Self-custodial wallet / non-custodial software in Switzerland
Publisher of software where users hold their own private keys. The publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds.
Self-custodial wallet is permitted in Switzerland with no licensing burden.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- yes
- Local entity required
- No
- Licensing burden
- None
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
AML Obligations
- No AML obligations attach to the software publisher itself, because it never holds, controls, or has access to user funds or private keys — the publisher is not a financial intermediary under AMLA.
- Users who use the wallet for transactions exceeding CHF 1,000/month become subject to KYC requirements at the counterparty (exchange/custodian), but this obligation does not flow to the non-custodial software publisher.
Key Restrictions
- The publisher must not hold, control, or have access to user private keys or funds — any model that crosses into custody (e.g. hosted key recovery, m-of-n signing by the publisher) would trigger FINMA licensing requirements (banking license or FinTech license).
- No geofencing or licensing required for pure non-custodial software distribution.
- If the wallet integrates an exchange, swap, or staking feature where the publisher exercises control or intermediation, those features may trigger separate VASP classification and SRO membership.
Key Risks
- Feature-creep risk: adding any custodial element (key backup, aggregated swap matching, fee routing through publisher-controlled accounts) could retroactively classify the publisher as a financial intermediary requiring SRO membership and AML compliance.
- Regulatory ambiguity on embedded non-custodial DeFi features (e.g., in-app swaps via third-party protocols) — FINMA looks at economic function, not technology, so integrated features may be scrutinized.
- Consumer-protection exposure: Swiss law does not have a specific 'non-custodial software' framework — reliance on formal guidance opinions (FINMA no-action letters) may be prudent for complex products.
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
FINMA applies financial market law in a technology-neutral way, focusing on the economic function and purpose of a token ('substance over form') and following the principle 'same risks, same rules' (FINMA releases of 26 Aug 2019 and 11 Sep 2019).
Crypto-based assets that a bank or securities firm undertakes to hold available for a custody client, and that are attributable individually or by a clear co-ownership share, are treated as custody assets segregated from the bankruptcy estate (BankG Art. 16 no. 1bis, inserted by the DLT Act, in force 1 Aug 2021); FINMA Guidance 01/2026 (12 Jan 2026) covers custody risks.
Switzerland has no single crypto or VASP licence: by activity, firms need SRO membership under AMLA Art. 14, a FinTech licence (deposits up to CHF 100 million, minimum capital at least CHF 300,000), a banking licence (minimum capital CHF 10 million), a securities-firm licence (FinIA Art. 41) or a DLT trading facility licence (FMIA Art. 73a).
FINMA is Switzerland's integrated financial market supervisor (FINMASA Art. 6): it licenses banks, FinTech licence holders, securities firms and DLT trading facilities, supervises AML compliance, and issued the ICO Guidelines (2018) and the stablecoin guidance (06/2024).
The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 10 October 1997 (AMLA/GwG, SR 955.0) sets identification, due-diligence and suspicious-activity reporting duties for financial intermediaries, including crypto service providers; the travel rule itself rests on AMLO-FINMA Art. 10 as applied by FINMA Guidance 02/2019.
The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA/GwG, SR 955.0, of 10 October 1997) imposes identification, beneficial-owner, documentation and reporting duties (Arts. 3-9) on financial intermediaries, including crypto service providers that professionally accept, hold or help transfer third-party assets (Art. 2(3)); such non-bank intermediaries must join a recognised self-regulatory organisation (Art. 14), while banks and other Art. 2(2) institutions are supervised for AML by FINMA (Art. 12).
Swiss financial intermediaries must identify the contracting party when one virtual-currency transaction, or several that appear linked, reach or exceed CHF 1,000 (AMLO-FINMA Art. 51a(1)); for cash or other anonymous payments, technical measures must prevent linked transactions exceeding that threshold within 30 days (Art. 51a(1bis)); transfers to external wallets require proof of the customer's ownership by suitable technical means (FINMA Guidance 02/2019).
Verdict Attribution
- Source:
- AI-Generated · Unreviewed
- AI synthesized:
- 2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
- Last updated:
- 2026-07-13
- Confidence:
- high
This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.
Permitted — Pure non-custodial wallet software publishing does not trigger VASP classification or AML obligations under Swiss law, because the publisher never holds, controls, or accesses user funds or private keys, and FINMA's technology-neutral approach regulates economic function rather than technology.
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- Does software publishing trigger VASP / MSB classification?
- Do AML obligations attach when no custody exists?
- What disclosure or consumer-protection rules apply?