Not publishable as-is. 2 of 6 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.
Utah, USA
US-UTschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedregulatedoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 7 categories · 53 sourced
findings · 21 sources in the cumulative register
7Categoriesbaseline.
53Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 7 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction brief
No content recorded at this JID path.
7 of 7 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Utah does not operate a crypto-specific licence. Money transmission is licensed by the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) under the Money Transmitter Act, Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 25, through NMLS. Since S.B. 213 (2019) the statutory definition of money transmission expressly 'does not include a blockchain token' (Utah Code 7-25-102(9)(b)), and H.B. 230 (2025), codified at Title 7 Chapter 29, adds that running a node, developing software, and operating a business or decentralised protocol that exchanges one digital asset for another without exchanging into legal tender or bank deposits do not require a money transmitter licence. Fiat on-ramp and off-ramp activity is the unsettled edge: the blockchain-token exclusion reads broadly, but the 2025 exemption is expressly limited to digital-asset-to-digital-asset exchange, so a business that receives US dollars for transmission should assume the Act can apply until DFI confirms otherwise. Virtual currency kiosks are regulated separately from 6 May 2026 by the Division of Consumer Protection under the Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (H.B. 72, Title 13 Chapter 82); a 2026 bill that would have made kiosk operation money transmission (S.B. 173) was not passed.
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 (10)
T1 · Utah Department of Financial InstitutionsUtah Department of Financial Institutions — A person engaging in money transmission in Utah must hold a money transmitter licence from the Department of Financial Institutions under the Money Transmitter Act (Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 25), applied for through NMLS.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah Department of Financial InstitutionsUtah Department of Financial Institutions — DFI states that a money transmitter licensee must maintain a net worth of at least $1,000,000 and submit audited financial statements.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Utah Code 7-25-102(9)(b), inserted by S.B. 213 (2019 General Session), provides that 'money transmission' does not include a blockchain token; a blockchain token is defined in 7-25-102(4) as an electronic record recorded on a blockchain and capable of being traded between persons without an intermediary.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Utah Department of Financial InstitutionsUtah Department of Financial Institutions — DFI describes the blockchain-token exclusion as a 2020 amendment to the Money Transmitter Act, whereas the enrolled S.B. 213 is a 2019 General Session bill; the exclusion itself is not in doubt, only the date DFI attaches to it.retrieved M1non-binding
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 7-29-104 (H.B. 230, 2025), a person is not required to obtain a money transmitter licence solely for running a node, developing software, or operating a business or decentralised protocol that exchanges one digital asset for another digital asset, provided it does not exchange digital assets for legal tender or bank deposits.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Whether a business that exchanges US dollars for digital assets (a fiat on-ramp or off-ramp) needs a Utah money transmitter licence is unresolved on the primary text: 7-25-102(9)(b) excludes blockchain tokens from money transmission, but the 2025 exemption in 7-29-104 is expressly confined to exchanges that do not involve legal tender, which implies the legislature did not treat fiat legs as already excluded. No DFI guidance resolving the point was found.retrieved M5non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — From 6 May 2026 a virtual currency kiosk operator in Utah is regulated by the Division of Consumer Protection under the Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 82, enacted by H.B. 72), including an annual report of kiosk locations and 30 days' notice before installing or removing a kiosk; the Act does not itself create a kiosk licence.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Consumer ProtectionUtah Department of Commerce, Division of Consumer Protection — The Division of Consumer Protection states that after 6 May 2026 it will begin drafting administrative rules under H.B. 72 and will then publish instructions and forms for kiosk operator compliance; those rules and forms were not published at the date of this research.retrieved M3non-bindingexpected to resolve as the cycle horizon moves
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — S.B. 173 (2026 General Session), which would have required virtual currency kiosk operators to obtain a money transmitter licence and would have deemed kiosk operation to be money transmission regardless of whether blockchain tokens were involved, was not passed: the Senate struck the enacting clause and filed the bill on 6 March 2026.retrieved M3non-binding
T1 · Financial Crimes Enforcement NetworkFinancial Crimes Enforcement Network — At federal level FinCEN issued guidance FIN-2019-G001 on 9 May 2019 on how its money services business regulations apply to business models involving convertible virtual currencies; federal MSB registration is analysed under the United States (US) jurisdiction and the FIM aml_ctf subscription, not in this state baseline.retrieved M2non-binding
Utah classifies digital assets for property and commercial-law purposes rather than through a securities or e-money taxonomy. The Digital Asset Management Act (Title 13 Chapter 62, 2022) splits a digital asset into a 'digital security' (a digital asset that is a security under Utah's UCC Article 8 definition) and a 'digital user asset' (bought primarily for consumptive, personal or household purposes, including an open blockchain token). H.B. 230 (2025) defines digital asset to include stablecoins and non-fungible tokens, and H.B. 474 (2026) adopts UCC Article 12 on controllable electronic records from 6 May 2026. Whether a particular token is a security for offering purposes remains a federal question (SEC/CFTC, see the US jurisdiction) and, for state purposes, a matter for the Utah Division of Securities, which has publicly urged Congress to preserve state anti-fraud enforcement over crypto markets.
