AI-maintained daily updates on crypto regulations worldwide. Newest first — page 38 of 43.
Uzbekistan does not maintain a publicly available "crypto-specific" sanctions list.
However, in addition to implementing UN sanctions lists, Uzbekistan maintains national lists of individuals and entities involved in terrorism and extremism, often managed by its security services and the FIU. These national lists are critical for VASPs' AML/CTF screening processes within Uzbekistan.
As Virtual Assets: Most stablecoins, especially those backed by fiat currency or other assets but not issued by regulated e-money institutions, would likely fall under the NAPP's "virtual asset" classification. This is the default for a broad range of crypto assets.
As E-money: If a stablecoin is explicitly backed 1:1 by a fiat currency, issued by an entity that obtains an e-money issuer license from the Central Bank, and functions as a stored monetary value for making payments, it could be classified as e-money under the Law "On Payments and Payment Systems." This would subject it to CBU regulation, not NAPP.
For E-money: If a stablecoin is classified as e-money, the Central Bank of Uzbekistan's regulations for e-money issuers would apply. These typically include prudential requirements such as safeguarding user funds by holding them in segregated accounts with credit institutions, often with a 1:1 backing in fiat currency or highly liquid, low-risk assets.
For E-money: If classified as e-money, users would have a statutory right to redeem their e-money at par for fiat currency from the issuer at any time, as per the Central Bank's regulations.
The Central Bank of Uzbekistan (CBU) has been exploring the possibility of issuing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The CBU has conducted pilot projects and investigations into the feasibility and potential impacts of a digital soum.
While a CBDC would be a distinct digital form of the national currency (Soum), issued and guaranteed by the CBU, its interaction with private stablecoins is not yet specifically defined in legislation.
A CBU-issued digital currency would likely operate under a separate regulatory framework as legal tender. Its introduction could potentially compete with or complement private stablecoins, particularly those pegged to the Soum, but there are no specific rules governing this interaction currently.
There are no specific, detailed regulations mandating the segregation of client virtual assets found within the Holy See's current public regulatory framework.
There are no specific regulations mandating insurance or bonding requirements for virtual asset custodians within the Holy See's current public regulatory framework.
Such requirements are typically found in jurisdictions with more developed and specialized crypto regulatory frameworks focused on consumer protection or systemic risk.
"Virtual Asset": Defined in Article 2, letter l) as "a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and used for payment or investment purposes. Virtual assets do not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities and other financial assets."
"Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP)": Defined in Article 2, letter p) as "any natural or legal person that, as a business, carries out one or more of the following activities or operations for or on behalf of another natural or legal person:
There is no publicly announced or pending legislation specifically focused on detailed cryptocurrency custody rules in the Holy See.
MONEYVAL Reports: MONEYVAL evaluations of the Holy See often detail their progress in implementing FATF recommendations, including those related to virtual assets. These reports confirm the existence and scope of the Holy See's regulatory framework.
Implementation of UN Sanctions: The Holy See is committed to implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, particularly those concerning the freezing of assets related to terrorism financing and proliferation.
Screen Against Sanctions Lists: Regularly screen customers, beneficial owners, and transaction counterparties against:
Administrative Sanctions: ASIF has the power to impose administrative fines, revoke licenses, or issue other administrative measures against institutions found to be non-compliant.
Criminal Penalties: Individuals or entities involved in money laundering, terrorist financing, or facilitating prohibited transactions (including sanctions evasion) can face criminal charges, which may include imprisonment and significant financial penalties under the Vatican's penal code and specific AML/CFT laws.
Asset Seizure and Forfeiture: Assets involved in or derived from illicit activities, including sanctions violations, can be frozen and subject to forfeiture.
UN Sanctions Lists: As a direct legal obligation.
FATF Standards: Which guide the regulation of virtual assets and VASPs for AML/CFT and sanctions compliance.
Tokens representing claims on underlying assets: Tokens that derive their value from a pool of assets, where the token holder has a claim on those assets and where there's an expectation of profit from the efforts of a third party (e.g., certain types of Asset-Referenced Tokens as defined by MiCA).
AML/CFT Compliance: Issuing directives, imposing sanctions, or taking corrective measures against financial institutions or entities under its supervision for failures in AML/CFT controls, suspicious transaction reporting, or adherence to international sanctions regimes.
Law No. CLIX (previously Law No. CVIII): This is the foundational law on transparency, supervision, and financial intelligence for the Holy See and Vatican City State. It has undergone several amendments to align with international standards, particularly FATF.
