.  

The Digital Chamber is committed to advocating for and educating about the FIT for the 21st Century Act as it moves to the U.S. Senate. Our goal is to see this pivotal legislation reach President Biden’s desk for signature.  

But, we still need your help. Here’s how you can take action:  
Call your Senator today at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to pass the FIT for the 21st Century Act. By taking this simple step, you’ll advocate for a brighter future for consumer protection, innovation, and job creation in the U.S. 

For media inquiries, please contact press@digitalchamber.org

What’s Next for SAB 121 Following Bipartisan Passage of H.J. Res 109

After last week’s bipartisan vote in the Senate, where H.J. Res 109 passed by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 members not voting) and support from 11 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 48 Republicans, repeal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121 is now on President Biden’s desk. He has a decision to make by May 28th, which is the 10-day deadline excluding Sundays. Here are the potential scenarios:

Veto

The President can veto the Joint Resolution as he indicated he would in a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on May 8th. A veto would effectively end the congressional effort to nullify SAB 121, as Congress likely does not have the votes to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

Sign the Joint Resolution

President Biden can sign the Joint Resolution into law, nullifying the SEC’s SAB 121 and preventing the SEC from issuing a similar rule in the future.

Do Nothing

President Biden can choose to do nothing and let the 10 days lapse without signing or vetoing the Joint Resolution. This is where it gets tricky:

  • If Congress is in session, the President’s inaction will mean that the bill is effectively signed into law, nullifying SAB 121.
  • If Congress is not in session, the bill could face a pocket veto, where the President’s inaction prevents the bill from becoming law.

Analysis

The outcome remains uncertain. There is precedent for a President backtracking on a veto threat issued in a SAP and ultimately signing the bill into law. Under President Obama, four bills that received a presidential veto threat in a SAP were ultimately signed by him.

Despite May 28th falling during a congressional recess week for Memorial Day, Congress is likely to remain in session through pro-forma sessions, even if they are expected to be away from Washington, DC on Memorial Day recess. Pro-forma sessions are brief meetings that can prevent a pocket veto by keeping Congress technically in session. As either House can call a pro forma session, a pocket veto is unlikely. 

We should know the outcome soon. Supporters of the Resolution, particularly Democrats, have been increasing pressure on SEC Chair Gary Gensler to withdraw SAB 121 to avoid forcing the President to make a decision. While the SEC has been resistant to backtracking on crypto policy actions, they have succumbed to pressure in the past (e.g., Bitcoin Spot ETPs). 

The next few days will be very interesting to watch.

The Practitioner’s Guide to Proof of Reserves – The most comprehensive resource for all industry constituents: from operators to regulators, consumers to policymakers, and engineers to auditors, the Guide is the world’s go-to resource for all things Proof of Reserves.


Download the Chamber’s Proof of Reserves Guide

Introduction

The Digital Chamber is proud to announce the release of the Proof of Reserves Guide 2.0, an evolution of the original guide released in 2021. This updated guide arrives at a pivotal moment as proof of reserves becomes mainstream and we work to standardize best practices in the digital assets space. Despite no single jurisdiction having a comprehensive framework for licensing, market structure, tax, or accounting standards, one thing is clear: digital assets are here to stay. Current consumer protection measures and transparency reporting are insufficient to prevent disasters like the FTX.com-Alameda collapse. As demand for digital assets grows, so does the need for robust transparency measures, making the Proof of Reserves Guide 2.0 essential for industry stakeholders aiming to safeguard the future of digital finance.

Background

While no single jurisdiction has a licensing, market structure, tax or accounting standards framework that answers all the open questions, what has become clear in recent years is that: digital assets are here to stay, and current consumer protection measures and transparency reporting are insufficient to prevent the next FTX.com-Alameda disaster.

