Centralized exchange in Benin
Order-book exchange that takes custody of user assets and matches trades between users.
CEX is conditionally permitted in Benin with a local entity, subject to AML obligations and high licensing burden.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- conditional
- Local entity required
- Yes
- Licensing burden
- High
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
AML Obligations
- Customer identification and verification on a risk-based basis (bj.aml.obtain-and-verify-the-identity)
- Beneficial ownership identification and verification (bj.aml.beneficial-ownership-identify-and-take)
- Purpose and intended nature of business must be understood (bj.aml.purpose-and-intended-nature-of)
- Ongoing monitoring and transaction scrutiny (bj.aml.ongoing-monitoring-conduct-ongoing-due)
- Enhanced due diligence for PEPs, high-risk jurisdictions, and complex transactions (bj.aml.risk-based-approach-apply-a-risk-based)
- Travel Rule (FATF Rec. 16) — obtain and transmit originator/beneficiary info for virtual asset transfers above threshold (bj.aml.travel-rule-fatf-recommendation-16)
- Suspicious transaction reporting (STR) to CENTIF FIU (bj.aml.obligation-to-report-any-vasp)
- No-tipping-off prohibition (bj.aml.no-tipping-off-vasps-and-their)
- Recordkeeping for at least 5 years post-relationship/transaction (bj.aml.duration-records-of-transactions-and)
- Records must permit transaction reconstruction and be available to authorities on request (bj.aml.availability-records-must-be-sufficient)
Key Restrictions
- Financial institutions regulated by BCEAO (banks, microfinance institutions, payment service providers) are prohibited from engaging in crypto activities, including exchange and custody (bj.custody.prohibition-for-regulated-entities-financial)
- No specific license for crypto exchanges or custodians exists — any operation exists in a regulatory grey area (bj.custody.custodial-license-requirements-there-are)
- No segregation of client assets rules exist for crypto (bj.custody.segregation-of-client-assets-rules)
- No cold storage mandates or qualified custodian definitions exist (bj.custody.cold-storage-mandates-no-specific, bj.custody.qualified-custodian-definitions-there-is)
- BCEAO has only authorized two structures for payment services in Benin — any exchange would need to assess whether it falls under payment-service regulation (bj.enforcement.note-the-link-is-to)
- Regional UEMOA directives (e.g. Directive 02/2015/CM/UEMOA) apply and are transposed into national law, creating a regional overlay on any national licensing (bj.aml.uemoa-directives-as-a-uemoa)
Key Risks
- Legal Uncertainty: Activities are conducted in a regulatory grey area with no specific exchange/custody licensing framework (bj.custody.legal-uncertainty-activities-are-conducted)
- Prohibition risk: BCEAO-regulated institutions cannot engage — if the operator partners with or is classified as a regulated financial entity, operations may be unlawful (bj.custody.prohibition-for-regulated-entities-financial)
- Enforcement risk: Enforcement is limited but may take the form of fraud/Ponzi actions, informal warnings, or BCEAO communiqués targeting unregulated crypto services (bj.enforcement.focus-on-fraud-when-actions, bj.enforcement.informal-warnings-by-local-authorities)
- No consumer protection safeguards exist for users in case of hack or insolvency (bj.custody.no-consumer-protection-there-are)
- AML/CFT scrutiny: Unregulated crypto activity is viewed with heightened scrutiny by CENTIF and the BCEAO (bj.custody.amlcft-while-no-specific-crypto)
- Potential future regulation: A December 2025 colloquium signaled intent to develop a legal framework for crypto — regulatory landscape may shift significantly (bj.custody.a-general-search-on-their)
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
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'.
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.
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.
Legal Uncertainty: Activities are conducted in a regulatory grey area.
No Consumer Protection: There are no specific regulatory safeguards for clients using such services.
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.
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).
Article 17 of Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 fevrier 2024 requires reporting entities to identify the customer and to verify identity by means of documents, data or information from reliable and INDEPENDENT sources. Customer self-certification does not satisfy verification. The risk-based approach modulates the extent of measures, not the requirement of an independent source. The only material carve-out identified by GIABA is article 86 (certain online payment transactions where the account is held in Benin, another WAEMU state, or an equivalent third country).
Beneficial Ownership: Identify and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner(s) of the customer.
Purpose and Intended Nature of Business: Understand the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.
Ongoing Monitoring: Conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutinize transactions to ensure they are consistent with the VASP's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile.
Risk-Based Approach: Apply a risk-based approach, meaning enhanced due diligence (EDD) for higher-risk situations (e.g., customers from high-risk jurisdictions, politically exposed persons - PEPs, complex transactions) and simplified due diligence (SDD) for lower-risk situations.