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 (8)
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-62-101 and 13-62-102 a 'digital security' is a digital asset that constitutes a security as defined in Section 70A-8-101, is intangible personal property, and is treated as a security and investment property for UCC Articles 8 and 9a.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-62-101 a 'digital user asset' is a digital asset used or bought primarily for consumptive, personal or household purposes, includes an open blockchain token, excludes a digital security, and its owner may demonstrate ownership through control.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Utah Code 13-62-103 provides that, subject to stated exceptions, a person may not be compelled to produce a private key or make it known to another person in a state civil, criminal, administrative or legislative proceeding relating to a digital asset.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — For the purposes of Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 29, 'digital asset' is defined to include stablecoins.retrieved M2bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — For the purposes of Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 29, 'digital asset' is defined to include non-fungible tokens.retrieved M2bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — H.B. 474 (2026) enacts Utah Code Title 70A Chapter 12 (UCC Controllable Electronic Records), effective 6 May 2026, defining a controllable electronic record as a record stored in an electronic medium that can be subjected to control under 70A-12-105, and protecting a qualifying purchaser who obtains control for value, in good faith and without notice of a claim.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — H.B. 474 (2026) excludes a central bank digital currency from the UCC definition of 'money' in Utah Code 70A-1a-201.retrieved M2bindingin force
T1 · Utah Division of SecuritiesUtah Division of Securities — The Utah Division of Securities has stated (8 August 2025) that federal crypto market-structure legislation should preserve state securities administrators' authority to enforce the anti-fraud provisions of their securities acts; it does not publish a Utah-specific token classification test.retrieved M3non-binding
Utah is among the most permissive US states on on-chain activity by statute. H.B. 230 (2025), codified at Title 7 Chapter 29, protects the right to accept digital assets as payment, to self-custody through a self-hosted or hardware wallet, to run a node, to develop software, to transfer digital assets and to participate in staking, and bars state and local measures that prohibit them. The same bill amends the municipal and county land-use codes to protect digital-asset mining in industrial zones. Utah also offers a statutory legal-entity wrapper for decentralised autonomous organisations (the DAO Act, Title 48 Chapter 5, effective 1 January 2024), with registrations accepted by the Department of Commerce. No Utah regime for DeFi lending, DEX operation or real-world-asset tokenisation specifically was found beyond the licensing exemptions above.
