Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Currency Kiosks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates regulation of virtual-currency kiosks; supporting resolution fails
Summary
The committee heard from the district attorney about fraud tied to virtual-currency kiosks and debated a resolution supporting Assembly Bill 384 and Senate Bill 386; the motion failed in committee and members asked that operator-enforcement concerns be included in a cover letter to legislators.
The committee considered a resolution supporting 2025 Assembly Bill 384 and 2025 Senate Bill 386, measures related to regulation of in-person virtual-currency kiosks, but the motion to adopt the resolution failed after debate.
District Attorney Carl Anderson described cases in which people deposited cash into kiosks that convert the funds to cryptocurrency and said the machines are often installed at gas stations. "The fees are usually pretty exorbitant, 10 to 20%," Anderson said, and he told the committee kiosks are increasingly used in fraud schemes that often affect elderly victims. He cited a recent case where someone deposited $6,000 into a machine as part of a fraud attempt.
Anderson told the committee county ordinance options were limited and that state legislation would be the appropriate venue. He said the bill under consideration "has some weird things in it," noting the transcript reference to a driver's-license-scan requirement for depositors and saying the bill appeared to include provisions requiring companies to repay victims and to set deposit caps.
Supervisor Leif moved to approve a resolution supporting AB 384 and SB 386; Supervisor Carlson seconded. After discussion — including a committee member's citation of an Iowa attorney-general finding that more than 98% of kiosk transactions in that state were fraudulent and an assertion that some companies charge up to 30% in fees — the chair called the vote and the transcript records the chair saying "Nays have it," indicating the motion failed. The transcript does not include a roll-call tally.
After the vote, attorney Hugh Gwynn returned to the podium and criticized the bill for focusing on users rather than imposing meaningful penalties on kiosk operators, calling it "a feel good bill" that lacks "teeth" for enforcement. The committee chair responded that the county clerk would forward the resolution with a cover letter capturing concerns about operator enforcement and that corporate counsel and the administrator would work on the letter; the chair said the board could consider amendment at its meeting later that day.
The committee did not record a formal, detailed vote tally in the transcript, and members said they would seek to capture operator-enforcement concerns in a cover letter to legislators rather than reopening the resolution in committee at this meeting.