ASIF Statute: Defines the structure, functions, and responsibilities of ASIF.
No Ban, but Strict AML/CTF Controls: The Holy See does not have a general ban on cryptocurrencies. However, any activity involving virtual assets that falls within its jurisdiction, particularly those that could be construed as financial services, is subject to its robust AML/CTF framework.
Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) under Supervision: Following Law No. CLXXVI of 2021, any entity defined as a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) under FATF guidelines would be subject to the supervision of the ASF for AML/CTF purposes. This includes exchanges, custodians, and other service providers dealing with virtual assets.
Law No. CCCLI (351) of 1 October 2020: This law made significant amendments to the Holy See's AML/CFT framework, introducing definitions for virtual assets and virtual asset service providers and extending AML/CFT obligations to them. This law brought the Holy See's legislation in line with FATF standards for virtual assets.
Screen for sanctions and suspicious activity.
Administrative Sanctions: Fines imposed by ASIF, revocation or suspension of licenses, and other supervisory measures.
Criminal Penalties: Imprisonment and significant monetary fines for serious violations, particularly those related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes. These are outlined in the Holy See's Criminal Code and specific AML/CFT laws.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Act, 2017 (as amended): This is the principal legislation outlining the obligations for financial institutions and DNFBPs to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. It defines key terms, outlines reporting obligations, and sets out penalties for non-compliance.
The Financial Intelligence Unit Act, 2001 (as amended): This act establishes the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and defines its powers and functions, including receiving and analyzing suspicious transaction reports.
UN Sanctions Lists: While SVG implements these domestically, the primary source is the UN:
Virtual Asset Business Act, 2023: (Expected to be available on the SVG FSA website or Government Gazette): This Act will specifically lay out VASP responsibilities regarding AML/CFT and compliance with national and international sanctions.
Extraterritorial Reach: Both OFAC and EU sanctions have extraterritorial application.
Correspondent Banking Relationships: Financial institutions in SVG (including those that might serve as banking partners for VASPs) rely on correspondent banking relationships with international (often U.S. or European) banks. These correspondent banks impose strict requirements on their clients to screen against OFAC, EU, and other major sanctions lists to avoid processing prohibited transactions.
Reputational Risk: Failure to comply with major international sanctions regimes, even if not directly mandated by SVG law for a purely domestic transaction, can lead to reputational damage, de-risking by international partners, and exclusion from the global financial system.
FATF Standards: The FATF Recommendations, which SVG adheres to through CFATF, require a risk-based approach to AML/CFT. Given the global nature of virtual assets, a robust VASP in SVG would inherently consider major international sanctions lists as part of its risk assessment and compliance program.
Enhanced Screening: VASPs dealing with international clients or operations should implement screening against OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List and other sanctions lists, as well as relevant EU sanctions lists.
Prohibited Transactions: Avoid processing transactions involving individuals, entities, or jurisdictions targeted by these sanctions regimes.
OFAC Sanctions List (SDN List): https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists
Requirement: VASPs are required to establish and maintain an AML/CFT program that includes policies, procedures, and controls for screening customers and transactions against relevant sanctions lists.
Technology: VASPs are expected to utilize reliable and up-to-date screening solutions that can check customer names, addresses, and other identifiers against sanctions databases.
OFAC/EU Sanctions: VASPs must avoid transactions with jurisdictions under comprehensive U.S. or EU sanctions (e.g., Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and certain regions of Ukraine/Russia for OFAC; or similar for EU). This means no providing virtual asset services to individuals or entities located in, or ordinarily resident in, these jurisdictions.
Investment Tokens/Security Tokens: Tokens that represent an ownership interest in a company (equity tokens), a right to a share of profits, revenue, or other financial benefits, or debt instruments. These are typically issued during Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) or Security Token Offerings (STOs) with the primary purpose of fundraising against an expectation of future financial return.
Prospectus Requirement: Generally, a public offering of securities in SVG requires the publication of a prospectus approved by the FSA. This would entail significant disclosure obligations. (See Part III, Division 1, Section 31 onwards of the Securities Act, 2003).
The unique challenges of algorithmic stability would likely be addressed through the FSA's general oversight and enforcement powers, requiring issuers to demonstrate how they mitigate risks to consumers and financial stability.
DCash: DCash is the world's first retail CBDC to be fully rolled out in a currency union. It is legal tender, issued, backed, and regulated by the ECCB.