Demand for digital assets has grown by almost all measures, and perhaps more compelling is the undeniable benefits and efficiencies that real-world asset tokenization can bring to traditional asset classes. In almost every digital asset or tokenization use case, there is an important new challenge created: how to close the transparency gaps created by centralized marketplaces, tokenization of real-world assets (including fiat currencies), and traditional notes that track the price of digital commodities (such as Exchange Traded Products or Funds).

Proof of Reserves, as a general concept, emerged and offered an important contribution to solving, at least partially, these widespread transparency challenges. The service provider failures of mid-late 2022 provided a painful emphasis point on the need for Proof of Platform Reserves; millions of consumers were harmed to the tune of Billions of Dollars.

Proof of Reserves has gained more real-world application since the publication of our first Guide; however, it remains true that Proof of Reserves is not itself a panacea, and that additional legislation, rule-making, generally accepted practices, and uniformity in Proof of Reserves is needed now and in coming years. Therefore, the Guide restates the original framework and taxonomy for understanding the types of Proof of Reserves, which has held up since the last publication of the Guide. The guide continues its original focus on Proof of Platform Reserves – the type of PoR most relevant to, and historically adopted by, digital asset service providers, exchanges or custodians.

Using the Guide

The 2024 revision to the Practitioner’s Guide to Proof of Reserves (The Guide) is organized into chapters. A complete understanding of Proof of Reserves can be obtained by a study of the complete Guide. However, each chapter focuses on topics that may be of specific interest for certain readers and enable them in their specific area of practice or policymaking. Use the table below to focus in on the chapters most relevant to your practice area and needs.

Conclusion

In February 2021, the market capitalization of digital assets broke the $1 trillion mark. This milestone signaled the arrival of new market entrants, such as institutions looking to diversify their portfolios and fortify their corporate treasuries, and large companies, such as PayPal, Visa, and others, who sought to offer digital assets to their customers and clients.

Retail investors have also looked to digital asset markets to capitalize on new, innovative financial products and business models. This renewed focus on digital asset markets has not been limited to investors only; policy makers and regulators have also been paying close attention, keeping a watchful eye on market participants to guard against investor harm.

Innovation in digital assets offers incredible promise. Personal finance can become more available, more transparent, and unbridled from the limitations of institution-only ledgers. Bitcoin as a digital commodity offers and incredible experiment for the world to experience uncensorable, non-political, commodity money controlled by fair and open code alone. The power to tokenize real-world assets on distributed ledgers will inevitably reshape marketplaces, trading, compliance and the ownership experience across asset classes.

Unfortunately, innovation in digital assets has outpaced global policymakers. The failure of policymakers and regulators to keep up with laws and regulations that are reasonable and purpose fit, as well as the failure of some service providers and other businesses to adhere to long-proven best practices, has resulted in repeated harm to consumers.

Blockchain networks and digital assets are not going away. They will continue to become more sophisticated, more widely used, and even more commonplace back-end technologies behind other consumer-facing services. Reasonable regulation and smart policy is possible, and recent examples detailed herein indicate a positive trend. Proof of Reserves as a general concept must be a component of regulatory frameworks because it is the best available tool to address the main risk affecting consumers; that tokenized assets aren’t properly backed, that service providers aren’t properly reserving customer assets in custody, and that exchange traded products are not built on funds with actual like-kind assets under the  issuer’s control.

Trust but Verify

For More Information: 

Please contact: policy@digitalchamber.org.

Statement on Successful Passage of the Resolution to Nullify SAB 121

The Digital Chamber is pleased to see H. Res 109, a Joint Resolution to Disapprove of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121 has successfully passed the House with a vote of 228-182 and is now advancing to the Senate. While we are discouraged by President Biden’s Statement of Administration Policy indicating an inevitable veto of the bipartisan effort to nullify SAB 121, the strong support for the resolution demonstrates a call for reconsideration and underscores that independent agencies should not be rewarded by bypassing transparent measures required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Digital Chamber’s Founder and CEO, Perianne Boring said following the passage “We are proud to see H.Res 109 passage with bipartisan support. This is not a crypto issue, but an issue about consumer protection and process. SAB 121 also sets a dangerous precedent of providing unchecked power to independent regulators. The Digital Chamber remains committed to facilitating a regulatory environment that supports innovation while protecting consumers and passage of the Resolution is a step in the right direction.”

