Privilege protections in stablecoin rules

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · Policy submission ·

Identifies privilege provisions described as applying to both drafting alternatives, but printed under only one. Requests consistent drafting or an explanation of that choice, alongside clarification of differences in the information issuers may disclose.

Read the comment on fdic.gov (PDF, 6 pages)

The document

Title
Comment on Bank Secrecy Act and Sanctions Compliance Standards for FDIC-Supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers
RIN
3064-AG29, 12 CFR Part 350
Scope answered
The general invitation to comment on the two proposed § 350.203 options, and the plain-language request
Capacity
Personal capacity
Submitted
Length
6 pages

The tension it identifies

The preamble says that clarifying text intended to preserve all applicable privileges would apply “regardless” of which of the two options is adopted. The printed regulatory text is organised differently.

Option 1 is a single unnumbered paragraph. Option 2 contains paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Only Option 2 paragraph (b) carries the separately enumerated non-waiver provision, and only Option 2 paragraph (c) expressly attributes a disclosure to the FDIC’s authorisation under 12 U.S.C. 1821(t).

The printed structure therefore appears to place those paragraphs in Option 2 only, which sits in tension with the preamble’s “regardless”, leaving the intended treatment unclear.

What it recommends

  1. Confirm whether the Option 2-only placement is deliberate.
  2. If the provisions are meant to be common, make that visible. Give both authorisation alternatives the same paragraph number, bracket only those two versions, and place the common provisions outside the brackets with cross-references.
  3. Confirm whether the two options’ descriptions of covered information differ on purpose. Option 1 refers to information of the issuer relating to a covered action; Option 2 refers to any information relating to such an action.
  4. If the difference is intentional, explain it separately. The final rule should identify the category difference and its consequences apart from the contemporaneous-disclosure choice.

The comment points to two existing drafting models: the FDIC’s own April 2026 joint-agency AML/CFT proposal, and the OCC’s later parallel stablecoin proposal, both of which put the common provisions outside the alternative brackets.

The limits it sets on itself

It takes no position on which information-sharing option the FDIC should adopt, on the legal effect of either option, or on the preservation of any specific privilege.

The ask is narrower: make the alternative and common structure express, and say whether the information-scope difference is intentional.

Sources