US Lawmakers Propose Federal Crypto Crime Task Force to Fight Fraud and Theft

US lawmakers propose federal crypto crime task force to fight fraud and theft

Bipartisan lawmakers are trying to build a more serious federal response to crypto crime without turning the whole industry into a permanent suspect lineup.

• New task force: A bipartisan bill would create a federal crypto crime unit.
• Main targets: Cryptocurrency theft, fraud, hacking, and scam networks.
• Huge losses: Americans reported more than $11.3 billion in crypto-related losses in 2025.
• Victim support: The plan would add a single reporting channel and clearer guidance for local police.

Republican US Representative Lance Gooden and Democratic US Representative Josh Gottheimer have introduced the Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Enforcement and Coordination Act, a bipartisan bill that would create a dedicated federal crypto crime task force led by the Attorney General. The participating agencies would include the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Treasury Department.

The basic pitch is simple: crypto fraud is growing fast, victims are getting squeezed, and law enforcement is still too fragmented to respond cleanly. That’s not exactly a shocking revelation to anyone who has spent time in this space. Crypto’s open rails and borderless nature are a feature, not a bug — but scammers, hackers, and laundering crews love those same rails when they can exploit them faster than the state can coordinate.

Why lawmakers want a federal crypto crime task force

The proposal lands after a rough year for crypto users in the United States. According to the FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report, Americans filed 181,565 cryptocurrency complaints and reported losses above $11.3 billion. Investment fraud accounted for roughly $7.2 billion of those losses, while complaint volume rose 21% year over year.

That’s not some niche problem buried in the margins. That is a full-blown crime wave. The usual suspects are behind a lot of it: fake trading platforms, romance scams, phishing attacks, “support” impersonators, and the ever-popular long-con known as pig-butchering, where criminals build trust over time before steering victims into fake investment schemes. In plain English, it’s a confidence trick with a blockchain wrapper.

The pain is hitting older Americans especially hard. People over 60 reported the highest losses among age groups, with 44,555 complaints and around $4.43 billion in losses. That should set off alarms. Scammers are not just spraying random emails and hoping for the best; they are often targeting people they believe are more likely to trust a polished pitch, respond to urgency, or be less familiar with the mechanics of digital asset scams.

What the bill would change

The legislation is designed to make the government less useless when crypto crime hits. It would create a single reporting channel for victims, so people are not stuck bouncing between agencies like they’re trapped in bureaucratic purgatory. It would also standardize guidance for local law enforcement, which matters because many local departments still lack the tools, training, or technical know-how to handle digital asset crime properly.

For readers newer to the space: self-custody means holding your own crypto in your own wallet rather than leaving it on an exchange. That matters here because once funds are stolen, recovery is often difficult. Crypto transfers can move quickly across chains and borders, and once a transaction is confirmed, it usually cannot be reversed by a bank-style chargeback. That is part of the point of decentralized money — and also part of why criminals find it useful.

The bill also comes after the DOJ disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team in 2025. This new proposal appears to be an attempt to replace that effort with something more coordinated and more explicitly focused on cryptocurrency theft, crypto fraud, and hacking investigations. That distinction matters. Targeting scammers and laundering networks is just common sense. Treating all crypto activity like it’s inherently suspect is lazy, anti-innovation nonsense.

How bad is crypto crime really?

The scale is ugly, and the numbers back that up. Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs reported that wallets linked to illicit activity received $158 billion in cryptocurrency during 2025, up from $64.5 billion in 2024. That figure includes a broad range of criminal flows, not just one type of scam, but it still shows how massive the problem has become.

To be clear, those sums do not mean every dollar was a headline-grabbing theft. Some of it would include sanctions evasion, ransomware, scams, and other forms of digital asset crime. Still, the trend is hard to ignore: criminals are using crypto wherever they can, because speed, pseudonymity, and weak enforcement are an irresistible cocktail when victims and investigators are playing catch-up.

There’s also a practical side to why crypto cases are so hard to fight. Funds can be split, swapped, bridged, and sent through exchanges or shell entities before victims even realize what happened. The longer a scam goes unreported, the more chances criminals have to layer the funds and make recovery harder. That is why a clearer reporting system could actually matter, if it’s built to work instead of just looking good in a press release.