We thank Congressmen Mike Flood (R-NE) and Wiley Nickel (D-NC) for their leadership in introducing this resolution to safeguard consumer protections and ensure the SEC adheres to its rulemaking authority. We remain committed to supporting this nullification effort through the U.S. Senate.

For media inquiries, please contact press@digitalchamber.org.


The Digital Chamber Condemns SEC’s Latest Regulatory Overreach Following Wells Notice to Robinhood Crypto 

Washington, D.C. – The Digital Chamber, the leading trade association representing the digital asset industry, expresses its profound disappointment and concern following the news that Robinhood Crypto (RHC) has received a Wells Notice from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This alarming development is yet another instance of the SEC’s unchecked regulatory overreach, coming on the heels of similar notices issued to major industry players like Uniswap and Consensys.

Robinhood’s statement earlier today highlighted their rigorous efforts to comply with SEC regulations, including their attempt to register a special purpose broker-dealer specifically for their crypto operations. Despite these good faith efforts, the SEC has chosen a path that significantly undermines innovation and investor protection in the digital assets space.

The Digital Chamber has consistently argued, through multiple amicus briefs and advocacy initiatives, that the SEC is extending its regulatory reach over the digital asset industry without proper congressional authorization. When Congress is actively deliberating legislation that would define regulatory jurisdictions for digital assets, the SEC’s actions contradict the legislative process.

Moreover, the SEC’s aggressive stance does not align with its stated investor protection mandate. By threatening to stifle a major part of the financial sector through potentially unwarranted enforcement actions, the SEC risks not only alienating innovative enterprises but also undermining the financial autonomy of millions of Americans who participate in the digital economy.

We urge immediate legislative action to address these jurisdictional discrepancies and clarify the regulatory framework governing digital assets. Additionally, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler must be called to testify before Congress to explain the rationale behind the SEC’s continued attempts to stifle an industry pivotal to our economic future.

The Digital Chamber stands ready to support Robinhood Crypto and other affected companies in seeking a resolution that protects their ability to operate and innovate, as well as defending the rights of digital asset users and entrepreneurs nationwide.

For media inquiries, please contact press@digitalchamber.org.


NO FAKES: Addressing Challenges Posed by AI-Deepfakes in Politics, Entertainment, and Society

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Hearing Summary Entitled: The NO FAKES Act: Protecting Americans from Unauthorized Digital Replicas

Witnesses Included:

  • Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law at University of San Diego School of Law
  • Graham Davies, President and Chief Executive Officer of Digital Media Association
  • Ben Sheffner, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Law and Public Policy, Motion Picture Association
  • Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, Screen Actors Guild-American Federal of Television and Radio Arts
  • Robert Kynel, Chief Executive Officer, Warner Music Group
  • Tahliah Debrett Barnett (aka “FKA twigs”)

On April 30th, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing to discuss the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act and emerging issues related to deepfakes and its impact on politics, the entertainment industry and society at large. 

The bipartisan NO FAKES Act (sponsored by Senators Coons (D-DE), Blackburn (R-TN), Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tillis (R-NC)) would hold companies or individuals liable for producing unauthorized digital replicas of individuals. Additionally, the bill would make exceptions for some replicas based on first amendment protections and consider platforms prior knowledge of whether the content was indeed a deepfake. 

