Wise Pivots US Charter Strategy to GENIUS Act Framework After OCC Rejection

Woofun AI reports that payments firm Wise is restructuring its US charter strategy to align with the GENIUS Act framework, a pivot confirmed by investment bank William Blair following a recent regulatory setback. This strategic adjustment occurs after the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) denied Wise’s application to establish a national trust bank on Tuesday, citing significant compliance deficiencies. The rejection specifically highlighted the company’s inability to demonstrate an effective Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) program, alongside identified "other illicit finance activity risks."

The OCC’s decision underscores the stringent requirements for national trust charters, particularly regarding illicit finance mitigation. Despite this denial, William Blair notes that Wise is unlikely to alter its core stance on payment stablecoins in its resubmitted application. The firm’s primary objective remains reducing the cost of cross-border transactions, a goal described as "agnostic of the rail," indicating a flexibility in infrastructure choice rather than a shift in business model.

Woofun AI data shows that the regulatory context for this move is defined by the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law in July 2025 to provide a framework for payment stablecoin providers in the United States.

However, implementation guidance remains pending, as federal agencies missed a crucial deadline last week to finalize rules before the law’s effective date in January 2027. This delay creates a complex environment for applicants seeking clarity on compliance standards.

Notably, the OCC has approved several national trust charters for digital asset companies since the stablecoin bill’s passage, including applications from Circle, Ripple Labs, Crypto.com, and Coinbase. These approvals contrast with Wise’s recent rejection, highlighting the varied outcomes within the same regulatory window. Wise did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment, leaving the precise timeline for the resubmission unclear.