In early June 2026, two states on the U.S. East Coast simultaneously turned their attention to offline cryptocurrency purchasing devices: Delaware's House Bill HB 441 has passed the economic committee, requiring the removal or dismantling of all cryptocurrency ATMs (also known as crypto kiosks) in the state within approximately 90 days after the bill takes effect. According to a single source, violators may face fines of up to $10,000, but this amount still awaits further confirmation from official documentation. At the same time, a draft passed by New Jersey's Senate Commerce Committee aims to implement a comprehensive ban starting from "businesses shall not own, control, install, or manage such devices." According to a single source, the maximum fine for the first violation is also set at $10,000, which is also information that needs verification. The reasons provided by lawmakers from both states are almost identical: cryptocurrency ATMs allow for quick cash purchases of cryptocurrency assets, and some devices have lax verification processes, making them tools preferred by fraudsters, with reports indicating that the FBI received over 13,400 cryptocurrency-related complaints in 2025, resulting in losses of approximately $388 million, with a year-on-year increase of about 58%. This data also needs further verification; a typical scam path involves fraudsters remotely guiding victims to the machines, scanning QR codes, and instantly converting cash into cryptocurrency to be transferred to an address controlled by the scammer. Supporters of the ban, particularly organizations focused on protecting the rights of the elderly, describe these machines as "entry points for scams" in the community, while industry representatives counter that in underbanked areas, cryptocurrency ATMs are among the few legitimate access points for unbanked individuals, and completely removing them equals restricting ordinary users' access under the guise of "protection." This legislative tug-of-war between consumer protection and access rights has led to Delaware and New Jersey's choices being seen as potentially providing a reference for subsequent regulatory paths in other states.
Delaware and New Jersey Initiate ATM Ban
While the debate was still in the hearing and media stage, Delaware had already formalized its stance in the legislation. House Bill HB 441 was considered by the economic committee in early June 2026, and the core of the draft is not to increase licensing thresholds but to directly clear the field: once the bill takes effect, existing cryptocurrency ATMs in the state will be required to dismantle or remove all within about a 90-day grace period, leaving the operators with only a limited "removal time." A single source claims that HB 441 sets a maximum fine of $10,000 for retaining or continuing to operate the devices in violation, but this figure has not yet been corroborated by more public documents and can only be regarded as information awaiting verification.
New Jersey, on the other hand, chooses to target corporate behavior. The draft passed by the Senate Commerce Committee in early June 2026 aims to prohibit businesses from owning, controlling, installing, or managing cryptocurrency ATM devices, effectively cutting off the survival space for these machines from both property and operational rights perspectives. A single source further claims that this draft sets a maximum fine of $10,000 for the first violation, but it similarly lacks multiple document cross-verification and should be cited cautiously. As of June 11, 2026, both Delaware's HB 441 and New Jersey's ban draft are still in the stage of advancement following committee approval, and a comprehensive voting and signing process lies ahead before they can become binding state law.
13,400 Complaints and $388 Million in Losses
Reports indicate that the FBI received over 13,400 cryptocurrency-related complaints in 2025, with a single source stating that the total losses involved are approximately $388 million, claiming a year-on-year increase of about 58%. These figures have not been corroborated by multiple public documents, but they have been repeatedly highlighted in Delaware and New Jersey hearings and media statements, used by some lawmakers to illustrate a causal chain of "rising complaints—soaring losses—action must be taken." Regulatory and law enforcement agencies reportedly view this surge in complaints as a direct background for increasing regulatory efforts, thus paving the way politically for more radical ban proposals.
On a rhetorical level, these "13,400 complaints" and "$388 million in losses" have not strictly distinguished between different cryptocurrency scenarios, yet supporters of the ban continually link them to cryptocurrency ATMs as evidence that "these machines are fueling scams." Resources indicate that organizations focused on protecting the rights of the elderly have also joined this narrative, characterizing cryptocurrency ATMs as high-risk touchpoints specifically targeting vulnerable groups like the elderly. However, from data criteria to scenario attribution, there are still many verification steps, meaning that the legislative debate surrounding cryptocurrency ATMs is not only a matter of systemic choice but also a discourse tug-of-war over "which data is credible and how it should be interpreted."