Deepfakes, and other uses of manipulated media, have become an issue due to their ability to mimic individual’s likenesses including their voice and face. The tool has been used to impersonate political figures, most notably an infamous robocall “from” President Biden telling New Hampshire voters to stay at home during January’s presidential election primary, as well as numerous cases of musical artists being impersonated by AI including Drake, Tupac, and FKA Twigs who was present at Tuesday’s meeting to testify on the issue. The Committee questioned witnesses on

  • Experiences with deepfakes; 
  • Technology considerations for misinformation mitigation;
  • Ethics behind banning deepfakes;
  • First amendment concerns surrounding limiting content creation
  • Technology applications that could assist in AI identification, 
  • The takedown rights provisions in the NO FAKES Act and whether they should be available only to those who commercialize their likeness or everyone and whether they should apply post-mortem; 
  • How this law affects section 230 rights for website owners and internet providers
  • The implementation of digital watermarks. 

Ultimate Takeaway

The witness panel, which included creators, participants in the entertainment and music industry, and academia were all in agreeance that action needed to be taken to mitigate the creep of AI deepfakes into entertainment and society at large. 

Regarding technical solutions for identification and protection of data, witnesses coalesced the idea of digital watermarks, a piece of code imbedded in an uploaded piece of media that typically provides copyright information. Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) discussed a bipartisan legislative framework he and Senator Hawley (R-MO) announced, that would create AI guardrails that includes the deployment of watermarks and addresses questions of AI deepfakes relationship with Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that protects internet companies from liability in the case of illegal third-party content. Blumenthal’s bill asserts that AI content is not covered by Section 230 and that companies can be held liable for AI-related harm.

Unfortunately, there was no mention of utilizing algorithms to create a unique “hash” of a video file and then record it on the blockchain – a tool that The Digital Chamber is advocating for to mitigate AI misinformation risks.  In simple terms, when a comparison is needed to verify a video or image’s authenticity, one could simply compare the hash of the file with the one stored on the blockchain. If there is a match, the authenticity is verified. If not, there may have been an alteration using AI. This is just one example of how blockchain can be employed to combat against deepfakes.  

The Digital Chamber will keep you updated on our efforts to put forth policy recommendations related to the nexus of blockchain and AI. For more information on blockchain and AI, read our blog here.


Navigating the Future: The Digital Chamber’s Comment on Proposed IaaS Regulations

The Balance Between Innovation and Regulation

As the foremost advocate for blockchain technology, The Digital Chamber has consistently championed a regulatory environment that nurtures innovation while safeguarding the public interest. It’s a delicate equilibrium, particularly when new proposals surface that could significantly affect the industry. That’s why we’re getting involved to shape the dialogue around the U.S. Bureau of Information Security’s (BIS) notice of proposed rulemaking aimed at U.S. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) providers.

Our Concerns with the Proposed Rule

Our commitment to fostering growth within the blockchain ecosystem compels us to address the well-intentioned but potentially overreaching aspects of the current proposal. Our concerns hinge on the broad language of the rule, which may not fully account for the unique attributes of decentralized systems and the way blockchain technologies operate.

The Unintended Consequences for Decentralized Services

The proposal, as it stands, could impose significant compliance hurdles for decentralized IaaS providers. These entities, often small-scale operations without the vast resources of traditional cloud services, face the real possibility of being subject to impractical Know Your Customer (KYC) mandates. Moreover, the expansive definition of an IaaS product in the proposal does not seem to encapsulate the specialized nature of blockchain-based services, which often fall outside the realm of conventional cloud computing.

The Path Forward: Recommendations for Consideration

We have provided several recommendations to the BIS, advocating for the explicit exclusion of blockchain-based IaaS and decentralized, permissionless products that do not offer traditional cloud-computing solutions from the proposed rule’s scope. We also urge a re-examination of traditional approaches to compliance such as KYC protocols, ensuring they adapt to the decentralized and digital nature of blockchain technology.

Embracing Technological Solutions

We suggest a collaborative effort with DLT experts to develop identity verification systems that respect privacy and align with decentralized principles. Emerging technologies, such as zero-knowledge proofs and secure multi-party computation, present promising avenues for compliance that do not compromise individual privacy.

