On January 30, 2019, a Florida appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of State v. Espinoza, instead holding that a Bitcoin business was both a money transmitter and a payment instrument seller, subject to Florida’s statutes governing money services businesses. The decision contrasts with recent guidance in Texas and Pennsylvania regarding cryptocurrencies, where virtual currencies in those states were not deemed money under applicable state statutes and businesses that conduct transactions exchanging virtual and sovereign currencies do not generally require a currency exchange license.
The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities recently issued guidance under the Money Transmitter Act (“MTA”) for entities engaged in various forms of virtual currency business in the commonwealth. The MTA, like similar statutes in other states, requires entities engaged in a money transmitter business to obtain a license, maintain minimum net worth standards, pay a surety bond, be subject to periodic examinations, and take other actions to safeguard customer funds. As we previously reported, many of these statutes were not drafted with virtual currency businesses in mind, which has created various compliance challenges for the crypto community.