Jack Mallers and JPMorgan: The Bank Silence That Hides a Conflict of Interest

The cryptocurrency industry faces an uncomfortable question again: can traditional banking giants use their power to silence emerging competitors? The case involving Jack Mallers, CEO of Strike, against JPMorgan has reignited this concern with unprecedented intensity in recent months.

The Confrontation That Shook the Crypto Community

Just over a year ago, Jack Mallers surprised the crypto community by publicly revealing that JPMorgan had closed all Strike accounts without providing any explanation. In his words, shared via social media, Mallers described a frustrating process: “Every time I asked why, they said the same thing: ‘We are not permitted to tell you.’”

The revelation resonated deeply within the digital asset ecosystem. Influential personalities quickly responded. Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, expressed his support. Grant Cardone, a prominent real estate entrepreneur, went further by announcing he was withdrawing all his assets from JPMorgan in protest. Bo Hines, who served as an advisor on digital assets during the Trump administration and now collaborates with Tether, made a provocative reference to the failed government “Operation Chokepoint,” suggesting similar tactics remain active.

The moment was particularly delicate given the political context. Under the new presidential administration, regulators had revoked many restrictive guidelines toward the digital assets sector that had been in place during the previous period. The paradox was clear: while the White House appeared more welcoming to the crypto industry, traditional banks seemingly intensified their barriers.

Senator Cynthia Lummis captured the general sentiment by stating that “policies like those of JP Morgan undermine trust in traditional banks and send the digital assets industry abroad.”

Competition or Coincidence? JPMCoin vs. Strike

What complicates the narrative further is the timing of the events. JPMorgan had recently launched JPMCoin, its own payment token designed for fast transfers between financial institutions. Strike, on the other hand, offers similar functionality but aimed at the general public, with open access to approximately 800,000 monthly active users.

Timothy O’Regan, an emerging markets analyst and founder of IronWeave, did not hesitate to pose the uncomfortable question: was Jack Mallers’ account closure a coincidence or a deliberate strategy to eliminate a potential competitor? In subsequent analyses, O’Regan was more direct: “Disintermediating the CEO of a major Bitcoin financial company while launching quasi-informatic products could easily be perceived as casting a shadow over a competitor.”

O’Regan also revealed that large U.S. banks were quietly operating according to this pattern, using the existing regulatory framework as cover to make decisions that benefited their own commercial interests.

The Banking Confidentiality Wall

The official reason for both parties’ silence lies in a specific legal framework: the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). JPMorgan, through spokesperson Patricia Wexler, invoked confidentiality rules as justification for not revealing details of the account closure.

Under the BSA, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) explicitly prohibits banks from disclosing information about Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR). The logic is clear from a compliance perspective: alerting someone about a suspicious activity report could compromise investigations into money laundering or other financial crimes.

However, this protection also creates a transparency gap. The closure letter JPMorgan eventually provided mentioned vague concerns about “worrisome activities” without specifying whether these were related to anti-money laundering (AML), know-your-customer (KYC) procedures, or simply conflicts of commercial interest.

Jack Mallers chose not to prolong the public battle. His communications team announced they would make no further statements on the matter, effectively closing the chapter from their side.

What Remains Unresolved

A source familiar with JPMorgan suggested to the media that the bank “provides banking services to cryptocurrency companies across the industry,” attempting to project an image of openness. However, this claim coexists awkwardly with concrete actions against Jack Mallers and Strike.

The Cato Institute, in its analysis on the topic, proposed that reforming confidentiality rules around the BSA would be essential to achieve greater transparency regarding banking exclusion cases. Such reform would allow companies to understand the true reasons behind account closures instead of being trapped in a regulatory limbo.

The truth is that the case of Jack Mallers versus JPMorgan represents more than a bilateral conflict. It reflects structural tensions in the current financial system: to what extent can regulators and existing banks hinder decentralized financial innovation? Is regulatory protection sincere or does it conceal commercial interests? While these questions remain open, the crypto community is closely watching how these dilemmas will be resolved, as they will shape the future of financial inclusion.