Our Call for Collaborative Engagement

The Digital Chamber believes in proactive engagement with regulators like BIS. By working together, we can integrate technological solutions that ensure safety and compliance without undermining the values of privacy and decentralization that are central to the blockchain community.

Read Our Full Comment Letter

We invite you to read our comment letter to grasp the comprehensive implications of the BIS’s proposed rulemaking. It is our hope that by contributing our perspective, we can assist the BIS in recognizing the importance of preserving the innovative spirit that drives blockchain technology forward.

Join the Conversation

We stand ready to serve as a resource and look forward to continuing the conversation with BIS and the blockchain community. Your thoughts and participation are crucial in this journey towards a regulatory framework that fosters growth, ensures security, and maintains the freedom fundamental to our digital future.

Implications and Feedback Process: Early Draft Release of IRS Form 1099-DA

Here’s the scoop:

On April 19, the IRS shared a draft version of a tax form (1099-DA) that is designed to address the reporting requirements for transactions involving digital assets, particularly with respect to unhosted wallets. It’s not set in stone yet; they’re looking for your input to refine it.

Key Update:

The IRS has introduced a new category in draft Form 1099-DA, labeling “unhosted wallet provider” as a check box. This inclusion suggests a move to categorize unhosted wallets under the broker definition, aligning with broader regulatory efforts to integrate KYC (Know Your Customer) practices into cryptocurrency interactions.

How It Could Affect You:

  • For Crypto Users: You might have to reveal more about yourself (i.e., provide personal identification information) when using these wallets.
  • For Platforms: Get ready for more hoops to jump through when dealing with unhosted wallets. Interactions with platforms via unhosted wallets will likely require additional verification, affecting user experience and operational dynamics.
  • For DeFi: Big changes could be on the horizon, with a push for more oversight and user ID checks, which could significantly alter how DeFi operates.

Have Your Say:

The IRS is all ears! Share your thoughts at IRS.gov/FormsComments. Don’t forget to kick off your message with “NTF” plus the form or publication number (like “NTF1040”) to make sure it goes to the right place.

Note on Draft Forms:

  • OMB Approval: Draft forms and instructions are pending OMB approval and are not valid for filing until officially released.
  • Availability: Drafts are available at IRS.gov/DraftForms and remain accessible even after the final versions are posted at IRS.gov/LatestForms.
  • Paperwork Reduction: Comments aimed at reducing filer burden should be directed through the Federal Register process. More information is available on the IRS website.

For more information on digital asset tax policy, please email policy@digitalchamber.org

HFSC National Security Subcommittee: Ransomware Hearing

Hearing entitled: Held for Ransom: How Ransomware Endangers Our Financial System 

On April 16, 2024, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions held a hearing to discuss the critical issue of ransomware and its implications for the security of our financial system.

Witnesses (testimony linked): 

Jacqueline Burns Koven: Head of Cyber Threat Intelligence, Chainalysis 

Daniel Sergile: Senior Consulting Director, Unit 42 by Palo Alto Networks 

Megan Stifel: Chief Strategy Officer, Institute for Security and Technology 

Kemba Eneas Walden: President, Paladin Global Institute 

Hearing Takeaway: 

While digital assets were not the central theme, they emerged as a key topic due to their role in ransomware economics. The hearing delved into ransomware’s operational intricacies, the alarming rise in payment values despite fewer incidents, and the challenge of ransomware as a service (RaaS) operating beyond U.S. jurisdiction. There was a general acknowledgment that ransomware is a national security issue requiring tight regulation, improved public-private cooperation, and resources to help small businesses strengthen their cyber defenses. The discussion highlighted the effectiveness of blockchain analytics in tracing ransom payments and the potential legislative actions to advance the fight against these cyber threats. 

