The US Treasury Department sanctioned eight cryptocurrency wallet addresses linked to Russian crypto exchange Garantex and the Houthis.

The United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned eight crypto addresses that data from blockchain forensic firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs had linked to the organizations. Two are deposit addresses at major crypto platforms, while the other six are privately controlled.

The addresses in question reportedly moved nearly $1 billion worth of funds linked to sanctioned entities. Most of the transactions funded Houthi operations in Yemen and the Red Sea region.

Slava Demchuk, a crypto-focused money laundering specialist and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime consultant told Cointelegraph that “the inclusion of Houthi-linked wallets reflects a broader recognition of crypto’s role in geopolitical conflicts and terrorism financing.” He added:

“The implications are far-reaching — compliance frameworks must adapt swiftly, attribution efforts will intensify, and decentralized platforms may face increased scrutiny.“

Demchuk highlighted that the situation reshapes the regulatory landscape. According to him, crypto “is now firmly within the scope of international security.

Who are the Houthis?

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, are a Yemeni political and armed movement that emerged from the Zaidi Shia community. Originating as a revivalist and reformist group, they later became a major force in Yemen’s ongoing conflict.

Related: US DOJ says it seized Hamas crypto meant to finance terrorism

In recent years, the Houthis have engaged in attacks against both military and civilian vessels in the Red Sea with missiles and drones. In January, US President Donald Trump designated the group as a foreign terrorist organization.

The announcement noted that “the Houthis’ activities threaten the security of American civilians and personnel in the Middle East, the safety of our closest regional partners, and the stability of global maritime trade.” The group was recently struck by a US bombing campaign.

Related: Binance claims’ no special relationship’ with Hamas, argues to dismiss lawsuit

Garantex: Russia’s crypto laundromat

Garantex is a Russian crypto exchange that was sanctioned and shut down in early March after purportedly helping money-laundering efforts. At the time, Tether — the leading stablecoin operator and issuer of USDt — froze $27 million in USDt on the platform, forcing it to halt operations.

The platform has reportedly shifted millions of dollars as it sought to reboot under its new brand, “Grinex.”

In mid-March, officials with India’s Central Bureau of Investigation announced the arrest of Lithuanian national Aleksej Bešciokov, who was alleged to have operated the cryptocurrency exchange Garantex.

The arrest of the alleged Garantex founder was based on US charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business and conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.

The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.

Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).

Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin

Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.

It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.

The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.

26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US

Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.

Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.

Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Related: North Carolina bills would add crypto to state’s retirement system 

According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Additional reporting by Helen Partz.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Update (April 3, 5:43 am UTC): This article has been updated to add information on the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act.

The US House Financial Services Committee has passed a Republican-backed stablecoin framework bill, which will now head to the House floor for a full vote.

The Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32-17 vote on April 2, with six Democrats voting in favor.

The bill was introduced on Feb. 6 by committee Chair French Hill and the chair of its Digital Assets Subcommittee, Bryan Steil — reportedly drafted with the help of the world’s largest stablecoin issue, Tether.

The bill would provide rules around payment stablecoins, a crypto token tied to a currency such as the US dollar, and aims to ensure issuers give information about their business and how they back their tokens.

During an earlier markup session, the committee’s leading Democrat, Maxine Waters, who later voted against the bill, criticized her Republican peers for “setting an unacceptable and dangerous precedent” with the STABLE Act.

She said President Donald Trump could use the bill to allow his family’s stablecoin to be used in government payments, and argued the bill validates Trump “and his insiders’ efforts to write rules of the road that will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”

In late March, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture launched a stablecoin, World Liberty Financial USD (USD1). Meanwhile, the US Housing Department, which oversees social housing, was reportedly looking to experiment with using stablecoins for some of its functions.

Stablecoin GENIUS Act also weaves through Congress 

Other stablecoin-related bills are also working their way through Congress, including the Republican-led Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, which lays out oversight and reserve rules for issuers.

Related: Crypto has a regulatory capture problem in Washington — or does it?

The US Senate Banking Committee voted through the GENIUS Act in an 18-6 vote on March 13, after Senator Bill Hagerty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, updated it following consultation with the Committee’s Democrats.

Before the vote, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the updated GENIUS Act made “significant improvements to a number of important provisions” in areas such as consumer protections and authorized stablecoin issuers.

Both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act will now wait until debate time on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, before they head for a floor vote.

Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on X that two unnamed crypto lobbyists said there is likely to be “a coordinated push behind the scenes over the next few weeks to get the two bills to mirror each other, as there are still some differences between them.”

Doing so would “avoid having to set up a so-called conference committee which is formed so members from both chambers can negotiate to create a final version of the bill everyone agrees on,” she added.

Magazine: How crypto laws are changing across the world in 2025