No Direct Regulation/Licensing: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines does not offer specific licenses for cryptocurrency exchanges, trading platforms, or other VASP activities through its Financial Services Authority. Any entity claiming to be "licensed by the SVG FSA" for cryptocurrency trading or exchange services is likely misrepresenting its status. The FSA has issued public warnings regarding such claims.
Regulation vs. Taxation: While taxation is minimal, SVG has a regulatory framework for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) focused on Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (CFT) requirements, overseen by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
No Crypto-Specific Tax Legislation: As of the latest information, SVG has not enacted specific tax laws targeting cryptocurrency.
General Treatment: The VAT Act (No. 4 of 2006, as amended) governs VAT. Cryptocurrency, in many jurisdictions, is not explicitly defined as a "good" or "service" for VAT purposes. Many countries, following international guidance (e.g., from the EU Court of Justice regarding Bitcoin), treat the exchange of traditional currency for crypto and vice-versa as an exempt financial service or outside the scope of VAT.
Penalty Amount: Seizure and confiscation of high-value mining equipment (ASIC miners, GPUs), shutdown of operations, and arrests of operators. Specific monetary fines, while stipulated in SUNACRIP regulations, were less frequently publicized compared to asset seizures.
US Sanctions: The Venezuelan government and many state-owned entities are subject to extensive US sanctions. Engaging in transactions with sanctioned entities or individuals, even via crypto assets, could expose foreign businesses to secondary sanctions risks.
General Classification: Stablecoins are generally not explicitly categorized as "e-money," "payment tokens," or "securities" in the precise terminology used by international financial regulators. Instead, they fall under the broad definition of "criptoactivo" (crypto-asset) or "activo virtual" (virtual asset) as defined by the Constituent Decree.
The Constituent Decree does not explicitly define specific reserve requirements for private stablecoin issuers. The focus of the law is on licensing and control of activities rather than detailed prudential requirements for specific crypto-asset types like stablecoins.
Any private stablecoin issuer would need to present its operational model, including its backing mechanism, as part of the licensing process with SUNACRIP, which would then evaluate its soundness. However, there are no predefined statutory ratios or asset types for reserves.
Mandatory Licensing: This is a cornerstone of Venezuela's crypto regulatory framework. The Constituent Decree mandates that any natural or legal person engaging in activities related to crypto-assets must obtain a license from SUNACRIP.
Redemption rights would primarily be governed by the terms and conditions set forth by the specific stablecoin issuer, as approved by SUNACRIP during the licensing process.
Venezuela's regulatory framework was established before the widespread discussion and specific concerns surrounding algorithmic stablecoins (like Luna/UST). As such, there are no specific rules or prohibitions explicitly targeting algorithmic stablecoins.
Venezuela does not have a distinct "Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)" project in the conventional international sense, separate from its existing state-backed digital asset.
The Petro (PTR) itself serves a similar function to what some countries might envision for a CBDC. It was launched with the aim of being a national digital currency, intended for payments, savings, and circumventing international sanctions. While pegged to commodities, its technical implementation and state backing position it as Venezuela's primary foray into state-issued digital money.
Past: Heavily influenced by the creation and promotion of its national cryptocurrency, the Petro, which aimed to circumvent sanctions and stabilize the economy. This led to a very centralized and controlled approach.
Present (Post-Petro): While the Petro is gone, the regulatory body and the legal framework for licensing and overseeing private crypto activities (mining, exchanges, trading) persist. The focus is on regulating the industry, ensuring compliance with state requirements, and preventing illicit activities. It's not a ban on crypto, but it's far from a free-market approach.
State Oversight: The regulatory framework grants the state significant oversight over crypto activities, allowing it to intervene, audit, and impose sanctions.
Specific SUNACRIP Resolutions: SUNACRIP has issued resolutions that sometimes impose taxes on specific crypto-related services. For example, SUNACRIP Resolution No. 008-2020 previously established a tax on commissions, interest, and other remuneration received for the use of crypto assets, which could range from 15% to 30% depending on the type of transaction (e.g., exchanges). Note: The applicability of specific past resolutions can change.
Enforcement: While laws exist, the actual enforcement of crypto-related taxes can be challenging for the authorities, given the decentralized nature of many cryptocurrencies. However, entities operating within the formal Venezuelan financial system or those registered with SUNACRIP are directly within the scope of enforcement.