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 (9)
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 7-29-103 a person may run a node in Utah, and running a node does not of itself require a money transmitter licence (7-29-104).retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 7-29-103 a person may participate in staking in Utah.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 7-29-104 a business or decentralised protocol that exchanges one digital asset for another, without exchanging into legal tender or bank deposits, does not require a money transmitter licence.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 7-29-102 the state and local governments may not prohibit a person from accepting digital assets as payment for legal goods and services, or from self-custodying digital assets through a self-hosted or hardware wallet.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — H.B. 230 (2025) amends the municipal and county land-use codes (Utah Code 10-9a-541 and 17-27a-536) to protect digital-asset mining operations, including mining businesses using more than one megawatt, in areas zoned industrial.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under the DAO Act (Utah Code Title 48 Chapter 5, effective 1 January 2024), a decentralised autonomous organisation that meets its requirements is a legal entity separate from its members, can sue and be sued in its own name, meets its liabilities from its own assets, and is formed by filing a certificate of organisation naming at least one individual organiser.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah Department of CommerceUtah Department of Commerce — The Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, began accepting registrations of limited liability decentralised autonomous organisations after the DAO Act took effect on 1 January 2024.retrieved M2non-binding
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — No Utah statute or regulator guidance establishing a regime for DeFi lending or borrowing protocols was identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 29 does not use the term 'validator'; validator activity is addressed, if at all, through the node-operation and staking rights in 7-29-103.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
Utah has no state stablecoin issuance regime. Stablecoins fall within the Title 7 Chapter 29 definition of digital asset, so the payment-acceptance and self-custody protections apply to them, but authorisation, reserves and redemption are governed federally by the GENIUS Act (Public Law 119-27, 18 July 2025). That Act lets a nonbank issuer with under $10 billion of outstanding payment stablecoins opt into a state regime that the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee finds substantially similar to the federal one. No Utah state-qualified issuer framework was found, so a Utah-based issuer currently has only the federal routes.
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 (6)
T1 · United States CongressUnited States Congress — Payment stablecoin issuance in the United States is governed by the GENIUS Act, which became Public Law 119-27 on 18 July 2025.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · Congressional Research ServiceCongressional Research Service — The GENIUS Act creates a state regulatory option for uninsured bank or nonbank issuers with under $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins, where the state regime is found substantially similar by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee; a state issuer that grows above the threshold must transition to the federal regime unless waived.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · Utah Department of Financial InstitutionsUtah Department of Financial Institutions — No Utah statute or DFI guidance establishing a state-qualified payment stablecoin issuer regime under the GENIUS Act was identified.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Stablecoins are within the definition of digital asset in Utah Code Title 7 Chapter 29, so the statutory protections for accepting digital assets as payment and for self-custody apply to them.retrieved M2bindingin force
T1 · United States CongressUnited States Congress — No Utah-specific stablecoin reserve requirement exists; reserve rules for payment stablecoins are set by the federal GENIUS Act.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
T1 · United States CongressUnited States Congress — No Utah-specific stablecoin redemption right exists; redemption obligations for payment stablecoins are set by the federal GENIUS Act.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Utah's crypto-specific consumer protection is concentrated on virtual currency kiosks. The Virtual Currency Kiosk Regulation Act (H.B. 72, Title 13 Chapter 82, effective 6 May 2026) caps transactions at $2,000 per customer per day for the first three calendar days after a customer's first transaction and $5,000 per day thereafter, per operator; requires disclosure of terms and of the fact that virtual currency is not FDIC or SIPC insured, a consent acknowledgment, a fraud warning in English and Spanish, a detailed receipt and a 24/7 toll-free helpline; and makes violations a deceptive act under the Consumer Sales Practices Act, enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection with fines of up to $2,500 per violation. The Act contains no fee cap and no substantive refund right; the 3% fee cap and $1,000 limit proposed in S.B. 173 were not enacted. Outside kiosks, consumers rely on general securities anti-fraud law and the Consumer Sales Practices Act; no Utah custody-segregation or suitability rule specific to crypto platforms was found.
