Almost at the same time, regulators in the UK and the US took opposite actions. Around April 22, 2026, the UK's FCA, HMRC, and organized crime enforcement units jointly conducted raids on eight locations suspected of conducting illegal P2P crypto over-the-counter trades, with known actions being to halt activities and collect evidence. The briefing did not disclose arrests, prosecutions, or amounts involved; meanwhile, across the Atlantic, major US alternative asset management giants like Blackstone and Apollo, along with their lobbyists, are pushing the SEC to relax or even eliminate private asset cross-trading restrictions among funds managed by the same manager. One of the public narratives justifying this is to facilitate the entry of private assets into retirement accounts and 401(k) retirement savings plans.
On the surface, this appears to be a crackdown on unregistered trading access and a game of institutional competition to advocate for smoother circulation channels for traditional private assets, seemingly unrelated to each other. However, when zooming out, both threads converge on the same question: as market demand for liquidity grows stronger, how should regulation determine what can be blocked within compliance boundaries and what can be loosened? The UK chose to first cut off gray access, while Wall Street in the US is attempting to rewrite existing constraints to allow assets to move faster within the regulated framework; between tightening and loosening, what is truly being put on the table is a redefinition of liquidity and regulatory boundaries.
UK Raids Eight OTC Trading Locations
Taking the first action was the UK, and it was not merely a notification letter but rather a direct intervention by regulatory and law enforcement agencies. Around April 22, 2026, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), and organized crime enforcement units jointly conducted raids on eight suspected illegal, unregistered P2P crypto trading venues, demanding that related activities cease immediately while also collecting evidence.
It needs to be clarified where the focus lies: not the entirety of the UK's crypto trading market, nor all over-the-counter matching activities, but rather those P2P trading points operating outside of the registration system and suspected of illegal activity. The official briefing did not disclose the specific locations of these eight venues nor further clarify the results of arrests or prosecutions, trading scale, or amounts involved, which means that the currently verifiable phase of facts remains at “joint law enforcement has been implemented, and evidence collection has begun.”
Yet, even with limited information boundaries, the signal is already clear. The FCA has maintained a high-pressure stance on unregistered crypto-related trading activities for a long time, and this time, HMRC joining the effort pulls the issue from purely unlicensed operations into the realm of potential tax violations and broader financial crime risks. In other words, this regulatory action is not about discussing industry expectations or making verbal statements about price fluctuations; rather, it is about directly cutting off offline or over-the-counter gray pathways that lie outside of the compliance framework.
This is also the most noteworthy aspect of this UK's action: tolerance continues to decline. In the past, the market had a somewhat ambiguous understanding of off-exchange links, suggesting a little “marginal but existent” space. Now, with joint raids, demands for cessation of activities, and simultaneous evidence collection, those lines have been clarifying— as long as they involve suspected illegal, unregistered P2P matching venues, regulators are not prepared to continue leaving them in the gray area for observation.
HMRC Steps In: Tax Authorities Are Also Pursuing
If the previous signal indicated that “unregistered operations are no longer tolerated,” then HMRC's involvement means this action's nature has advanced another step. The matter is no longer merely about the boundary of licensing or whether certain P2P venues are crossing the line in their operations; when the tax authority intervenes simultaneously, the regulatory perspective expands from operational compliance to include funding sources, reporting obligations, potential tax violations, and financial crime risks all on the same table.
This is why the joint raid involving FCA, HMRC, and organized crime enforcement units on eight suspected illegal P2P crypto trading venues around April 22, 2026, carries significant weight, clearly surpassing an ordinary market rectification effort. The known actions remain at the stage of demanding cessation of activities and evidence collection, and the briefing does not disclose specific locations, arrest or prosecution outcomes, trading scale, or amounts involved; but just from the participating parties’ composition, law enforcement's focus has already been clearly conveyed: the regulatory agencies are watching not just for “registration status,” but also whether these pathways are accompanied by mishandled taxable activities and if there are higher levels of risk spillover.
More crucially, this is not a sudden shift initiated by the FCA. Research briefings have clearly indicated that the FCA has long maintained a high-pressure regulatory stance towards unregistered crypto-related trading activities. In other words, what is being observed now is not the emergence of a new route suddenly, but rather stronger enforcement of existing regulatory routes: previously, it was about continuously compressing the gray area, now through joint enforcement, the “gray area” is being further converted into subjects that can be shut down, evidence collected, and held accountable. The involvement of HMRC is one of the most direct signs of this enhanced enforcement— it alerts the market that once off-exchange matching is deemed to cross the line, it faces not just a single regulatory adage but a cross-examined scrutiny from multiple departments.
Source C also mentioned two statements, but both can only be regarded as pending verification: first, FCA Executive Director Steve Smart reportedly indicated that unregistered P2P traders would pose financial crime risks; second, law enforcement officer Ross Flay mentioned collaborating with FCA and HMRC to crack down on unregistered P2P traders. Even if these statements are not to be treated as officially corroborated conclusions yet, the event itself already illustrates the problem: when tax authorities and financial enforcement powers appear simultaneously, the UK's characterization of such off-exchange links is shifting from “regulatory unrecognition” to further approaching “comprehensive risk subjects.”
Wall Street Urges SEC to Open Up
If the UK line indicates a tightening by regulatory bodies on gray off-exchange links, then an opposite line occurring simultaneously in the US is being pushed from within the traditional financial system, with the goal not to crack down on trading, but to open a rules door a bit wider.