Existing enforcement efforts show the model can work

Lawmakers are not starting from zero here. The FBI’s Operation Level Up reportedly saved more than $225.8 million in 2025 by intervening before victims lost even more money. Treasury’s Scam Center Strike Force reportedly seized more than $700 million tied to scam operations. Those are real outcomes, not empty government chest-thumping.

That said, federal enforcement has a habit of promising the moon and delivering a committee meeting. A task force can be useful if it improves intelligence sharing, speeds up coordination, and gives victims a clear place to report crimes. It can also become another layer of federal fog if it ends up duplicating existing work, chasing headlines, or turning into an acronym factory with a badge.

That’s the tension here: better coordination is badly needed, but Washington also has a talent for making simple things clumsy. A stronger anti-scam framework is a good idea. A bloated bureaucracy with a mission statement is not.

Industry support — and the catch

The proposal has backing from industry groups including The Digital Chamber and the Satoshi Action Fund. Dennis Porter, CEO of Satoshi Action Fund, praised the legislation and said Americans need a unified strategy against cryptocurrency criminals. That support is notable because parts of the crypto industry usually distrust federal “solutions” on instinct.

Still, the support makes sense. If the sector wants broader legitimacy, it cannot shrug while fraudsters drain billions and make every honest project look like a scam with better branding. The rot from bad actors spills onto everyone else. Bitcoiners, Ethereum builders, and the rest of the ecosystem have every reason to want scammers hit hard — not because they love state power, but because fraud is poison.

At the same time, there should be a healthy dose of skepticism. More enforcement can protect victims, but it can also create mission creep. Once a federal task force exists, the temptation is always there to broaden its reach, pile on more surveillance, or use “crime prevention” as an excuse to squeeze privacy tools and self-custody education. That’s the line to watch. Stop criminals, yes. Smother financial freedom, no.

What this means for Bitcoin and crypto users

For everyday users, the immediate takeaway is not “Washington is coming for your wallet.” The better reading is that lawmakers are trying to professionalize the response to actual criminal abuse. Bitcoin’s design still matters here: censorship resistance, self-custody, and borderless transfer are powerful properties, but they also make education and security non-negotiable.

Users should still be wary of any platform promising guaranteed returns, especially when the pitch comes with urgency, secrecy, or an unsolicited DM. If someone is telling you to move fast, keep it quiet, and trust them with your money, that’s usually not an investment opportunity. It’s a robbery wearing cologne.

The broader lesson is plain enough: the real enemy is not honest crypto use. The enemy is the endless parade of frauds, hacks, phishing scams, and fake “too good to be true” schemes that keep wrecking users and dragging the space through the mud. A federal crypto crime task force, if done properly, could help. If done badly, it becomes another shiny badge on a very expensive desk.

Key questions and takeaways

What is being proposed?
A federal task force to investigate cryptocurrency theft, fraud, and hacking under the Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Enforcement and Coordination Act.

Who would be involved?
The DOJ, FBI, DHS, and Treasury Department, with the Attorney General leading the effort.

Why is this happening now?
Because crypto-related crime has surged, with Americans reporting more than $11.3 billion in losses in 2025.

What problem is the bill trying to fix?
Fragmented reporting and weak coordination between agencies, which leaves victims stuck and investigators under-equipped.

How bad is crypto fraud in the US?
Very bad. The FBI recorded 181,565 cryptocurrency complaints in 2025, with losses rising 21% year over year.

Who is being targeted most aggressively?
Americans over 60, who reported the highest losses among age groups.

Does this mean a war on crypto?
Not necessarily. The framing is aimed at crypto crime prevention, not legitimate crypto use.

Could this help victims?
Yes, if it creates a real reporting system and better law enforcement coordination instead of another layer of federal chaos.

Will it become law?
Not yet. It still needs to pass through congressional committees and could be folded into a broader legislative package.

The bill now faces the usual Washington gauntlet. Whether it becomes a genuinely useful tool against crypto scam victims and criminals — or just another bureaucratic monument to “doing something” — will depend on whether lawmakers want results more than optics.