On-shore VASP in Burkina Faso

A statutory licensing requirement for VASPs does exist in Burkina Faso: art. 58 of Loi n°046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 prohibits carrying on the professional activity of prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels without prior agrément or autorisation from the competent authority, and art. 3 lists PSAV among the assujettis. What is true is that the regime is not yet operational: art. 59 defers all PSAV-specific requirements to 'les autorités compétentes' and no competent authority has been designated in Burkina Faso, so no agrément can currently be applied for or granted.

Both fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-crypto exchange are within the art. 2-51 definition of prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels in Loi n°046-2024/ALT, and art. 58 requires prior agrément/autorisation from the competent authority — so a VASP-specific licensing obligation exists on paper (though no competent authority has been designated). There is no separate BCEAO instrument prohibiting supervised banks or payment institutions from serving crypto businesses; BCEAO's published position is that crypto-assets are not currency, not legal tender and not regulated, and it is drafting a framework.

Custody and administration of virtual assets is expressly one of the enumerated PSAV activities in art. 2-51 of Loi n°046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024, and art. 58 subjects it to prior agrément or autorisation. The regime is nevertheless dormant: art. 59 leaves the substantive custody requirements to competent authorities that Burkina Faso has not designated.

Correct that XOF payment processing falls under the UEMOA payment-services regime (Instruction n°001-01-2024 for payment institutions; Instruction n°008-05-2015 for e-money). Incorrect that no crypto-specific licence exists: transfer of virtual assets and services relating to their transfer are enumerated PSAV activities under art. 2-51 of Loi n°046-2024/ALT and require prior agrément under art. 58, albeit from a competent authority not yet designated. The assertion that such payments 'would be prohibited from using regulated financial infrastructure' is not supported by any BCEAO instrument.

Implication for VASPs: This means that entities wishing to operate as crypto exchanges, custody providers, or payment processors in Burkina Faso (or any UEMOA country) will face significant challenges, primarily the inability to obtain banking services from regulated financial institutions within the UEMOA zone. This effectively makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to operate legally and effectively.

BCEAO's 15 New Instructions on External Financial Relations (implementing Regulation No. 06/2024/CM/UEMOA), effective August 1, 2025

Correct that BCEAO is now working toward a crypto-asset regulatory framework rather than prohibition: at its 8 May 2026 Dakar international conference the Governor confirmed 'la BCEAO a mis en place un Comité chargé de l'élaboration du cadre réglementaire relatif aux crypto-actifs'. But the framing understates the status quo: no framework is in force, and on 22 July 2026 Governor Kassi Brou said of crypto-assets 'Ce n'est pas une monnaie. Ce n'est pas réglementé. Donc soyez prudents.' There was also never a formal BCEAO instrument of outright prohibition to shift away from.

Entities operating in this space do so in a legal grey area, exposed to regulatory risks, potential legal challenges, and lack of consumer protection.

The conclusion (no capital floor applies to VASPs in Burkina Faso today) is right, but the stated reason is wrong. A VASP authorisation requirement does exist — art. 58 of Loi n°046-2024/ALT — but art. 59 defers all substantive conditions, including any capital requirement, to competent authorities that have not been designated, and no implementing text has been issued. So no capital figure is currently fixed. For contrast, UEMOA e-money issuers must hold 300,000,000 FCFA fully paid up (Instruction n°008-05-2015, art. 11) and payment institutions 10/20/30/100 million FCFA by service (Instruction n°001-01-2024, art. 11).

Local Presence: Any legally registered business in Burkina Faso would require a local presence and incorporation under Burkinabe law.

No specific regulatory framework for VASPs.

GIABA membership and FSRB status are correct: FATF lists GIABA as a FATF-Style Regional Body and Burkina Faso among its members. But it is no longer accurate that there is 'no specific crypto AML/KYC framework': Loi n°046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 names prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels among the assujettis at art. 3, so the full CDD/record-keeping/STR obligations of that law apply to VASPs by name, not merely 'by expectation'. Note Burkina Faso is a GIABA member, not a FATF member.

Relevant Authority: The Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières (CENTIF) is Burkina Faso's Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). It is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious transaction reports.

Burkina Faso has been removed from the FATF increased monitoring list as of October 2025 and continues to work with GIABA to sustain improvements in its AML/CFT/CPF systems.

No 'Loi n° 024-2016/AN du 20 mai 2016' exists. Burkina Faso's 2016 AML/CFT statute is Loi n° 016-2016/AN du 3 mai 2016 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme (cited throughout the 2023 GIABA follow-up report), and it transposed UEMOA Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA rather than FATF/GIABA recommendations directly. That regime has since been replaced: Loi n° 046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 transposes the UMOA loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP of 31 March 2023 and covers virtual assets expressly, so VASP coverage no longer depends on interpreting 'financial institution' — art. 2 point 2 defines 'actif virtuel', art. 2 point 51 defines 'prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels (PSAV)', art. 3 makes PSAV assujettis, and art. 58 forbids professional PSAV activity without prior agrément or autorisation from the competent authority (no such authority has yet been designated in Burkina Faso).

AML-related identification and verification of identity generally requires collecting and verifying key personal data (such as full name, date of birth, and address) and confirming it through reliable sources, which may include a single government‑issued photo ID or a mix of documentary and electronic methods; a rigid requirement for two physical forms of identification is not a universal or current standard.

For natural persons in the US: Full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, nationality, and official identification document number(s) from reliable, independent sources (such as state-issued driver's license, passport, or Social Security number). Verification must use reliable, independent source documents. Note: The US has no national ID card; verification relies on a decentralized system of state and federal documents. Validity period requirements vary by document type and regulatory context.