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 (8)
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-102 a virtual currency kiosk operator may not accept transactions from one customer exceeding $2,000 per day during the first three calendar days after the customer's first transaction with that operator, or $5,000 per day thereafter.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must disclose the terms of the transaction and that virtual currency is not insured by the FDIC or SIPC, obtain the customer's acknowledgment, and display a fraud warning in English and Spanish.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must give the customer a receipt showing, among other things, the transaction hash, the sending and receiving addresses, the fees charged, the exchange rate and a statement of the operator's refund policy.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-103 a kiosk operator must provide a toll-free customer service line available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-104 a kiosk operator must keep transaction records and cooperate with law enforcement investigations.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Under Utah Code 13-82-106 the Division of Consumer Protection enforces the Kiosk Act, may impose administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation and $5,000 for violating an order, and a violation is a deceptive act or practice under the Consumer Sales Practices Act (Title 13 Chapter 11).retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — The Kiosk Act as enacted contains no cap on kiosk fees and no substantive right to a refund; the $1,000 daily limit and 3% fee cap proposed in S.B. 173 (2026) were not enacted.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — No Utah statute or regulator rule imposing custody-segregation requirements on crypto trading platforms serving Utah consumers was identified.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Utah has no crypto-specific income-tax rules. Utah individual income tax starts from federal adjusted gross income (Utah Code 59-10-103 adopts the Internal Revenue Code section 62 definition), so the federal treatment of digital assets as property, with gains and losses realised on sale or exchange and income recognised on receipt, flows into the Utah return. Utah taxes that income at a single flat rate, cut to 4.45% by S.B. 60 (2026) for taxable years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. The Utah State Tax Commission accepts cryptocurrency, via PayPal, for individual income tax payments. No Tax Commission publication on sales and use tax treatment of digital assets or NFTs was found.
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 (8)
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Utah individual income tax is computed from federal adjusted gross income: Utah Code 59-10-103 defines adjusted gross income for a resident or nonresident individual by reference to section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service — For federal tax purposes digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, are property, not currency, and income from digital assets is taxable; through federal AGI conformity these gains and income enter the Utah individual income tax base.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · Utah House of RepresentativesUtah House of Representatives — S.B. 60 (2026), signed on 23 March 2026, reduced Utah's individual income tax rate from 4.5% to 4.45% with retrospective operation for taxable years beginning on or after 1 January 2026.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — S.B. 60 (2026) also sets the corporate franchise and income tax rate at 4.45% of Utah taxable income.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service — Brokers must report gross proceeds of digital-asset transactions effected on or after 1 January 2025 on Form 1099-DA, with basis reporting on certain transactions from 1 January 2026; individuals must answer the digital-asset question on the federal return and report transactions whether or not they produce a gain.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Utah State Tax CommissionUtah State Tax Commission — The Utah State Tax Commission accepts cryptocurrency payment, through a PayPal personal account and in one cryptocurrency per payment, for individual income tax only, when the tax due is paid at filing through Taxpayer Access Point, subject to service fees.retrieved M2non-binding
T1 · Utah State Tax CommissionUtah State Tax Commission — No Utah State Tax Commission publication addressing the sales and use tax treatment of NFTs or of purchases paid in digital assets was identified.retrieved M2non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — No Utah-specific withholding obligation on digital-asset transactions was identified beyond general employer withholding on wages.retrieved M1non-bindinga fact about the regime
Utah imposes no state restriction on transferring digital assets across borders; Utah Code 7-29-103 affirmatively protects a person's right to transfer digital assets to another person or business using a blockchain protocol. Cross-border controls are federal: OFAC sanctions obligations apply to virtual currency transactions in the same way as to fiat and bind all US persons, including blocking and reporting within 10 business days. Federal travel-rule and reporting-threshold obligations are covered by the FIM aml_ctf subscription and the United States (US) jurisdiction, not reproduced here.
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 (4)
T1 · Utah State LegislatureUtah State Legislature — Utah Code 7-29-103 protects a person's right to transfer digital assets to another individual or business using a blockchain protocol; no Utah statute restricting outbound or cross-border transfers of digital assets was identified.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · U.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets ControlU.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control — OFAC sanctions compliance obligations apply equally to virtual currency and fiat transactions and bind all US persons, including all individuals and entities within the United States.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · U.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets ControlU.S. Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control — A US person holding virtual currency that must be blocked must deny all parties access to it and report it to OFAC within 10 business days and annually thereafter while it remains blocked; there is no obligation to convert it into fiat.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Financial Crimes Enforcement NetworkFinancial Crimes Enforcement Network — Federal travel-rule obligations for cross-border virtual currency transfers are outside this baseline by module-subscription design (FIM aml_ctf) and are not restated 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. 2 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
egress_verified
pass
manual_override
FAIL
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
pass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
100.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Utah, 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.