No travel rule applies to virtual asset transfers in Benin. The originator/beneficiary information rules of the UMOA uniform law (arts. 39-47), carried into Loi n° 2024-01, are drafted for 'institutions financieres', which the law defines separately from prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels. GIABA's May 2025 follow-up report rates Benin Non-Compliant on Recommendation 15 ('no legal instrument has been adopted by Benin designed to regulate VA and VASP activities') and Partially Compliant on Recommendation 16 with no virtual-asset coverage at all.
Article 60 al. 1 of Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 fevrier 2024 requires reporting entities (assujettis) to report immediately to CENTIF sums, transactions or attempted transactions suspected of being proceeds of money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation financing or a predicate offence. GIABA rates Benin Compliant on R.20. However it is not established that PSAV/VASPs are operative reporting entities in Benin: GIABA rates R.15 Non-Compliant and records that no legal instrument regulating VA/VASP activity has been adopted.
No Tipping-Off: VASPs and their employees are prohibited from disclosing to the customer or third parties that an STR is being or has been filed.
The retention period in Benin is TEN (10) years, not five. Article 23 of Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 fevrier 2024 requires reporting entities to keep, for ten years from the closure of accounts or the termination of the relationship, documents on customer identity, customer knowledge and risk profile, due diligence analyses and transactions. This mirrors art. 23 of the UMOA uniform law of 31 March 2023 ('dix ans, a compter de la cloture de leurs comptes').
Availability: Records must be sufficient to permit the reconstruction of individual transactions and be made available to competent authorities upon request.
Benin’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is the Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières (CENTIF). CENTIF is an administrative financial intelligence unit under the Minister of Finance, with financial and decision-making autonomy, responsible for receiving, analyzing, enriching and transmitting suspicious transaction reports and other relevant financial information to competent authorities for the purposes of combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and for coordinating and supporting national AML/CFT policy and strategy.
Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA du 2 juillet 2015 has been superseded, not merely 'complemented', by the UMOA Loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP du 31 mars 2023. That uniform law - not any 2015 decision - is the current regional reference, and Benin transposed it by Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 fevrier 2024. UEMOA/UMOA instruments are not directly applicable: each state must transpose.
Benin is a UEMOA/UMOA member and BCEAO is the common central bank and the banking/e-money/payments regulator. But BCEAO is not 'the primary financial regulator' across the board and does not issue directives: UEMOA directives and règlements are adopted by the Conseil des Ministres de l'UEMOA (BCEAO issues instructions, avis and circulaires), securities are regulated by AMF-UMOA (the former CREPMF, renamed 2022), and AML/CFT obligations bind through national transposition — for Benin, Loi n° 2024-01 du 20 février 2024, which transposes the UMOA Loi uniforme of 31 March 2023. AML supervision and STR receipt sit with CENTIF-Bénin.
Developing Frameworks: Many African nations, including Benin, are still in the early stages of developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks specifically for cryptocurrencies. Enforcement often takes the form of general warnings or actions against broad financial fraud rather than specific crypto licensing violations.
Focus on Fraud: When actions occur, they are often initiated by law enforcement (police, judicial authorities) against individuals or groups involved in pyramid schemes or investment fraud using cryptocurrencies, rather than by a financial regulator against a crypto service provider for regulatory non-compliance.
BCEAO's own published register of electronic-money issuers in the UMOA, situation au 28 février 2026, lists eight authorised arrangements for Benin — the Trésor Public du Bénin (prepaid card), three établissements de monnaie électronique (MTN Mobile Money Benin, Moov Money, ID Money Benin) and four bank/telecom partnerships (BESTCASH, CORIS-MONEY, and two CELTIS CASH arrangements). Not two. The claim is in any event unrelated to virtual assets: no crypto or VASP authorisation exists in Benin at all.
Formal legal enforcement against refusal of BCEAO banknotes and coins is now in place, superseding informal warnings.
Verdict Attribution
- Source:
- AI-Generated · Unreviewed
- AI synthesized:
- 2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
- Last updated:
- 2026-07-13
- Confidence:
- low
This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.
Conditional — a centralized exchange could theoretically operate in Benin but only in a regulatory grey area with no specific licensing framework, subject to general AML/CFT obligations under UEMOA directives, a prohibition on BCEAO-regulated financial institutions handling crypto, and significant legal uncertainty and enforcement risk.
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- What exchange / VASP license applies?
- What custody segregation rules apply to user assets?
- What market-conduct and listing rules apply?
- What travel-rule obligations apply on withdrawals?