Not publishable as-is. 1 of 5 publication_gate checks fail. The renderer displays the gate rather than suppressing it. Legal review and sub-brief approval are informational and are not part of this test.
Indiana, USA
US-INschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedregulatedoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 8 categories · 26 sourced
findings · 16 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
26Findings.claims[]
4Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction lead brief
Lead Signal
Indiana enacted two directionally opposed digital-asset statutes in the same 2026 legislative session, producing a bifurcated regulatory posture that both protects and restricts distinct corners of the crypto ecosystem. House Enrolled Act 1042 establishes Indiana's first statutory digital-asset-rights framework, codifying a definition of cryptocurrency, protecting core on-chain activities such as node operation and software development from restriction by non-Department-of-Financial-Institutions state and local agencies, and prohibiting discriminatory taxation of digital-asset transactions. At the same time, House Bill 1116 makes Indiana the first U.S. state to enact an outright statewide ban on virtual-currency kiosks, effective March 10, 2026, closing a specific retail access channel that had been linked to documented elder-fraud losses. Read together, these two enactments describe a state that is simultaneously liberalising the legal environment for on-chain participation and tightening enforcement against a specific fraud-prone access format, rather than moving uniformly in one regulatory direction. Both statutes were signed within days of each other in early March 2026, underscoring that this is a single coherent legislative moment rather than two unrelated developments.
Other Developments
Structural money-transmission licensing gap persists. Indiana's Money Transmission Modernization Act, in force since January 2024, did not adopt the model law's virtual-currency-transmission title, meaning virtual-currency-only transmission with no fiat leg remains outside the scope of state money-transmission licensing. This is an unchanged, structural feature of the licensing landscape rather than a new development, but it now sits alongside HEA 1042's protective framework and HB 1116's kiosk prohibition as a third, load-bearing fact about how Indiana treats crypto-native activity: there is no comprehensive licensing regime to obtain, a protective rights framework for on-chain participation, and a targeted prohibition on one retail access format, all coexisting without a unifying comprehensive digital-asset statute.
New token-classification baseline. HEA 1042 codifies "cryptocurrency" as a decentralized virtual currency using encryption to validate transactions and control supply, expressly excluding payment stablecoins from that definition. The classification is enacted but not yet effective as of this cycle's evidence, and it addresses only what counts as cryptocurrency for the Act's own protective provisions, leaving broader securities-law classification questions unresolved.
Consumer-protection enforcement mechanism. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General enforces the kiosk ban under deceptive-consumer-sales authority, with forfeiture of kiosks and collected funds available as remedies, a mechanism directly responsive to documented elder-fraud losses rather than a general crypto-consumer-protection framework.
Cross-Monitor Connections
The AML/CFT dimension of Indiana's crypto framework is supplied to this monitor by the financial-integrity consumer's D7 and D5 domain coverage rather than analysed first-party here; readers should consult that coverage directly for the anti-money-laundering reading of this cycle's Indiana developments. The consumer-protection enforcement mechanism attached to HB 1116 -- Attorney General enforcement under deceptive-consumer-sales authority -- overlaps with the financial-integrity monitor's own treatment of the same kiosk ban as a fraud-typology finding, and with the world-payments monitor's treatment of Indiana's money-transmission licensing scope as a payments-market-access fact. These are the same underlying statutory developments read through three different lenses across the three monitors, and readers cross-referencing all three should expect consistent underlying facts with differing analytical framing.
Outlook
Watch for whether the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions issues implementing guidance reconciling HB 1116's kiosk prohibition with HEA 1042's custody and node-operation protections, a reconciliation question the gaps register flags as not yet researched this cycle. Watch also for whether primary statute text for HEA 1042 or HB 1116 becomes available in a future cycle, since this cycle's findings rest on secondary law-firm and press coverage rather than the underlying Indiana General Assembly bill text directly, a sourcing gap that should be closed as the record matures. Finally, watch for whether Indiana revisits its non-adoption of the virtual-currency-transmission title, since closing that structural gap would be the clearest signal of a move toward a comprehensive digital-asset licensing regime for the state.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Indiana has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange, custody and transmission businesses fall under Indiana's general Uniform Money Services Act (IC 28-8-4.1), administered by the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and processed through the multistate NMLS system, consistent with the disambiguation seed. Two 2026 enactments materially reshape the landscape: HB 1042 (signed March 3, 2026, effective July 1, 2026) carves out DFI as the only public agency permitted to regulate individuals' digital-asset activity, while barring all other state/local agencies from restricting acceptance of crypto payments or self-hosted wallet custody; and a companion bill (commonly referenced as HB 1116) enacted a full statewide prohibition on virtual-currency kiosks (crypto ATMs), making Indiana the first U.S. state with a blanket kiosk ban, enforced by the Attorney General under deceptive consumer sales law.
