Washington Regulator Seeks License Revocation
The Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) announced Sept. 3 that it had filed charges against GPD Holdings LLC, doing business as Coinflip, and CEO Benjamin Weiss. The enforcement action seeks penalties, refunds, and restrictions following alleged violations of Washington’s Uniform Money Services Act.
The agency stated:
“DFI seeks to revoke Coinflip’s license, prohibit the company and its responsible individual from the industry, and order the company and its responsible individual to pay a fine of $1,029,600.”
The charges followed a 2025 examination that allegedly identified deficient compliance and risk management practices. DFI said Coinflip’s crypto kiosk business presented a heightened scam risk for seniors, who generated more than 50% of the company’s Washington business. Crypto ATM scams targeting vulnerable consumers have drawn increasing attention from authorities. DFI Director Charlie Clark stated: “State regulators’ examination work is critical, and DFI will take action to address problems when companies fail to meet compliance expectations.”
DFI Details Alleged Compliance Failures
The 13-page statement of charges, issued Aug. 26, alleges that Coinflip lacked adequate anti-money laundering controls and allowed some customers to transact without required identifying information. It also cites insufficient transaction monitoring, unenforced limits, inaccurate regulatory reports, late currency transaction reports, unclear fee disclosures, and a transaction-alert backlog that was months overdue.
DFI further alleges that Coinflip failed to maintain adequate surety bond coverage during part of the reviewed period and did not promptly report certain banking relationships, legal actions, and a data breach affecting Washington customers. The allegations come amid broader scrutiny of crypto kiosk compliance and money laundering risks. The company also allegedly lacked a compliant refund policy and failed to refund at least 15 customers within the required period.
Crypto kiosk fraud has drawn scrutiny beyond Washington. Federal lawmakers introduced crypto ATM fraud prevention legislation after Americans reported about $389 million in crypto ATM and kiosk losses during 2025. Adults age 60 and older reported about $257.5 million of those losses, according to FBI data.
Common schemes involve callers impersonating government agencies, banks, law enforcement officers, or investment professionals before directing victims to deposit cash at crypto kiosks. Established crypto fraud prevention practices include independently verifying unexpected requests and rejecting demands to send cryptocurrency under pressure.
Charges Demand Refunds and Industry Bans
The proposed order would require refunds covering different groups of Washington customers who completed transactions beginning Sept. 1, 2023. Customers age 60 or older would receive transaction fees and markup, while certain customers identified in a confidential attachment would receive their full transaction amounts, fees, and markup.
Washington’s charges follow targeted actions against Coinflip in multiple other states. For example, Texas issued consent orders in July 2023 and February 2026 over unlicensed stablecoin money transmission, imposing penalties of $31,600 and $40,839.75, respectively. The Washington filing also identifies a Minnesota Department of Commerce consent order filed in December 2024. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Coinflip in February 2025 over alleged excessive and often hidden fees, while the Missouri attorney general sued Coinflip in May, seeking restitution, an operating injunction, and up to $1.826 million in penalties. Coinflip entered the Texas orders without admitting violations and called the Missouri lawsuit meritless.
The Washington filing remains a statement of allegations rather than a final enforcement order. Coinflip and Weiss may request an administrative hearing to contest the charges, proposed refunds, license revocation, fine, and industry prohibitions. DFI is also seeking a $3,837 investigation fee, prosecution costs, and continuing access to relevant company records.
