The cryptocurrency and digital assets landscape has undergone dramatic changes in 2025, with regulatory agencies shifting their enforcement priorities and new legislation reshaping how tokens are classified under securities law. As the industry navigates this evolving terrain, companies need clear guidance on compliance, risk management, and strategic positioning.

Jeffrey Alberts, a partner at Pryor Cashman LLP who co-heads the firm's FinTech Group, brings a unique perspective to these challenges. A former federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, Jeffrey has extensive experience in government investigations, asset forfeiture proceedings, and complex financial crimes. His practice focuses on representing blockchain, digital currency, payments, and FinTech companies in regulatory matters, securities offerings, anti-money laundering compliance, and government inquiries.

Recognized as a "Cryptocurrency, Blockchain and FinTech Trailblazer" by the National Law Journal in 2018 and ranked by Chambers as a leading attorney in FinTech legal services, Jeffrey has been at the forefront of major crypto legal developments. His commentary has shaped discussions on everything from crypto sanctions and the Tornado Cash litigation to SEC enforcement actions and insider trading cases involving digital assets.

In this exclusive Q&A, Jeffrey shares his insights on three critical areas facing the crypto industry today: the evolving enforcement landscape, the changing definition of securities in the digital asset space, and best practices for asset protection and recovery. His responses offer practical guidance for companies seeking to thrive in this dynamic regulatory environment while maintaining compliance and protecting their operations.

Question 1: Regulatory Enforcement and Government Investigations

Given your extensive background as a former federal prosecutor and current role defending clients in crypto-related government investigations, what are the most significant enforcement trends you’re seeing from federal agencies like the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ in 2025? How should crypto companies proactively structure their compliance programs to minimize regulatory risk, and what red flags should trigger immediate legal consultation?

In 2025, regulatory agencies like the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ have noticeably shifted their focus away from technical registration and compliance missteps toward serious fraud and market manipulation. This year’s climate is notably more supportive of legitimate crypto innovation, with agencies aiming to protect consumers without unnecessarily hindering the industry.

Crypto companies can stay ahead by adopting strong internal controls and a compliance-first culture, emphasizing fraud prevention, transaction monitoring, and robust KYC procedures. Any outreach from federal agencies—such as subpoenas or investigative letters—should trigger immediate consultation with experienced counsel.

Question 2: The Evolving Definition of Securities in Crypto

Your firm has published extensively on whether Bitcoin constitutes a security, and you’ve guided clients through the complex regulatory landscape surrounding digital assets. With the current administration’s approach to crypto regulation and recent court decisions, how do you advise clients to navigate the ongoing uncertainty around which digital assets qualify as securities? What practical steps should crypto startups take when designing tokenomics to avoid inadvertently creating securities?

Navigating whether a token qualifies as a security remains complex, but pending legislation, especially the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, may soon redefine this landscape significantly. Under this Act, tokens classified as “investment contract assets” would be expressly distinguished from securities, potentially easing regulatory burdens.

I advise crypto startups to closely align their tokenomics and utility with the definitions proposed by pending legislation. Structuring token launches with these definitions in mind can position issuers to swiftly adapt to new laws once enacted, reducing regulatory risk.

Question 3: Asset Forfeiture and Recovery in Crypto Cases

Drawing from your experience handling high-profile asset forfeiture cases involving hundreds of millions in recovered funds (like the Refco case), how has cryptocurrency changed the landscape of asset forfeiture and recovery? What unique challenges do law enforcement and victims face when dealing with seized digital assets, and what strategies do you recommend for legitimate crypto businesses to protect themselves from potential asset freezing during investigations?

While cryptocurrency largely follows traditional asset forfeiture law principles, digital assets present unique challenges, especially regarding jurisdictional ambiguity and difficulties seizing decentralized assets without clear intermediaries.

Legitimate crypto businesses can mitigate asset-freeze risks—common in both crypto and traditional finance—by implementing stringent KYC and AML procedures. Having clear protocols to rapidly respond to asset seizures or freezing orders is essential. Approaching digital asset custody with the same diligence as traditional financial institutions will significantly reduce forfeiture-related disruptions.