Standing sub-brief168 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Crypto Licensing
Indiana's crypto licensing landscape moved on two fronts in the 2026 session. House Bill 1116 prohibits the operation of virtual-currency kiosks statewide, effective March 10, 2026, making Indiana the first U.S. state to enact a full statutory ban on this specific access channel. Separately, the Indiana Money Transmission Modernization Act structurally exempts virtual-currency-only transmission, with no fiat leg, from state money-transmission licensing, because Indiana did not adopt the model law's virtual-currency-transmission title. Together these two facts describe a licensing environment with no comprehensive virtual-asset-service-provider licensing regime, a specific and severe restriction on one retail access format, and a structural licensing gap for pure virtual-currency transmission. The Indiana Department of Financial Institutions is the supervisory authority for money transmission generally, though it has no dedicated crypto-licensing mandate beyond that scope exclusion.
Outlook
Watch for whether the DFI issues guidance reconciling the kiosk prohibition with the money-transmission scope exclusion and HEA 1042's on-chain protections, and whether Indiana moves toward a dedicated virtual-asset-service-provider licensing regime in a future session.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Crypto Licensing
Indiana's crypto licensing landscape this cycle contains one significant subtraction and one confirmed constant. The subtraction: House Bill 1116 bans the operation of virtual-currency kiosks statewide outright, enforced by the Indiana Attorney General under the state's deceptive consumer sales act framework rather than through the Department of Financial Institutions' licensing apparatus. This is a departure from an earlier legislative draft that would instead have brought kiosk operators under money-transmitter licensure, meaning Indiana's final policy choice was prohibition rather than regulation for this specific retail channel. The constant: custodial crypto exchange, custody, and payment activity that meets the statutory definition of money transmission continues to require a money-transmitter license from the Department of Financial Institutions under the Money Transmission Modernization Act, codified at IC 28-8-4.1. That licensing requirement is unchanged this cycle and was not affected by either the kiosk ban or the new on-chain-activity protections enacted alongside it.
The practical effect is a narrowing of the licensed-activity surface at the retail-kiosk edge while the core custodial-licensing backbone remains stable. An operator running a custodial exchange or custody business in Indiana faces no new licensing obligation this cycle; an operator running or planning a physical kiosk network faces an outright prohibition rather than a licensing pathway, a materially different outcome than the state initially appeared headed toward earlier in the legislative process.
Outlook
The exact statutory effective date of HB 1116's final ban language has not been independently confirmed against the dates proposed in the earlier, superseded licensing draft. Watch for confirmation of that effective date and for any DFI commentary distinguishing the newly-banned kiosk channel from the unchanged custodial-licensing regime.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (8)
Unsourcedsource not recorded — No person may operate a virtual-currency kiosk in Indiana as of March 9-10, 2026 under HB 1116.M5bindingin force
Unsourcedsource not recorded — No person may operate a virtual-currency kiosk in Indiana as of March 9-10, 2026 under HB 1116.M5bindingin force
Unsourcedsource not recorded — No person may operate a virtual-currency kiosk in Indiana as of March 9-10, 2026 under HB 1116.M5bindingin force
Unsourcedsource not recorded — No person may operate a virtual-currency kiosk in Indiana as of March 9-10, 2026 under HB 1116.M5bindingin force
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — Virtual-currency exchange and custody businesses operating in Indiana are required to hold a money transmitter license under Indiana's Uniform Money Services Act (IC 28-8-4.1), which incorporates federal BSA/MSB definitional references, rather than a bespoke crypto license.retrieved M5bindingin force
T2 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing SystemNationwide Multistate Licensing System — Indiana money transmitter licensing (including for virtual-currency businesses) is processed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), the common multistate licensing infrastructure used by most U.S. states, rather than a state-only crypto portal.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · The BlockThe Block — Indiana enacted a full statewide ban on the operation of virtual-currency kiosks (crypto ATMs) in March 2026, becoming the first U.S. state with a blanket prohibition on such machines, with violations enforceable by the state Attorney General under deceptive consumer sales laws.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · The BlockThe Block — HB 1042 bars Indiana public agencies other than the Department of Financial Institutions from adopting rules that prohibit or restrict a person's ability to accept crypto as payment for lawful goods and services or to hold assets in self-hosted or hardware wallets, effectively ring-fencing licensing/regulatory authority over individual digital-asset activity to DFI.retrieved M4bindingin force
Indiana has no state-level token-classification regime. Per the disambiguation seed, characterisation of tokens as securities or commodities is governed exclusively by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction (see US JID), not by Indiana-specific rules. The only Indiana statutory definition touching classification is a narrow carve-out in HB 1042's retirement-plan provisions (IC 2-3.5-5-3.3), which defines 'digital asset' for public-fund investment purposes and explicitly excludes stablecoins from that definition.