Member Opening Statements: 

Vice Chair Elaine (R-CA) opened the hearing on ransomware, emphasizing the critical need for a comprehensive understanding of this growing cyber threat that has not been fully addressed since pandemic-related fraud hearings four years ago. She highlighted the vulnerability of all sectors to ransomware, which extorted over $1B in 2023 alone, and underscored the potential for even a single employee error to result in significant breaches. Kim pointed out the real-world impacts of such attacks in her district and beyond, stressing the ongoing threat and the use of AI by cybercriminals to exploit system vulnerabilities. She also touched upon geopolitical dimensions, noting Iran’s role in cyber operations against the U.S. and its allies. Kim called for enhanced congressional awareness and a unified effort to address the ransomware challenge, appreciating the bipartisan approach to tackling this critical national security issue. 

Ranking Member Joyce Beatty (D-OH) thanked the Chair for their collaborative efforts on financial issues and for convening the hearing on the escalating threat of ransomware, particularly highlighting its impact on small and medium-sized businesses and national security. She noted the dramatic rise in ransomware incidents, with the value of attacks increasing from $102 million in 2018 to $1.1 billion in 2023. Beatty stressed the need for bipartisan congressional action to enhance business preparedness and consumer protection and praised the Biden administration and Treasury agencies like FinCEN and OFAC for their efforts in combating these attacks through legislation and strategic initiatives to trace ransom payments. She emphasized supporting these agencies rather than undermining their efforts and expressed a commitment to collaborating across party lines to address this significant national security challenge. 

Witness Statements: 

Jacqueline Burns Koven from Chainalysis emphasized the pivotal role of blockchain technology in countering ransomware during her testimony. As Head of Cyber Threat Intelligence, she outlined how the tool facilitates tracking and disrupting ransomware operations on the blockchain, aiding policymakers and law enforcement. Koven debunked the myth that cryptocurrency transactions are anonymous, noting they are public and traceable. She cited significant successes such as the FBI’s Colonial Pipeline case, where Chainalysis’ data led to substantial seizures of bitcoin. Despite the increase in ransom demands, she noted a decrease in actual payments, suggesting greater difficulty for attackers to profit. Koven advocated for enhanced support from Congress to empower federal efforts with blockchain intelligence, emphasizing a collaborative, whole-of-government approach to sustain pressure on ransomware actors. 

Daniel Sergile from Palo Alto Networks discussed the evolution of ransomware into a significant operational risk across various sectors, emphasizing the increasing sophistication of extortion tactics, including AI-enhanced attacks. He identified vulnerabilities due to insufficient visibility across digital infrastructures and outdated IT systems, particularly in financial services. Sergile recommended strengthening cybersecurity through actions like enhancing incident response strategies, improving infrastructure visibility, leveraging AI, adopting zero-trust architectures, and prioritizing cloud security. He highlighted the importance of collaboration within cybersecurity forums like JCDC, the Ransomware Task Force, and FS-ISAC to enhance collective defense capabilities. Sergile’s testimony did not specifically mention cryptocurrency. 

Megan Stifel, Chief Strategy Officer at the Institute for Security and Technology highlighted the critical role of cryptocurrency in ransomware economies during her testimony. She discussed the Ransomware Task Force’s efforts, which led to a report with 48 recommendations—12 targeting financial services—stressing the need for strict regulation of the cryptocurrency sector to mitigate ransomware payments through compliance with KYC, AML, and CFT rules. Stifel emphasized that despite efforts following significant ransomware incidents substantial progress is needed, especially in the financial sector where cryptocurrency transactions facilitate these criminal activities. She proposed enhancing sector resilience, ensuring adequate resources for investigating financial abuses, and promoting cybersecurity best practices through collaboration between the government and private sectors. Stifel concluded by expressing readiness to continue addressing these urgent cybersecurity challenges. 

