#
Ohio regulates money transmission under the state Money Transmitters Act (ORC Chapter 1315), administered by the Division of Financial Institutions (DFI) via NMLS. Licensure is required of any person receiving money for transmission from a person located in Ohio regardless of the licensee's own location, subject to bank/credit-union and other statutory exemptions. Minimum net worth of $500,000 and a security device (surety bond) of $300,000-$2,000,000 are standing capital/security requirements. HB 116 (Ohio Blockchain Basics Act) is in the General Assembly review stage and would exempt pure crypto mining/staking/exchange activity from MTL requirement.
Licensees must also maintain a minimum net worth of $500,000 and a surety bond ranging from $300,000 to $2,000,000, calibrated at the Superintendent's discretion to reflect transaction volume.
A pending bill, HB116 (the Blockchain Basics Act), passed the Ohio House 68-26 in June 2025 and would carve crypto mining, staking, and exchange activity out of the MTL requirement, but it remains stalled in the Senate; the carve-out is not yet operative and its current committee status was not independently re-verified this cycle.
Outlook
The determinative near-term event for this module is Ohio Senate floor action on HB116: enactment would activate the crypto carve-out and meaningfully narrow the MTL perimeter, while continued inaction preserves the current blanket licensing requirement for any crypto-asset activity that meets the statute's money-transmission definition.
Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access
Ohio's money-transmitter licensing regime already operates on a receipt-based extraterritorial trigger: any person receiving money for transmission from a person located in Ohio must be licensed under the Ohio Money Transmitters Act, regardless of where the transmitting entity itself is domiciled. This structural feature means the licensing perimeter already reaches non-bank payment institutions and e-money issuers transacting into Ohio from outside the state, not only Ohio-domiciled firms. Applicants face a five-thousand-dollar new-licence application fee and a twenty-five-hundred-dollar change-of-control application fee, and licensees are expected to register federally with FinCEN as money-services businesses and to screen counterparties against the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list.
This cycle's material development is Ohio House Bill 648, which would extend this same non-bank licensing perimeter to a category not currently captured by it: owners, operators, and facilitators of digital-asset kiosks. Under the proposal, kiosk operators would need money-transmitter licensure plus mandatory KYC, consumer disclosures, and elder-focused transaction-approval holds. The bill has not been enacted and remains before the House Financial Institutions Committee; its introduction follows the bankruptcy and cessation of operations of a nationwide crypto-ATM kiosk operator, which exposed the absence of a distinct licensed category for the kiosk channel under the existing statute. This extraterritorial trigger and the pending kiosk extension are both coded at an elevated impact level in this cycle's tracking, reflecting the potential breadth of firms brought within scope: the extraterritorial receipt-based rule already has broad application to any entity receiving Ohio-originated funds for transmission, and the kiosk extension would materially widen the population of digital-asset intermediaries subject to state licensure. The DFI's fee schedule and federal-registration expectations, by contrast, are tracked at a monitored rather than elevated level, reflecting their status as standing operational requirements rather than a new source of regulatory change this cycle. All of this activity sits within the non-bank PI/EMI segment specifically — bank-chartered payment providers' Ohio market access runs through separate banking-law channels untouched by this cycle's developments.
Outlook
HB648's expected resolution window is 2026 Q4, carrying a half-year uncertainty band, and its committee trajectory is not yet determinable from current sourcing. If enacted, kiosk operators would become the newest addition to Ohio's non-bank money-transmitter population, subject to the same fee schedule and federal MSB-registration and OFAC-screening expectations already borne by existing licensees. Market entrants and existing licensees operating adjacent digital-asset infrastructure in Ohio should treat the bill's committee progress as the clearest near-term signal of whether the state's licensing perimeter formally captures the kiosk channel.
Sources and findings (7)
- T1https://com.ohio.gov/divisions-and-programs/financial-institutions/money-transmitters/money-transmitters
- T1https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/chapter-1315
- T3https://www.bondexchange.com/ohio-money-transmitter-bond-a-comprehensive-guide/
- T1http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=126_HB_454
- T3https://cryptoslate.com/ohio-passes-blockchain-bill-allowing-200-tax-free-bitcoin-payments/
- T3https://www.chaincatcher.com/en/article/2169351
- T3https://moneytransmitterlaw.com/state-laws/ohio/