Standing sub-brief123 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Token Classification
House Enrolled Act 1042 codifies Indiana's first statutory definition of cryptocurrency, describing it as a decentralized virtual currency that uses encryption to validate transactions and control supply, while expressly excluding payment stablecoins from that definition. This is a newly codified but narrow classification: it establishes what counts as cryptocurrency for purposes of the Act's protective provisions without addressing how a given token would be classified for securities-law purposes generally. The definition is enacted but not yet effective as of this cycle's evidence. No comprehensive Indiana token-taxonomy or securities-classification framework beyond this definition was identified.
Outlook
Watch for the definition's effective date and for whether Indiana or federal securities regulators layer a separate classification framework on top of this narrow statutory definition.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Token Classification
House Enrolled Act 1042 (P.L. 49-2026) introduces Indiana's first state-law definition of 'cryptocurrency', describing it as a decentralized virtual currency that uses encryption techniques to validate transactions and control the creation of additional units, while expressly excluding payment stablecoins from that definition. This is a definitional line drawn at the state-law level only; it does not purport to settle, and is not binding upon, the separate federal-law question of whether a given digital asset is a security or a commodity, which continues to be governed by federal tests.
The practical significance of this definition lies less in any immediate compliance obligation it creates and more in how it structures the rest of Indiana's digital-asset statutory architecture going forward: by excluding payment stablecoins from the 'cryptocurrency' definition, HEA 1042 leaves stablecoin issuance and reserve questions to be addressed, if at all, under a separate framework rather than folding them into the general cryptocurrency definition. No such separate stablecoin framework exists in Indiana as of this cycle.
Outlook
Watch for whether Indiana develops a dedicated stablecoin framework that would give substantive content to the definitional exclusion HEA 1042 has now drawn, and for any indication that the state-law 'cryptocurrency' definition is referenced in subsequent DFI guidance or enforcement matters.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (2)
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — Indiana does not maintain an independent state-level securities/commodity/utility token classification regime; token characterisation for securities or commodity purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction rather than Indiana-specific rules.retrieved M4non-bindinga fact about the regime
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — IC 2-3.5-5-3.3, added by HB 1042 (2026), defines 'digital asset' for purposes of Indiana public retirement/investment-plan eligibility and expressly states the term does not include a stablecoin.retrieved M3bindingin force
Indiana's 2026 legislative package (new IC Article 5-36 and amendments to IC 36-1) is the first Indiana statutory framework to define and protect on-chain activities. It establishes definitions for blockchain, blockchain protocol, digital asset mining, digital asset mining business, node, private digital asset mining, self-hosted wallet, hardware wallet, and staking, and separately bars local units of government from adopting ordinances that restrict digital-asset mining operations (IC 36-1-30.5).
Standing sub-brief128 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
On-Chain Activity Regime
House Enrolled Act 1042 grants an affirmative, binding protection for core on-chain activity: public agencies other than the Department of Financial Institutions may not restrict the operation of blockchain nodes, the development of blockchain software, or the transfer of digital assets. This is a liberalising, favorable development for on-chain participants operating in Indiana, and it is enacted, though not yet effective as of this cycle's evidence. The protection is narrowly scoped to non-DFI public agencies, preserving the Department's own regulatory authority over money transmission and related licensing while foreclosing other state and local bodies from independently restricting these specific activities.
Outlook
Watch for whether the protection is tested by a local or state agency attempting to restrict on-chain activity, and for the Act's effective date.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
On-Chain Activity Regime
House Enrolled Act 1042 establishes a new, affirmatively permissive statutory protection for on-chain activity in Indiana. The Act bars most Indiana public agencies, with the Department of Financial Institutions carved out as an exception, from restricting core blockchain functions including operating a node, developing or using blockchain-related software, and transferring digital assets. This is a new statutory protection rather than a continuation of prior policy, and it runs in a liberalising direction relative to the state's general regulatory posture on financial activity: rather than imposing a new licensing or registration burden on node operators or software developers, the statute affirmatively shields these activities from most public-agency restriction.