For legal entities: Name, legal form, address (registered office and current operational address if different), registered office, official registration number, constitutional documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws, memorandum and articles of association), and identification of individuals authorized to act on behalf of the entity.

Beneficial Ownership Identification: Identify and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner(s) of the customer. This includes understanding the ownership and control structure of legal persons and arrangements.

Purpose and Intended Nature of the Business Relationship: Understand and, where appropriate, obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.

Ongoing Monitoring: Conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions are consistent with the VASP's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile.

Risk-Based Approach: Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customers or transactions (e.g., Politically Exposed Persons - PEPs, complex transactions, transactions from high-risk jurisdictions). Simplified due diligence (SDD) may be applied in low-risk scenarios, but not to the extent of foregoing identification entirely.

VASPs are obligated to report any transaction or activity that they suspect to be related to money laundering or terrorist financing, regardless of the amount.

The report must be made promptly to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Burkina Faso.

Loi n° 001-2021/AN du 30 mars 2021 is Burkina Faso's personal-data-protection law (portant protection des personnes à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel, which created the CIL); it is not the instrument governing AML disclosure offences and it does not create the offence described. The applicable instrument is Loi n° 046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024, whose art. 63 prohibits an assujetti from disclosing to the owner of the funds or the author of the operation the existence or content of a declaration made to CENTIF — i.e. it penalises tipping-off, which is the opposite of penalising a good-faith report.

"Tipping off" (informing the customer or a third party that an STR has been filed or that an investigation is underway) is strictly prohibited.

All necessary records of transactions, both domestic and international, to enable their reconstruction.

Records of the information obtained through CDD measures (copies of identification documents, account files, business correspondence).

Records pertaining to suspicious transaction reports filed.

The name is wrong: CENTIF stands for 'Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières', not 'Centrale Nationale' (spelled out at art. 2 point 18 of Loi n° 046-2024/ALT). The functional description is otherwise correct — CENTIF is Burkina Faso's FIU, receives declarations de soupçon (art. 60), analyses them and disseminates to law enforcement. But the last sentence overstates its role: supervisory compliance enforcement and administrative sanctions sit with each sector's 'autorité de contrôle' (art. 182 of the uniform law scheme), not with CENTIF.

Burkina Faso has no Travel Rule instrument for virtual assets. It is a GIABA member — since 14 December 2025 as a non-ECOWAS member State — which is a political commitment to the FATF standards, not a directly binding legal obligation. Nationally, Loi n° 046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 makes PSAV assujettis (arts. 2(51), 3, 58-59), but its originator/beneficiary rules (arts. 39-47) are drafted for institutions financières, which art. 2 defines separately from PSAV; no VA travel rule is therefore in force.

No specific national Travel Rule threshold: Given the lack of specific national legislation directly on the Travel Rule, specific threshold amounts for virtual asset transfers (like the FATF's recommended $1,000/€1,000) are not publicly detailed for Burkina Faso.

Future Expectation: Should Burkina Faso fully implement the Travel Rule, it would likely follow international best practices, possibly adopting standards promoted by GIABA or global industry working groups. For now, compliance would primarily involve internal risk-based procedures and record-keeping.

Correct that Burkina Faso has no operational crypto framework — no licensing regime, no designated crypto regulator, no prudential or conduct rules — but no longer correct that crypto entities are undefined in national law. Loi n° 046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 defines 'actif virtuel' (art. 2 point 2) and 'prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels' (art. 2 point 51, expressly including custody), makes PSAV assujettis (art. 3), and by art. 58 prohibits professional PSAV activity without prior agrément or autorisation from the competent authority. Art. 59 defers all PSAV-specific requirements to that competent authority, which Burkina Faso has not designated — so a criminal/administrative prohibition exists on paper with no route to compliance and no supervisor to enforce it.

BCEAO's public position is confirmed as of July 2026 — Governor Jean-Claude Kassi Brou: 'Ce n'est pas une monnaie. Ce n'est pas réglementé. Donc soyez prudents' — and BCEAO has taken no entity-specific enforcement action in Burkina Faso. But 'not regulated' now needs qualification: since 30 December 2024, Loi n° 046-2024/ALT art. 58 makes it unlawful to carry on professional PSAV activity in Burkina Faso without prior agrément or autorisation, and PSAV are assujettis to the full AML/CFT regime (art. 3). What does not exist is an operational regime: no competent authority has been designated under art. 59, so no licence can actually be obtained. BCEAO created the C-CRYPTO drafting committee and held its international crypto-assets conference in Dakar on 8 May 2026; a framework is in preparation with no published timeline.

Nature of Reported Incidents: Any incidents related to cryptocurrencies in Burkina Faso are more likely to be:

No BCEAO 'Instruction n° 001/RB/2021 du 29 octobre 2021' exists, and crypto-asset activity is not prohibited across UEMOA by any instruction. The genuine 2021 BCEAO instruction is Instruction n°001-03-2021 du 12 mars 2021 on the surveillance of financial market infrastructures, payment means and payment services, whose scope (art. 3) is FMIs, payment-instrument issuers and payment service providers and which contains no reference to actifs virtuels or crypto-actifs. Crypto is not prohibited in UEMOA; it is simply unregulated, with a statutory PSAV authorisation requirement on paper (art. 58 of the uniform law / of Loi n° 046-2024/ALT) and no competent authority designated.

Instruction No. 001/RB/2021 (October 29, 2021) relative à l’interdiction des crypto-actifs dans l’espace UEMOA (often found on BCEAO's legal publications page or via news articles about it):