Stablecoin issuer / redeemer 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.

No specific regulatory framework for VASPs.

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.

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.

Burkina Faso DOES have a national legislative framework covering virtual assets: Loi n°046-2024/ALT du 30 décembre 2024 defines 'actif virtuel' (art. 2-2) and 'prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels' (art. 2-51), makes PSAV assujettis (art. 3), and provides at art. 58 that 'Nul ne peut se livrer à l'activité professionnelle de prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels s'il n'a pas obtenu l'agrément ou l'autorisation préalable de l'autorité compétente.' It is however not operational: no autorité compétente has been designated and no implementing text exists. Separately, no BCEAO instrument imposing a 'blanket prohibition' on regulated institutions facilitating virtual assets could be located, so there was no ban to 'evolve' from; BCEAO's position is that crypto-assets are not currency, not legal tender and not regulated (Governor Kassi Brou, 22 July 2026), and it created a crypto-asset regulatory drafting committee announced 8 May 2026.

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

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

No 'Règlement n°06/2018/CM/UEMOA on the Organization of the Financial Market' could be located in any UEMOA, BCEAO or AMF-UMOA source, and the AMF-UMOA Règlement Général does not cite it. The instruments that actually organise the UEMOA regional financial market and delimit its products are the Convention du 3 juillet 1996 portant création du CREPMF and its Annexe, and the Règlement Général taken by the Conseil des Ministres under art. 14 of that Annexe; art. 111 of the Règlement Général supplies the operative definition ('Sont considérées comme valeurs mobilières pour l'application du présent Règlement Général, les titres émis par les personnes morales publiques ou privées, transmissibles par inscription en compte ou par tradition...'). Note also that the number 06/2024/CM/UEMOA belongs to the external-financial-relations regulation, an unrelated subject.

No 'Instruction n°01/2019/CREPMF on Public Offers of Financial Instruments' exists. CREPMF instructions are numbered in a single running series (e.g. n°19/99, n°30/2001, n°36/2009, n°47/2011, n°060 to n°063 of March 2020), not restarted per year, so a '01/2019' number is structurally impossible. The appel public à l'épargne trigger is set by art. 19 of the Annexe to the Convention du 3 juillet 1996 (titres spread among 100 or more persons with no legal link, OR use of publicité/démarchage, OR BRVM listing), and the visa requirement by arts. 113 and 115 of the Règlement Général, with the note d'information at art. 123.

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.

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

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).

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.

BCEAO (Central Bank of West African States): Responsible for monetary policy, financial stability, and regulating banks in the UEMOA zone.

The regional securities regulator for the UEMOA/UMOA financial market is the Autorité des Marchés Financiers de l'UMOA (AMF-UMOA). It replaced the Conseil Régional de l'Epargne Publique et des Marchés Financiers (CREPMF) following the UMOA Treaty amendment signed 12 July 2019, which took effect once ratified by all member States; the AMF-UMOA name has been in use since 2022. The substantive rules (Convention of 3 July 1996 and its Annexe, Règlement Général) are unchanged. The crepmf.org domain no longer resolves securely; use amf-umoa.org.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.