Constitutional Law of the Integral System of Cryptoassets (Ley Constitucional del Sistema Integral de Criptoactivos): This foundational law, enacted in 2018, establishes the legal basis for cryptoassets, mining, exchanges, and other related activities, and grants SUNACRIP its regulatory powers.
Fines: Substantial monetary fines, which can vary based on the severity of the infraction and the VASP's size. These are often denominated in Petro (PTR), Venezuela's state-backed cryptocurrency, which can fluctuate in value relative to other currencies.
Article 57 of the Constitutional Law of the Integral System of Cryptoassets details penalties for operating without authorization, fraudulent use, and other offenses, with fines ranging from 50 to 300 Petro and potential imprisonment. Providencia 094-2020 also refers to these penalties for AML/CFT violations.
Virtual Asset Providers Act No. 27 of 2023 (VAPA 2023): This is the cornerstone legislation for virtual assets, including custody services. It defines "virtual assets," "virtual asset service providers" (VASPs), and sets out licensing and operational requirements.
Reserve Bank of Vanuatu Statement on Cryptocurrencies (November 2022)
Investment Tokens (Security Tokens): Tokens that represent an ownership interest (like shares), a debt obligation (like bonds), a right to a portion of profits, or other traditional financial rights in an underlying asset or enterprise. This includes tokens issued in Security Token Offerings (STOs) or Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) where the primary purpose is capital raising for a venture with an expectation of investor return.
Imposing administrative penalties and fines.
Virtual Assets: The most likely general classification is "Virtual Assets" or "Digital Assets" under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (AML/CTF Act) [CAP 264]. This act defines "virtual asset" broadly and mandates AML/CTF obligations for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs).
E-money/Payment Tokens: Vanuatu does not have a distinct e-money or payment token framework similar to the EU's MiCA or PSD2. If a stablecoin's primary function is as a medium of exchange, its issuance and circulation might fall under general financial services regulation or simply as a virtual asset for AML purposes, without a specific "e-money" licensing category for non-bank entities.
General consumer protection laws or contract laws would apply in case of disputes, but there isn't a specific regulatory framework ensuring timely and full redemption of stablecoins.
Currently, there are no public announcements or active initiatives from the RBV regarding the development or issuance of a CBDC. The interaction between a potential CBDC and privately issued stablecoins is therefore not addressed in any existing regulatory framework.
No Explicit Ban: Vanuatu does not explicitly ban crypto trading or the operation of exchanges. Instead, it seeks to regulate these activities under its existing financial services and AML/CFT framework to ensure oversight and mitigate risks.
Store Information: VASPs must retain records of all collected and transmitted information for a specified period (typically 5-7 years) for potential inspection by the VFIU or law enforcement.
Screen for Sanctions and PEPS: VASPs must screen all parties involved in a virtual asset transfer against sanctions lists and identify politically exposed persons (PEPs).
The concept of a "Qualified Custodian," which is primarily a term used in U.S. securities law (e.g., under the SEC's Custody Rule), does not exist within Samoa's current regulatory framework for virtual assets.
As of early 2024, there are no publicly announced or readily discoverable proposals or drafts for specific, dedicated crypto custody legislation in Samoa beyond the existing AML/CFT framework.
Samoa, like other jurisdictions, is generally influenced by the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Any future legislative changes are most likely to stem from updates to FATF guidelines on virtual assets and VASPs, which might lead to broader amendments to the Money Laundering Prevention Act, but not necessarily a standalone "custody law."
Licensing Regime: Not established for VASPs.
Central Bank of Samoa (CBS):
Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Samoa: The FIU is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and other financial information to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. They would be the enforcement body for AML/CFT compliance.
Financial Institutions Act 1998 (as amended): This Act governs the licensing and supervision of traditional financial institutions (banks, non-bank financial institutions). While not directly applicable to pure crypto businesses, it sets the standard for financial regulation in Samoa.
Money Laundering Prevention Regulations 2017: These regulations provide more detailed requirements for reporting entities, including obligations related to targeted financial sanctions. They specify how entities must implement measures to comply with UN sanctions.
Extraterritorial Reach: OFAC (U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control), EU, and UK sanctions have significant extraterritorial reach. Transactions involving U.S. persons or the U.S. financial system, EU/UK persons, or entities subject to their jurisdiction can trigger compliance obligations, regardless of where the VASP is based. Given the borderless nature of crypto, such connections are common.
