The choice to shut down Signature Financial institution had “nothing to do with crypto,” mentioned the New York State Division of Monetary Providers, the regulator that took possession of the troubled financial institution on Sunday. The monetary watchdog insisted that its determination to place Signature Financial institution in receivership “was primarily based on the present standing of the financial institution and its skill to do enterprise in a protected and sound method.”
‘Nothing to Do With Crypto’
After the New York State Division of Monetary Providers (NYDFS) took possession of Signature Financial institution on Sunday, there have been speculations relating to whether or not the regulatory motion was linked to cryptocurrency.
Former U.S. Consultant Barney Frank, who was concerned within the drafting of the Dodd-Frank Act and had been a member of Signature Financial institution’s board since 2015, believes that the regulator’s transfer was associated to cryptocurrency. He informed CNBC Monday:
I feel a part of what occurred was that regulators needed to ship a really robust anti-crypto message.
“We turned the poster boy as a result of there was no insolvency primarily based on the basics,” he opined.
In September final yr, the cryptocurrency sector accounted for practically 25% of Signature Financial institution’s complete deposits. Nonetheless, the financial institution mentioned in December that it plans to cut back crypto-related deposits by $8 billion.
Responding to claims that the closure of Signature Financial institution was crypto-related, a spokesperson for the New York State Division of Monetary Providers informed Fortune:
The selections revamped the weekend had nothing to do with crypto. The choice to take possession of the financial institution and hand it over to the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] was primarily based on the present standing of the financial institution and its skill to do enterprise in a protected and sound method on Monday.
The NYDFS spokesperson additional shared that withdrawal requests ballooned over the weekend however Signature Financial institution failed to offer dependable and constant information.
Relating to crypto, the spokesperson said that the NYDFS “has been facilitating well-regulated crypto actions for a number of years, and is a nationwide mannequin for regulating the house.”
Frank expressed shock on the New York state regulator’s assertion that its determination to take possession of Signature Financial institution was unrelated to cryptocurrency. Claiming that to his information, the financial institution’s executives had been working to offer information to regulators, he insisted:
I feel that [crypto] was an element … I’m puzzled as to why it [Signature Bank] was closed.
“What we heard from our executives is that the deposit state of affairs had stabilized and they might be getting the capital from the low cost window and I proceed to be satisfied that if we had opened on Monday given the bulletins of these two insurance policies, we might have been in a fairly fine condition and positively useful,” the previous congressman claimed.
Do you suppose the closure of Signature Financial institution has one thing to do with crypto? Tell us within the feedback part under.
Picture Credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This text is for informational functions solely. It’s not a direct supply or solicitation of a proposal to purchase or promote, or a suggestion or endorsement of any merchandise, providers, or firms. Bitcoin.com doesn’t present funding, tax, authorized, or accounting recommendation. Neither the corporate nor the writer is accountable, immediately or not directly, for any injury or loss induced or alleged to be brought on by or in reference to using or reliance on any content material, items or providers talked about on this article.