The decision to close Signature Bank is not related to the bank’s activities aimed at cooperating with cryptocurrency companies. The Block reports this, citing a New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) spokesperson.
Earlier, a former member of Signature Bank’s board Barney Frank stated that authorities deliberately took such harsh measures to deter financial institutions from dealing with digital assets. He said the bank had addressed all problems before regulators’ intervention.
The NYDFS noted that the bank’s business extended beyond digital assets.
“Signature was a traditional commercial bank with a broad range of activities and clients, including small businesses […], such as food suppliers, mortgage-related real estate companies, and so on,” added a spokesperson for the agency.
According to Bloomberg, the U.S. Department of Justice is also investigating Signature Bank’s activities. Law enforcement officials say the institution allegedly did not take sufficient measures to counter money laundering.
According to agency sources, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also examining the bank’s activities.
On March 10, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and appointed the FDIC as receiver. The move was due to “insufficient liquidity and insolvency”.
Back in March, U.S. authorities began the resolution process for SVB and Signature Bank.
Regulators stated that depositors would have access to their deposits at the expense of shareholders and some uninsured bondholders.