Correspondent Banking: VASPs often rely on traditional financial institutions for fiat on/off-ramps, which themselves are subject to global sanctions regimes. Non-compliance with major sanctions by a VASP can jeopardize these crucial banking relationships.
FATF Recommendations: Samoa is a member of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG), a FATF-style regional body. FATF Recommendation 6 (Terrorist Financing) and 7 (Proliferation Financing) require countries to implement targeted financial sanctions. Recommendation 15 specifically applies AML/CFT requirements to Virtual Assets (VAs) and VASPs. This means VASPs must adopt a risk-based approach that includes sanctions screening.
Risk-Based Approach: VASPs must conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of their business, customers, and transactions, identifying and mitigating sanctions risks.
Sanctions Screening: Implementing robust real-time and ongoing screening of all customers, counterparties, and transactions against relevant sanctions lists (UN, OFAC SDN, EU Consolidated, UK HMT, etc.).
Transaction Monitoring: Monitoring transactions for patterns indicative of sanctions evasion or dealings with sanctioned entities/jurisdictions.
Reporting: Prompt reporting of matches and frozen assets to the Central Bank of Samoa (CBS) or relevant authorities.
Primary Obligation (Samoa Law): Screening against the UN Consolidated Sanctions List (which includes individuals and entities designated under various UN resolutions, e.g., Al-Qaida, ISIL, Taliban, DPRK, Iran). This is directly mandated by Samoa's MLPA and PSTA.
Best Practice / Indirect Obligation (Global Interoperability): To effectively manage risk and comply with extraterritorial sanctions, VASPs should also screen against:
Securities Act 1984 (or a subsequent consolidation/amendment)
Investment Contracts: This is the broad category where most security tokens would fall. While the Act might not define "investment contract" as extensively as U.S. courts have, the underlying intent is to capture arrangements where:
AML/CFT Compliance: Any platform or entity facilitating trading in virtual assets (regardless of whether they are securities or not) would be subject to Samoa's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) laws and regulations, overseen by the Central Bank of Samoa (CBS) and the SFSA.
Central Bank of Samoa (CBS): Responsible for monetary policy, financial stability, and often plays a role in AML/CFT supervision.
Licensing Required: Entities wishing to operate as cryptocurrency exchanges or provide any form of virtual asset trading services (which fall under the definition of a Virtual Asset Service Provider) must obtain a license from the Central Bank of Samoa under the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2020.
Central Bank of Yemen Regulations: The CBY issues various regulations and instructions to financial institutions (banks, money exchangers, insurance companies) regarding the implementation of the AML/CFT law. These would cover traditional financial services.
Virtual Assets: Given the outright ban, any transaction involving virtual assets would inherently be considered suspicious and a potential predicate offense under the AML/CFT law.
Central Bank of Yemen (CBY): The CBY is the primary financial sector regulator and supervisor responsible for overseeing AML/CFT compliance of banks and other financial institutions. Due to the ongoing conflict, there are effectively two CBYs:
Financial Information Unit (FIU): This unit is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious transaction reports (STRs) to law enforcement agencies. The FIU in Yemen operates under the umbrella of the government's financial oversight mechanisms.
Central Bank of Yemen (Sana'a Branch): In 2018-2019, the CBY in Sana'a reportedly issued warnings against dealing with cryptocurrencies, deeming them illegal and speculative.
Central Bank of Yemen (Aden Branch): Similarly, the CBY in Aden has also warned against cryptocurrencies.
Political Instability: The ongoing civil conflict makes official government and central bank websites unstable, inaccessible, or subject to control by different factions.
Prohibitive Stance: When an activity is prohibited, there's less incentive to publish detailed regulatory frameworks for it; rather, the focus is on blanket warnings or bans.
The focus of the existing financial regulatory bodies (the two CBYs) is primarily on traditional banking, foreign exchange, and general financial stability, often under challenging circumstances.
The use of cryptocurrencies in Yemen is often discussed in the context of remittances, circumventing sanctions, or as an alternative store of value, rather than a regulated financial activity.
Given the absence of a specific framework, there is no distinction between a registration and a licensing regime for virtual assets in Yemen. Neither exists.
Capital: In a hypothetical future scenario where crypto is regulated, capital requirements would likely be introduced, drawing from international banking and financial services norms.
AML/KYC (Anti-Money Laundering/Know Your Customer): Yemen has general AML/CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism) laws, even if their enforcement is challenging and fragmented.
Local Presence: If a licensing regime were to be established, a local presence (e.g., registered entity, physical office, local management) would almost certainly be a requirement, as is common for financial services firms in most jurisdictions.