Anonymous High Fees: How ATMs are Targeted by Fraudsters
In regulatory terms, cryptocurrency ATMs are viewed as "hotbeds of fraud" primarily because they lower the entry barriers enough. The machines allow users to directly purchase cryptocurrency assets with cash, and for some devices, the verification process is relatively lenient, often requiring only a simple input of a phone number or a single scan of ID to complete. For those unfamiliar with wallets or blockchain operations, the complicated steps of traditional exchanges are compressed into "insert cash—scan QR code—confirm," and this entire process can be completed under the remote guidance of a fraudster.
A typical scam path goes as follows: the scammer contacts the victim via phone or online, instructing them to go to a nearby cryptocurrency ATM, where a hands-free or video option is activated. The scammer either verbally instructs or sends a QR code to the victim, who only needs to scan the screen to exchange cash for cryptocurrency, subsequently transferring it to an address controlled by the scammer. For many elderly and cryptocurrency-illiterate individuals, the machine merely appears as a "cash deposit machine," and they may not even realize that they have sent funds on an almost irreversible blockchain path. Some materials indicate that transaction fees for these cryptocurrency ATMs are often cited in the range of 15%–20%, and this data requires further verification, meaning that victims not only suffer losses from fraud itself but also pay extra costs for this high-cost channel; this structure of "adding insult to injury" has been frequently used to support the arguments by the ban proponents during legislative hearings.
Industry Pushback: Only 1% to 3% of Transactions Involve Fraud?
In response to the label of "high-risk points," cryptocurrency ATM operators and industry associations presented their version at the hearings: industry representatives claim that only about 1%–3% of cryptocurrency ATM transactions are related to fraud, with most users making small, compliant purchases of minor cryptocurrency assets. This ratio sharply contrasts the narrative frequently referenced by the regulatory camp, which cites reports that the FBI received over 13,400 cryptocurrency-related complaints leading to about $388 million in losses in 2025, presenting two entirely different risk scenarios to the public opinion arena.
Industry representatives also emphasized that in areas where cash usage remains high and financial access is sparse, cryptocurrency ATMs are among the few offline entry points for unbanked or underbanked groups to access digital assets. If Delaware and New Jersey move towards nearly a complete ban, it would be equivalent to cutting off this channel in a one-size-fits-all approach. The legislative camp responded that even if the proportion of fraud is not high, considering the absolute amount of losses and the concentration of vulnerable groups, like the elderly, in these cases, is sufficient to support a more stringent regulatory path. It is important to emphasize that whether the "1%–3%" fraud rate or the claim of "providing access for the unbanked" currently remains more of an industry position statement, lacking unified recognition or authoritative official endorsement.
From Trials in Two States to National Trends?
From Delaware to New Jersey, both states have almost simultaneously chosen a path close to "comprehensive dismantling": the former proposed through HB 441 in the committee stage to dismantle existing cryptocurrency ATMs within approximately 90 days after taking effect, while the latter directly prohibits businesses from owning, controlling, installing, or managing relevant devices in the Senate Commerce Committee's draft. This approach, which does not merely tighten licensing conditions but directly cuts off offline touchpoints, belongs to a more radical type within existing state regulations, symbolizing that some states are no longer satisfied merely with "enhancing compliance" but are willing to respond to the reportedly sharp increase in cryptocurrency fraud complaints in 2025 with bans. Reports say that over 20 states across the U.S. have set varying degrees of restrictions on cryptocurrency ATMs (pending verification); if Delaware and New Jersey eventually inscribe the ban into written law, they are likely to become a model for those restricted states: either seen as a reference for "moving from restrictions to prohibition" or forcing other states to redraw lines between stricter regulation and maintaining offline access. However, as of June 11, 2026, the legislative bills in both states remain in the advancement phase after committee approval, with potential room for compromise or fine-tuning regarding the maximum penalties, exemption scenarios, or even extended transition periods for operators, so it is necessary to simultaneously observe the direction of the votes and signing in both states, whether other states attempt to replicate or modify this ban template, and whether the industry can propose more nuanced risk gradations and alternative regulatory schemes to fight for the remaining space for cryptocurrency ATMs in U.S. offline settings.
Join our community for discussions and to grow stronger together!
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram Community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain Community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