The carve-out preserving DFI's authority is significant: it signals that the legislature intended the protection to apply to non-custodial, infrastructure-level activity while leaving the state's financial regulator's authority over money-transmission-level activity intact. This distinction, between protected non-custodial infrastructure activity and licensable custodial money transmission, is the operative boundary line this statute draws, though its precise contours in practice have not yet been tested by DFI guidance.
Outlook
Whether Indiana's Department of Financial Institutions issues implementing guidance specifically addressing HEA 1042's non-custodial-software carve-out, and how that guidance draws the line between protected infrastructure activity and licensable money transmission, was not confirmed this cycle and remains the key open question for this module.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (7)
T1Indiana General Assembly — Public agencies other than the DFI may not restrict core blockchain functions including operating nodes, developing software, or transferring digital assets.retrieved M3bindingenacted not yet effective
T1Indiana General Assembly — Public agencies other than the DFI may not restrict core blockchain functions including operating nodes, developing software, or transferring digital assets.retrieved M3bindingenacted not yet effective
T1Indiana General Assembly — Public agencies other than the DFI may not restrict core blockchain functions including operating nodes, developing software, or transferring digital assets.retrieved M3bindingenacted not yet effective
T1Indiana General Assembly — Public agencies other than the DFI may not restrict core blockchain functions including operating nodes, developing software, or transferring digital assets.retrieved M3bindingenacted not yet effective
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — IC 5-36 (2026) defines 'digital asset mining' and 'digital asset mining business,' and IC 36-1-30.5 prohibits a local unit of government from adopting or enforcing an ordinance restricting digital-asset mining operations.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — IC 5-36 defines 'stake' or 'staking' as committing digital assets to a blockchain protocol, establishing a statutory basis for the activity within Indiana's new digital-asset article.retrieved M3bindingin force
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — IC 5-36 defines 'node' as software that participates in a blockchain protocol's network, providing a statutory definitional basis for node operation as a recognized on-chain activity in Indiana.retrieved M2bindingin force
Indiana has no bespoke state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, redemption or disclosure regime; issuance authorisation for payment stablecoins is governed at the federal level (see US JID), and Indiana's only stablecoin-adjacent provision is a definitional exclusion (HB 1042, IC 2-3.5-5-3.3) removing stablecoins from the 'digital asset' definition used for state retirement-plan crypto-ETF investment eligibility.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — Indiana has no state-level stablecoin issuance authorisation, reserve-requirement, or redemption-right regime; such matters are governed at the federal level rather than by Indiana-specific statute.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Indiana's 2026 legislative package provides two consumer-protection-relevant strands: (1) HB 1042's protection of individuals' right to accept crypto as payment and to self-custody assets via self-hosted or hardware wallets, insulating this activity from restrictive agency rulemaking; and (2) the statewide crypto-ATM/kiosk ban, motivated by rising elder-fraud losses (approximately $400,000 in Evansville-area scams reported in 2025), enforceable by the Attorney General under Indiana's deceptive consumer sales law.
Standing sub-brief103 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Consumer Protection
The Office of the Indiana Attorney General enforces the virtual-currency-kiosk ban under the state's deceptive-consumer-sales laws, with forfeiture of kiosks and of funds collected as available remedies. This enforcement structure was driven by documented elder-fraud losses associated with kiosk-based scams, and it gives consumer protection in this space a binding, in-force enforcement mechanism rather than a purely advisory posture. The mechanism is specific to the kiosk-based retail access channel that HB 1116 prohibits, rather than a general crypto-consumer-protection framework covering exchanges, custody, or other product types.
Outlook
Watch for the Attorney General's first enforcement actions and forfeiture outcomes under HB 1116.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Consumer Protection
Indiana's 2026 session produced two consumer-protection-relevant developments moving in different directions. First, the virtual-currency kiosk ban under House Bill 1116 was enacted, according to its legislative sponsor, on stated consumer-fraud-prevention grounds; the sponsor's public framing treats kiosks as a channel for fraud against Indiana consumers, and the statute's enforcement mechanism (via the Attorney General under the deceptive consumer sales act) reflects that framing rather than a financial-licensing sanction. Second, and separately, House Enrolled Act 1042 protects individuals' right to custody of digital assets via self-hosted or hardware wallets against restriction by most public agencies, an affirmative rights-protection measure distinct in character and rationale from the kiosk ban.