Fragmented Governance: Dealing with two competing central banks and authorities creates immense operational and legal complexity. Approvals from one might not be recognized by the other, or could even be viewed as illicit.
Sanctions: Yemen is subject to various international sanctions regimes. Engaging in financial activities, especially those involving digital assets, could inadvertently lead to violations for international partners.
Which tokens are considered securities: None are officially classified as securities because the entire asset class is banned.
Secondary Trading Rules: No specific rules for secondary trading exist beyond the general ban on all crypto activities.
Circular No. (28) issued by the Central Bank of Yemen (Sana'a) in 2021.
Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) - Sana'a (Houthi-controlled): This branch issues directives for the northern regions of Yemen under Houthi control.
Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) - Aden (Internationally Recognized Government): This branch issues directives for the southern regions under the internationally recognized government.
Central Bank of Yemen (Sana'a) - Circular No. (1) for 2022: Issued in January 2022, this circular explicitly prohibited dealing in or promoting cryptocurrencies. It warned financial institutions, exchange companies, and individuals against engaging in any form of cryptocurrency activity, citing risks to the national economy and financial stability.
Central Bank of Yemen (Aden) - Repeated Warnings/Statements (Late 2021 - Early 2022 onwards): The Aden-based CBY has also issued similar warnings against the use of cryptocurrencies, stressing their illegality and the associated risks. While not always a single numbered circular like Sana'a's, their stance is clear and consistent with a ban.
Warnings of Penalties: Individuals and entities found to be involved in cryptocurrency activities face legal consequences, which may include fines, confiscation of assets, and prosecution. The authorities have explicitly warned against using crypto for remittances, which is a common use case in other countries.
Overall Status: The Central Bank of Yemen (CBY), specifically the internationally recognized government based in Aden, has prohibited dealing in cryptocurrencies. This means that the concept of VASPs operating legally and implementing the Travel Rule does not currently apply in a recognized capacity.
Effective Date: Not applicable, as the rule has not been adopted.
Central Bank of Yemen (Aden-based) Prohibition: The Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) has issued warnings and prohibitions against dealing with cryptocurrencies. For example, in January 2022, the CBY issued a warning against dealing with virtual currencies, citing their instability and use in illegal activities. Similar warnings were issued in 2021. While specific official URLs for these decrees can be challenging to find reliably and consistently in English due to the ongoing conflict and local language barriers, these prohibitions are widely reported by regional financial news outlets.
Bank of Zambia's Fintech Regulatory Sandbox and Virtual Assets Framework: In recent years, the Bank of Zambia has indicated its intention to develop a comprehensive framework for virtual assets. This includes exploring the possibility of a regulatory sandbox for fintech innovations, which could eventually lead to specific regulations for digital asset service providers, including custodians.
Bank of Zambia Official Statements/Reports: While a specific law isn't out yet, the BoZ has publicly stated its intentions to regulate virtual assets. These statements often appear in their annual reports, monetary policy statements, or press releases.
Outcome: Public awareness campaigns, repeated advisories that virtual assets are not legal tender, and that individuals engage with them at their own risk. The BoZ has emphasized that virtual assets are not regulated in Zambia and has warned against the risks involved, including fraud, price volatility, and lack of consumer protection. They have also indicated that they are exploring the possibility of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
Caution and Warnings: The Bank of Zambia consistently advises against the use of cryptocurrencies due to risks and their unregulated status.
No Explicit Classification: The Bank of Zambia has not explicitly classified stablecoins as e-money, payment tokens, or securities under a specific stablecoin regulation.
Bank of Zambia (BoZ) Act, 1996 (as amended): This act establishes the BoZ's mandate as the central bank, including currency issuance and monetary policy.
No Specific Stablecoin Issuer Licensing: There is no dedicated licensing regime specifically for stablecoin issuers.
Potential for Existing Licensing: If an entity issuing a stablecoin were deemed to be operating as a Payment Service Provider (PSP) under the National Payment Systems Act or engaging in banking/financial services under the Banking and Financial Services Act, they would be required to obtain the relevant licenses from the Bank of Zambia.
BoZ's General Stance: The Bank of Zambia is generally cautious about instruments with high volatility and opacity. Algorithmic stablecoins, known for their inherent risks and often complex mechanisms, would likely face significant scrutiny if they were to gain traction in Zambia, and could be subject to more restrictive measures or outright prohibitions in any future regulatory framework.