The core of this game is not a comprehensive relaxation of private equity fund regulations, nor is it about removing all restrictions at once. Giants of US alternative asset management like Blackstone and Apollo, along with their lobbyists, are currently focused on restricting private asset cross-trading among funds managed by the same manager. The assets being discussed include private equity, private credit, and other private assets. In other words, what the industry truly wants to leverage is how assets can transition more conveniently between “different pools managed by themselves,” rather than whether the entire regulatory framework should retreat as a whole.
From an industry narrative perspective, this set of demands has a strong practical direction. One of the public reasons is to make it easier for private assets to enter retirement accounts and 401(k) retirement savings plans. For large asset management institutions, this represents smoother distribution paths and implies that private assets, previously difficult to circulate, may now gain more internal maneuvering and allocation space. A verifiable source has also summarized “enhancing liquidity” as one of the reasons for pushing for rule adjustments, but at least based on the currently available public information, the industry's pressure on the SEC indeed focuses on “how to allow these assets to be more easily transferred out and brought in.”
However, precisely because trading occurs between funds controlled by the same manager, regulatory concerns always circle back to old issues: conflict of interest, whether valuations are fair, and whether information is sufficiently transparent. The questions of how prices are set when an asset is sold from one fund to another, who benefits, and who bears the tail risks are always more sensitive in the realm of private assets than in public markets. Therefore, this lobbying effort is not merely a technical fix but a re-negotiation of the rules' boundaries: one side is Wall Street hoping to improve internal turnover efficiency and open new sales scenarios, while the other side is the SEC’s long-term focus on maintaining the integrity of conflict firewalls that cannot easily be breached.
As of now, this US line remains in the lobbying phase. Public briefings have not disclosed whether relevant proposals have been formally submitted, whether meetings have taken place, nor have we seen an official response from the SEC. In other words, similar to the UK side, which is still in the law enforcement evidence collection phase, the US side has likewise not yet entered a verifiable policy implementation moment; only this time, the protagonists have shifted to those trying to rewrite the rules.
Cleaning Up OTC While Raising Liquidity
When viewing these two concurrent lines together, the contours become clear: the UK is tightening while the US is loosening. The former targets liquidity entrances without compliant shells— “illegal,” “unregistered,” and “P2P OTC trading” are the core keywords of this line; the latter seeks to push the radius of private asset circulation outward amid existing rules constraints— regarding the cross-trading limits among funds managed by the same manager, firms like Blackstone and Apollo wish to further extend private asset flows.
Both sides can package their narratives as “market efficiency,” but the order of handling is different. The logic for the UK is to first cut off risky entrances: on or around April 22, 2026, the FCA, HMRC, and organized crime enforcement units conducted raids on eight suspected illegal P2P trading venues, demanding cessation of activities and evidence collection, indicating that the regulators' foremost concern was not whether transactions could flow more smoothly, but whether such liquidity had registration, who was participating, where the money came from, and whether it was accompanied by potential tax violations and financial crime risks. In other words, the first question to answer is “can this liquidity exist,” followed by discussions on efficiency.
The US perspective, however, revolves around entirely different issues. The industry's lobbying focus is not on the OTC trading itself, but on how cross-trading restrictions among funds affect the tradability of private assets, and whether these assets can more easily enter retirement accounts and 401(k) configurations. The competition here is not about “whether they qualify to be at the table,” but rather “once at the table, can they circulate more frequently and broadly.” Therefore, the true contradiction of the US line is not simply about relaxation or not, but who should take priority between liquidity demands and conflicts of interest, fair valuations, and transparency risks.
If we twist both into a main thread, essentially, it reflects two attitudes towards liquidity in regulation coexisting: maintaining high pressure on unlicensed, unregistered, and opaque liquidity, while showing loosening demands on liquidity locked within the institutional framework by regulations. The former is blocking up, and the latter is opening the gates; the former targets the method of risk exposure, while the latter asserts boundaries of asset allocation and reachable demographics.
It is important to note that regarding the reason for “enhancing liquidity of private assets,” the research brief has labeled it as pending verification from source C, and it cannot be directly viewed as a consensus accepted by the regulatory level. At least as of now, the UK is still in the enforcement and evidence collection stage, while the US remains in the lobbying phase, with changes in rules and final decisions not yet appearing.
Who First Gains Benefits Between Regulatory Tightening and Loosening
When putting the two lines together, the one that will likely yield practical results in the short term is not Wall Street's lobbying, but the deterrent effects from the UK's wave of joint law enforcement. The reason is simple: by April 22, 2026, clear actions have already emerged from the UK—joint inspections, cessation of activities, evidence collection—market participants are faced with immediately perceptible regulatory pressure; meanwhile, on the US side, publicly available information still remains at the stage of the industry transmitting demands to the SEC, with no official stance from the SEC nor any preliminary responses, let alone a formal rewrite of rules.
This also means that what is truly worth tracking right now is not the anticipated results, but rather two clear follow-up nodes. In terms of the UK side, it is important to see whether enforcement will advance from inspections and evidence collection to public arrests, prosecution, or punishment results; if there is no subsequent disclosure, this current action reflects more of a deterrent significance. For the US side, we need to observe whether the SEC will bring this round of industry demands into the formal agenda— even if it’s just public discussions or procedural progress, it would be much closer to real changes than the current “market expectations.” Until then, the so-called loosening of restrictions on private asset cross-trading remains merely an expectation, not an implemented policy.
Ultimately, regulatory tightening and loosening have never been parallel lines; they represent a qualification screening. The side that enforces first lets the market know where the boundaries are; while the side that is lobbying more actively does not automatically equate to immediate access to a pass. In a regulatory environment, liquidity has never been an inherent right; the one who first proves themselves sufficiently compliant is the one most likely to gain access.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram Group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
