Connections between traditional banks and the crypto world have once again turned uneasy, after JPMorgan Chase reportedly shut a business account linked to a ShapeShift employee and warned that the individual’s personal account could be next.
The person has not been publicly identified, but the move has revived an earlier controversy involving a prominent crypto executive and reopened a wider debate about so-called “debanking” in the United States.
JPMorgan’s Latest Closure Raises New Alarms
According to reports, the affected ShapeShift employee was informed that their business account would be closed, with a warning that their personal banking relationship could also be terminated.
For many in the crypto sector, the development feels familiar.
It echoes the high-profile case of Jack Mallers, CEO of Bitcoin payments firm Strike and co-founder of Twenty One Capital, who revealed in September 2025 that his personal accounts at JPMorgan had been shut down over “concerning activity”, with no further explanation provided.
Beyond account closures, Mallers claimed that some customers were prevented from depositing funds with Strike, after the bank allegedly labelled the company as being involved in “known fraudulent activities”.
These claims have intensified scrutiny of how major banks assess and treat individuals and businesses connected to digital assets.
A Long-Running Strain Between Banks And Crypto Firms
For years, large banks have kept crypto-linked clients at arm’s length, citing strict compliance obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act, anti–money laundering rules, and internal risk-scoring frameworks.
In many cases, accounts are frozen or closed without detailed explanations.
This is largely because banks are prohibited from disclosing sensitive information related to Suspicious Activity Reports, making it difficult for affected customers to challenge or even understand the decision.
To much of the crypto community, this lack of transparency is the core grievance.
Industry participants argue that people working legally in digital assets are effectively punished for their professional association, even as regulators work towards clearer and more balanced oversight of the sector.
Political Voices Enter The Debate
The incident has attracted political attention.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a vocal supporter of Bitcoin and digital assets, criticised JPMorgan’s actions and warned of broader consequences.
Referring to earlier allegations of systemic pressure on the industry, she said:
“Operation Chokepoint 2.0 regrettably lives on. It’s past time we put it to rest to make America the digital asset capital of the world.”
The term “Chokepoint 2.0” is used by the industry to describe what it believes was a coordinated effort during the Biden era to limit banking access for crypto firms, driven by regulatory and reputational concerns.
Many banks at the time viewed digital asset companies as high risk under an unfavourable political and regulatory climate.
Federal Action, Yet Old Problems Remain
After the pro-crypto Trump administration took office in 2025, the government moved quickly to re-examine potential discrimination against the industry.
By August 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order promoting fair access to banking.
Regulators, including the Federal Reserve, were instructed to remove “reputational risk” as a factor in account decisions.
The White House stated that the digital assets industry had been subjected to “unfair debanking initiatives”.
Despite these efforts, the latest developments suggest that practical change on the ground remains slow.
Just three months after the executive order, similar complaints are resurfacing, now involving one of the largest banks in the United States.
Adding to the political tension, Trump claimed in August that both JPMorgan and Bank of America rejected his own deposits, reinforcing his belief that banking discrimination can be driven by politics, not just compliance.
Two Sides Of A Sharply Divided Argument
Supporters of JPMorgan’s cautious approach argue that the risks tied to digital assets are real.
Economist Steve Hanke has claimed that criminal organisations have laundered $28 billion through cryptocurrency since 2024, a figure often cited by critics of the industry.
Others counter that traditional banks are hardly blameless.
John Deaton, a former U.S. Senate aspirant, responded by pointing out that JPMorgan has paid $40 billion in fines for illicit activity since 2000, adding:
“Since 2000 JPMorgan alone has paid $40 billion in fines for illicit activity – significantly less than the total fined all crypto companies.”
This comparison has further fuelled arguments that crypto firms are being singled out, even though financial misconduct has long existed within the conventional banking system.
Calls For Boycott And Demands For Clarity Grow Louder
In response to the latest account closure, some crypto advocates have urged customers to boycott JPMorgan, accusing the bank of acting without transparency or fairness.
They warn that if legitimate crypto businesses and workers cannot access basic financial services, the industry may be pushed offshore — a concern that runs directly against the stated goal of making the United States a global hub for digital assets.
The incident involving the ShapeShift employee, combined with the Mallers case and continued political commentary, highlights a deep and unresolved clash.
Banks remain bound by rigid compliance standards and internal risk controls, while the crypto industry demands equal and transparent treatment under a changing regulatory landscape.
For now, trust remains fragile — and the debate over who controls access to the financial system is far from settled.
YouQuan
Alex
Kikyo
Hui Xin