2026-01-07 03:20:35

North American leading Bitcoin ATM operator recently reached a settlement with the Maine Department of Consumer Credit Protection, involving an amount of $1.9 million. This compensation is primarily intended to reimburse state residents who experienced third-party scams while conducting cryptocurrency transactions through the company's ATMs between 2022 and 2025.

A common scenario for victims is as follows: scammers use various methods (phone, online, etc.) to obtain user information, then guide them to purchase digital assets like Bitcoin via ATM, and transfer the funds into a non-custodial wallet — once transferred, the funds can no longer be recovered. Such cases are common in the crypto ATM channel and are a key focus for regulators.

According to the settlement agreement, eligible victims need to submit a claim by April 1, 2026, with payouts expected to begin in May. Meanwhile, the ATM operator has also obtained a Maine money transfer license, meaning its operations will be subject to a more regulated framework. For the industry, this not only strengthens consumer protection but also promotes compliance upgrades in cryptocurrency transaction channels.

BTC-3,96%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearEatsAll

· 01-09 17:49

1.9 million really doesn't compensate many people, what can each victim get when spread out? It's the same old scam tricks, really hard to defend against. Compliance upgrades are a good thing, but why did these operators wait so long to do it? Waiting so long for compensation, I feel sorry for those retail investors who were scammed. Having a license now instead of earlier just shows that nothing was there before? That's a bit ironic. Non-custodial wallets disappear in an instant, this is an eternal pain point. Can only apply for compensation in 2026? The timeline is way too long. Basically, it's being forced to pay up, but they can still continue doing business afterward.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomMiner

· 01-08 19:09

Another scam case? These ATM operators should have been regulated long ago, and $1.9 million is only a small compensation... --- Friends who have fallen into the trap, hurry up and submit your claims before April, don’t miss out. --- Having a compliant license sounds good, but can it truly protect users? It still feels like treating the symptoms rather than the root cause... --- Non-custodial wallets are gone as soon as you transfer in, this operation is really clever... users need to be more cautious. --- Regulators finally took action, although a bit late, at least there is some movement. --- I just want to know why so many people are still using ATMs to buy coins, the risk is so high... --- Maine users got a good deal, but what about victims in other states?

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 01-07 03:50

Another ATM scam, how bad does this scheme have to be to fall for it over and over again? Wait, 1.9 million just to settle? How much do victims get? Non-custodial wallets are gone in a transfer, which is why I absolutely refuse to use that kind of thing.

View OriginalReply0

BrokeBeans

· 01-07 03:47

It's the same old trick again, once you transfer in, it's gone. I knew it all along.

View OriginalReply0

GasWrangler

· 01-07 03:38

honestly the settlement amount is demonstrably insufficient when you analyze the actual damage vectors here. if these users got rugged through non-custodial wallets, technically speaking the ATM operator bears minimal liability—they didn't control the private keys. but i guess regulators don't understand base layer mechanics enough to see that distinction

Reply0

BuyTheTop

· 01-07 03:37

1.9 million USD compensation? Laughable. That amount is just a drop in the bucket for them. How much can the actual victims get?

View OriginalReply0