Active CBDC Exploration: Zambia is actively exploring the feasibility of introducing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The Bank of Zambia has been conducting a feasibility assessment.
Bank of Zambia Statements on CBDC: News articles and official BoZ press releases have covered this topic.
Unregulated, but Not Banned: Crypto trading and the operation of crypto exchanges in Zambia are not explicitly illegal, but they are also not officially regulated or licensed by any specific framework for virtual assets. This places them in a "grey area."
No Licensed Exchanges: There are no crypto exchanges or virtual asset service providers (VASPs) specifically licensed or authorized by the BoZ or SEC to operate as such under a virtual asset regulatory framework. Exchanges operating within Zambia are doing so without specific crypto licenses, generally falling under broader business registration laws.
The Bank of Zambia (BoZ) has consistently issued advisories, such as the one in September 2021, warning the public about the risks associated with trading, investing, or transacting in cryptocurrencies. These advisories focus on consumer protection, financial stability, and anti-money laundering concerns, rather than tax specifics.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Terrorism Act, No. 13 of 2010: This is Zambia's principal AML/CFT legislation. While it is the foundational law, it does not specifically address virtual assets or VASPs. Finding an official, up-to-date government-published link can be challenging, but it forms the basis of the Financial Intelligence Centre's (FIC) operations.
Bank of Zambia (BoZ): The central bank has issued advisories warning the public about the risks associated with cryptocurrencies due to their unregulated nature. This indicates a cautious approach rather than active regulation.
Ongoing Studies by the RBZ: The RBZ has repeatedly stated it is studying various aspects of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and the feasibility of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). These studies are expected to lay the groundwork for any future regulatory frameworks, which could eventually include provisions for custody.
Innovation Hub: This serves as a platform for innovators (including those in the VA space) to engage with the RBZ, discuss their proposals, and potentially receive guidance on how their solutions might fit into existing or future regulatory frameworks.
Regulatory Sandbox: This is anticipated to be a controlled environment where approved entities can test innovative financial products, services, or business models (including those involving VAs) with real customers, but within defined parameters and under the close supervision of the RBZ, for a limited period. Successful participants in the sandbox may then be eligible for full licensing once the broader framework is established.
Licensing: This typically involves a comprehensive application, detailed due diligence, meeting stringent capital, operational, and compliance requirements, and ongoing supervision. Zimbabwe is expected to adopt a full licensing regime for commercial VA operations to ensure financial stability, consumer protection, and AML/CFT compliance.
RBZ-Issued Digital Asset (ZiG): The gold-backed digital token (ZiG), issued by the RBZ, is sui generis. It is not a private stablecoin but an RBZ-issued digital value instrument meant to provide stability and act as a store of value. It is backed by physical gold reserves held by the RBZ, and potentially a basket of foreign currency.
For Private Stablecoins (if permitted): Any entity wishing to issue a stablecoin that functions as e-money or a payment token would almost certainly require a license from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) as an E-money Issuer or Payment Service Provider under the National Payment Systems Act [Chapter 24:23].
RBZ as Issuer: Since the RBZ issues ZiG, it operates under its own mandate granted by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:15].
Impact on Private Stablecoins: The introduction of ZiG significantly impacts the potential for private stablecoins. By providing a central bank-issued, asset-backed digital alternative for stability, the RBZ has effectively filled much of the space that private stablecoins might occupy. This suggests that the RBZ might view private stablecoins as redundant or potentially disruptive to its own stability efforts, making it harder for them to gain approval.
Future Interaction: Any future private stablecoins would likely need to demonstrate clear value-add beyond what ZiG offers, operate within the strict regulatory parameters set by the RBZ, and potentially interact with ZiG or the broader national payment system as defined by the central bank.
Proposed/Under Consideration (Not Enacted Legislation):
Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE): Governs federal monetary policy and virtual asset service providers (VASPs)
Post-FATF grey list exit (Feb 2024), CBUAE escalated fines totaling hundreds of millions AED in 2024–2025, targeting crypto-linked high-risk sectors like exchange houses.
General penalties for unlicensed crypto activities include up to 5 years imprisonment and AED 250,000–1 million fines; money laundering via crypto carries up to AED 50 million fines, license revocation, or 10 years imprisonment.
Regulatory bans (not enforcement actions): DFSA prohibited privacy tokens (e.g., Monero) in Jan 2026; federal law (Feb 2026) bans privacy/algorithmic tokens with fines up to AED 50,000 and 3 months imprisonment.