Kemba Walden of Paladin Global Institute emphasized the sophistication of ransomware attacks and the necessity for a multi-faceted approach to deter and disrupt these threats. Highlighting the Task Force’s work, she spoke about the importance of raising the cost and lowering the profitability of ransomware. Walden identified the critical moments when ransomware criminals are most vulnerable—during the ‘on and off ramps’ of cryptocurrency transactions where fiat currency and crypto are converted— and stressed the need for quick action between financial services and law enforcement to exploit these vulnerabilities. Concluding with a call to action, she urged for the full implementation of policy recommendations, including those that address legislative gaps in combating ransomware and its financial mechanisms. 

Questioning: 

Vice Chair Young Kim opened the questioning by asking Jacqueline Koven what role digital assets play in ransomware attacks and how law enforcement and congress can work to combat ransomware. Koven explained how bad actors are no longer putting their crypto address on display now. This is an Achilles heel for bad actors; once the address is found blockchain analytics can be used to trace everything and “law enforcement is able to understand the entire ransomware supply chain.” 

Responding to another Rep. Kim question, Megan Stifel emphasized AI’s role in ransomware evolution, while Daniel Sergile stressed foundational cyber hygiene for companies. 

Ranking Member Joyce Beatty addressed the vulnerability of small to medium-sized businesses to ransomware due to limited cyber defense resources. Stifel advocated for the use of grant programs, and Walden proposed tax incentives to promote cybersecurity practices among these businesses. 

Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) highlighted the national security risk posed by the cybersecurity workforce shortage and queried the targeting pattern of ransomware attacks in relation to cybersecurity insurance holders. 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) discussed the potential effects of banning ransomware payments, with Walden cautioning that such a ban could severely impact small to medium-sized businesses and emphasized the need to fortify cyber defenses for critical infrastructure. 

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) emphasized the importance of trust and public-private partnerships in the aftermath of incidents like the Colonial Pipeline disruption. 

Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC) echoed Koven’s remarks on the traceability of cryptocurrency in ransomware cases, with Koven underscoring the need for rapid law enforcement action to prevent fund laundering by bad actors that move quickly. Koven also stated that increased training and resources for law enforcement are needed. 

Nickel also asked why there has been a significant increase in ransomware payments. Walden noted a decrease in the number of ransomware payments but an increase in their average dollar value. 

Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) questioned the evolution of ransomware and the legislative actions needed to keep pace. Sergile illustrated the use of AI in combatting threat actors, and Koven noted the increasing sophistication of ransomware, suggesting a need for involvement from multiple agencies. 

Koven also analogized it to big game hunting as bad actors are increasingly more sophisticated. Koven flagged how nation state actors engaged in ransomware are being used to obfuscate national politically motivated activities like disruption and espionage and the important to involve multiple agencies because of this. 

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) referred to the significant rise in ransom payments and the need for legal and investigative capacity investment. Stifel discussed the shortage of trained investigators, while Walden highlighted the necessity for enhanced government understanding of investigative tools like blockchain analysis. 

Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA) inquired about the nature of “Ransomware as a Service” and brought up his Public and Private Ransomware Response Coordination Act, which aims to improve threat detection, information sharing, response time, and threat suppression. Stifel described RaaS operators utilizing services outside of U.S. jurisdiction, while Koven highlighted the impact of public-private partnerships citing how their collaborative work with law enforcement has resulted in freezing North Korean funds and the colonial pipeline resolution.  

Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) continued to push his Digital ID legislation saying implementing Digital ID is the single most useful thing congress could do. This is the same Digital driver’s license idea he pushed for in last year’s July HFSC markup while Sergile replied that the Digital ID proposed may not be infallible.  

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) focused on what makes certain companies targets for ransomware, with Stifel emphasizing the need for more support for small businesses. 

Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX) wrapped up the questioning by supporting the idea of tax incentives for small businesses to enhance their cybersecurity measures, drawing from her personal experience as a business owner.