DeFi protocol frontend in Benin

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.

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

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.

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

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

The BCEAO’s regulatory stance on crypto‑actifs in Benin has been updated; the earlier communiqué no longer reflects current enforcement deadlines.

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.

Limited Public Reporting: Unlike jurisdictions with mature financial markets (e.g., USA, EU), individual enforcement actions, especially those involving relatively smaller sums or entities, are often not widely publicized by regulators in Benin or the wider UEMOA region.

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.

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).