No sources detail VARA/ADGM/FSRA fines against specific crypto firms; general unlicensed trading risks criminal prosecution.
Limitations: Entities often unnamed; focus is AML enforcement rather than pure crypto violations; 2026 actions sparse in results.
The Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) is responsible for the licensing, governing, and supervision of financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates.Central Bank of the UAE
CBUAE issues licenses for various banking operations, including conventional banks, Islamic banks, finance companies, and moneychangers, with centralized oversight.UAE Banks by License Type
Firms and individuals must apply to the CBUAE for authorization to carry out regulated financial activities, submitting official application forms and supporting documents to the Licensing Division.Central Bank of the UAE
For Restricted Licence Banks, applicants must obtain a specific licence from CBUAE, meeting requirements on minimum capital, ownership, trade name, and a three-year business plan.Tamimi Turtl
Minimum capital for Restricted Licence Banks: AED 100 million fully paid-up at branch level plus AED 2 billion at entity level for foreign bank branches; AED 1 billion for all other cases.Tamimi Turtl
Engaging in Licensed Financial Activities without a licence is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment and/or fines from AED 50,000 to AED 500 million.White & Case
Maximum administrative fines increased to AED 1 billion under the New CBUAE Law, with higher sanctions for unlicensed activity and authorised individuals.White & Case
CBUAE conducts regular supervision and examinations covering capital adequacy, risk management, and compliance.UAE Banks by License Type
VARA Licensing Rules (AML/CFT/Sanctions): https://www.securevisanow.com/vara-license-dubai
UAE Central Bank Joint Guidance: Same URL as
Algorithmic tokens are completely banned—no person may provide financial services related to algorithmic stablecoin activities, reflecting lessons from the TerraUST collapse.
FSRA (ADGM): Approved issuance by licensed entities (e.g., Paxos).
Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE): Regulates payment token services, including dirham-backed stablecoins (algorithmic tokens banned); enforces federal AML for VASPs.
CNV General Resolution 994/2024: Defines VASPs and requires CNV registration for legal operations.
CNV General Resolution N°1025 (draft, public consultation October 2024) proposes finalized VASP rules on custody infrastructure, audits, and policies, expected to align closely with the draft.
BCRA is reviewing plans to lift the bank prohibition on crypto trading/custody, debating custody requirements, capital treatment, and permitted tokens; approval would enhance consumer protection and AML.
Penalty: Nationwide access block; directed ISPs to restrict access; Google and Apple instructed to remove mobile applications
Outcome: Platform blocked countrywide
Penalty Amount: $251 million in investor losses documented
Outcome: Coinbase suspended ARS-to-USDC trading operations after less than one year in the market
Outcome: Platform banned; thousands of investors affected with millions in losses
Report blocked assets to OFAC/UIF; no dealing with 50%+ owned entities or crypto from sanctioned sources (e.g., Blender.io, SUEX).
OFAC: Civil fines up to $1M+ per violation, criminal up to 30 years/$1M; strict liability.
Argentina: UIF fines up to ARS 10M (~$10K USD equivalent, adjusted), license revocation, criminal charges under Penal Code Arts. 303-309 for terrorism financing.
EU/UN: Varies by member state enforcement; secondary risks amplify.
No comprehensive list or test is specified in recent resolutions like CNV General Resolution 1125/2026, which defines virtual assets as "any digital representation of value that can be traded and/or transferred digitally and used for payments or investments," encompassing cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets, and stablecoins—but this is for qualified investor net worth calculations, not security classification.
No explicit rules on secondary trading of tokens classified as securities appear in sources; a 2022 Central Bank ban persists on banks offering crypto services, though internal blockchain testing occurs and easing is anticipated.
No specific enforcement cases against token issuers or secondary trading are cited in available results.
National Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional de Valores, CNV): Primary regulator overseeing VASP registration, compliance, investor protection, and development of the crypto framework. It manages the mandatory VASP registry and recently issued General Resolution No. 1125/2026, allowing virtual assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum to count toward net worth for qualified investor status (threshold around $479,000).
Earlier measures: UIF Resolution 300/2014 (AML reporting); 2017 Income Tax Law amendments (taxes crypto profits).
Adopted through Law 27.739 (March 2024), which defines PSAVs, followed by phased registration in 2025 and UIF Resolution 49/2024.
Traditional banks can provide crypto services from April 2026 under supervision.