Benin -- Custody Regulations Regulatory Overview

Not Legal Tender: Cryptocurrencies are not recognized as legal tender within the UEMOA zone.

Virtual assets are not recognised or regulated as financial instruments in Benin, and BCEAO has publicly flagged unregulated crypto-actifs as a financial-stability risk. However, Benin is not 'tightening oversight' through any crypto-specific instrument: Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 février 2024 makes prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels assujettis to AML/CFT obligations (art. 3(c)) and bars professional PSAV activity without prior agrément or authorisation of the 'autorité compétente' (art. 58), but no competent authority has been designated (art. 59 defers everything to future regulation). GIABA's May 2025 enhanced follow-up report rates Benin Non-Compliant on R.15, finding that 'no legal instrument has been adopted by Benin designed to regulate VA and VASP activities'.

BCEAO's published position treats 'l'essor de crypto-actifs non régulés' as a risk to monetary and financial stability, and the UEMOA framework offers no consumer protection or clear legal framework for virtual assets. The specific itemised warning attributed here to a UEMOA Financial Stability Committee communiqué cannot be verified: the cited communiqué URL 404s, and no equivalent BCEAO risk communiqué was retrievable.

No BCEAO or Beninese instrument prohibits banks, microfinance institutions or payment service providers from crypto-related activity. GIABA's May 2025 report states that 'no legal instrument has been adopted by Benin designed to regulate VA and VASP activities' and rates R.15 Non-Compliant. What exists is (a) BCEAO public warnings about unregulated crypto-actifs, and (b) Loi n° 2024-01 art. 58, a generally applicable prior-authorisation requirement for professional PSAV activity that is inoperative because no competent authority has been designated.

There is no operational licensing regime for crypto custody in Benin, but it is wrong to say custody falls outside the regulated perimeter altogether. Loi n° 2024-01 art. 2(44)(d) expressly includes 'la conservation et l'administration d'actifs virtuels' in the PSAV definition, art. 3(c) makes PSAV assujettis, and art. 58 forbids professional PSAV activity without prior agrément or authorisation from the competent authority. Because no competent authority has been designated (art. 59), no custody licence can in fact be applied for or granted.

Segregation of Client Assets Rules: No specific rules exist mandating the segregation of client digital assets from the custodian's operational assets.

Insurance/Bonding Requirements: There are no specific insurance or bonding requirements for crypto custodians.

Cold Storage Mandates: No specific mandates dictate the use of cold storage or other security protocols for digital assets held in custody.

Qualified Custodian Definitions: There is no legal definition of a "qualified custodian" specifically for digital assets.

Regulatory work has been publicly announced since this claim was written, though none of it is custody-specific. BCEAO created the Comité chargé de l'élaboration de la réglementation relative aux crypto-monnaies dans l'UMOA (C-CRYPTO) and convened an international conference on crypto-actifs in Dakar on 8 May 2026, stating that 'l'enjeu n'est pas de freiner l'innovation, mais d'en assurer une intégration maîtrisée'. In Benin, a colloquium on 'Droit africain et cryptomonnaies' was held on 18 December 2025. The claim's second half remains right: the only crypto obligations actually enacted are AML/CFT ones, via Loi n° 2024-01, with no dedicated custody licence.

Legal Uncertainty: Activities are conducted in a regulatory grey area.

No Consumer Protection: There are no specific regulatory safeguards for clients using such services.

Operational Risk: Without clear guidelines, security, operational, and financial risks are heightened.

Correct that no crypto-custody-specific law exists, but it understates the AML position: Beninese AML/CFT law does not merely 'apply generally' to crypto — Loi n° 2024-01 art. 3(c) expressly lists prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels as assujettis, art. 2(44) covers exchange, transfer, custody/administration and issuance-related services, art. 23 imposes 10-year record retention, and art. 58 requires prior agrément. Suspicious transaction reports go to CENTIF-Bénin (the FIU; note that 'CENAREF' is the DRC's FIU, not Benin's). In practice supervision is absent: GIABA rates Benin Non-Compliant on R.15.

For regulatory research on financial stability concerns or unregulated financial products, you would now typically consult the dedicated press-release and notice sections of the relevant financial authorities (eg, ACPR, AMF, SEC, CFTC) and any issue‑specific warning or policy pages they maintain, rather than generically looking for “communiqués de presse.”

A colloquium was indeed held and reported on the Benin government portal on 18 December 2025 — 'Droit africain et cryptomonnaies : Les professionnels de la justice africains en réflexion sur les enjeux juridiques' — but it was a reflection by African justice professionals on the legal issues raised by cryptocurrencies, not a government initiative to develop a Beninese legal framework for cryptocurrencies. No Beninese crypto legal framework has followed: GIABA (May 2025) records that no legal instrument regulating VA/VASP activity has been adopted, and the drafting work is regional (BCEAO's C-CRYPTO committee, 2026).