Evansville council adopts ordinance to regulate bitcoin ATMs after police warn of scams

The Evansville Common Council on Sept. 8 adopted an amended ordinance creating a new chapter of the municipal code to regulate virtual currency kiosks, commonly called bitcoin or cryptocurrency ATMs, after law enforcement and elder-advocacy volunteers described rising fraud tied to the machines.

Detective Nathan Van Cleave, sergeant of the financial crimes unit at the Evansville Police Department, told the council the department has documented a rising number of scams that use cryptocurrency kiosks to convert victims’ cash into digital currency that is then transferred to criminals. "We have approximately 70 Bitcoin ATMs in Evansville," Van Cleave said. He said the department recorded about eight cases two years ago, 20 last year and 25 so far this year, with average losses of about $10,000 per victim.

The ordinance, filed as G 2025-19 (amended), creates Chapter 8.45 of the Evansville Municipal Code, titled "Virtual Currency Kiosk." It requires operators or hosts of kiosks to display specified signage warning customers about fraud, provide a mandatory customer-service or help line, and maintain a direct channel of communication to assist the police with fraud investigations. The measure also establishes civil penalties that start at $100 and can increase for repeated violations, up to $500 at the same location, according to material presented to the council.

Vicky Small, team lead for AARP Indiana volunteers based in Evansville, urged passage and emphasized the effect on older residents. "Criminals will impersonate a government official ... instructing them to take large amounts of cash and deposit the money into the crypto ATM," Small said, adding that, "just this year alone, $278,000 has been scammed in our area alone by these ATMs." AARP representatives told the council they are working on complementary state-level legislation.

Speakers at the meeting said the local ordinance is modeled on measures enacted in other cities and states. Staff and counsel told the council the measure follows examples from several jurisdictions and, under the Indiana Home Rule Act, the council has authority to regulate within city limits while state-level legislation may later supersede local rules.

The council voted to adopt the amended ordinance by voice and formal tally. There were eight ayes, zero nays; the ordinance was declared adopted.

Council members and staff described the ordinance as an interim, local step intended to raise the bar for fraud prevention while state lawmakers pursue broader rules. The ordinance takes effect according to the adoption procedures in the municipal code and officials said it is intended to assist investigations and educate consumers.

The city clerk recorded the motion and adoption as part of the evening's consent and regular agenda actions.