These two measures sit in some tension: the state is simultaneously restricting a retail-facing on/off-ramp channel on fraud-prevention grounds and affirmatively protecting individual self-custody rights elsewhere in the same legislative session. Read together, they suggest Indiana's consumer-protection posture toward crypto this cycle is channel-specific rather than uniformly restrictive or uniformly permissive: kiosks are treated as a fraud vector warranting prohibition, while self-custody is treated as a right warranting protection.
Outlook
Watch for whether the stated fraud-prevention rationale behind the kiosk ban is borne out by any Attorney General enforcement activity following the ban's effective date, and for whether the self-custody protection under HEA 1042 is tested by any public-agency action.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — HB 1042 protects individuals' ability to hold digital assets in self-hosted or hardware wallets, prohibiting public agencies (other than DFI) from restricting such self-custody arrangements.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Violations of Indiana's statewide virtual-currency kiosk ban are subject to enforcement by the Indiana Attorney General under deceptive consumer sales laws, following reports of approximately $400,000 in Evansville-area crypto-ATM scam losses in 2025.retrieved M4bindingin force
Federal tax treatment governs crypto in Indiana absent state override: the IRS treats virtual currency as property (Notice 2014-21), so dispositions generally trigger capital gains/loss treatment and mined/staked tokens are includible in gross income at fair market value on receipt. Indiana layers on a narrow non-discrimination protection: HB 1042 prohibits the state and local governments from imposing special taxes or fees on crypto used as payment for lawful goods/services, or on individuals maintaining self-hosted-wallet custody, that do not apply to other financial transactions.
Standing sub-brief96 words · last cycle 2026-08-21
Tax Treatment
House Enrolled Act 1042 prohibits Indiana governmental units from introducing rules that single out digital-asset transactions for additional taxes, fees, or other regulatory burdens beyond those applicable to comparable non-digital-asset transactions. This is a protective, binding non-discrimination rule, enacted though not yet effective as of this cycle's evidence, rather than a comprehensive digital-asset tax code. No dedicated Indiana crypto capital-gains or transaction-tax framework distinct from general state tax law was identified this cycle.
Outlook
Watch for the rule's effective date and for whether Indiana develops a dedicated digital-asset tax framework in a future session.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (3)
T1 · Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service — For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property, and general property-transaction tax principles apply, so that gain or loss on sale or exchange of virtual currency held as a capital asset is subject to capital gains tax.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service — Digital currency wages paid to employees and payments to independent contractors are taxable and subject to federal reporting requirements, and taxpayers who mine virtual currency generally realize gross income upon receipt at fair market value.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · The BlockThe Block — HB 1042 prohibits Indiana state and local governments from imposing special taxes or fees on the use of crypto as payment for lawful goods and services, or on individuals who maintain custody via self-hosted wallets, beyond what applies to other financial transactions.retrieved M3bindingin force
Indiana has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus and cross-border reporting matters are governed federally. OFAC-administered sanctions programs apply to crypto transactions involving sanctioned persons/jurisdictions regardless of Indiana licensing status, and FinCEN's federal Funds Travel Rule (cross-border limb of AML, subscribed via FIM) applies to qualifying money transmitters, including Indiana-licensed virtual-currency businesses.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Crypto Task Force) — Indiana imposes no state-specific outbound restriction on cross-border crypto transfers; such matters are addressed exclusively at the federal level rather than by Indiana statute.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
T1 · FinCENFinCEN — Federal OFAC sanctions programs apply to crypto transactions involving sanctioned persons or jurisdictions irrespective of Indiana money-transmitter licensing status, per federal BSA/MSB regulatory guidance applicable to virtual-currency administrators and exchangers nationwide.retrieved M4bindingin force
Crypto AML/CFT obligations are handled at the fleet level via the FIM aml_ctf module subscription; this baseline does not produce AML/CFT claims for US-IN. For disambiguation context only: virtual-currency exchangers/administrators operating from or into Indiana are subject to FinCEN's federal Bank Secrecy Act money-transmitter regime (registration, recordkeeping, SAR/CTR filing) regardless of Indiana state licensing status, and FinCEN's 2025 kiosk notice specifically flags CVC kiosk operators as subject to BSA obligations.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · FinCENFinCEN — No US-IN-specific AML/CFT claim is produced in this baseline; crypto AML/CFT obligations for US-IN are covered under the FIM aml_ctf module subscription rather than duplicated here.retrieved M1non-bindinga fact about the regime
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Publication gate
Blocking. 1 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
egress_verified
pass
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
pass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
54.55
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Indiana, USA
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
no reviewer on record
trust.content_source
ai_generated
Provenance and declared absence
Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.
Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.
Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.