Is Crypto Legal in Cote d'Ivoire?

Règlement n° 06/2024/CM/UEMOA is real (signed at Bamako on 20 December 2024, relatif aux relations financières extérieures des Etats membres de l'UEMOA, applied from 1 August 2025 through 15 BCEAO instructions n°01 to 15/07/2025/RFE), but it is a foreign-exchange/external-settlements instrument and contains no rules on actifs virtuels or crypto-actifs. It does not create any virtual-asset framework. The only virtual-asset rule binding in Côte d'Ivoire is the AML/CFT layer: the UMOA uniform law of 31 March 2023, transposed nationally by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, which defines 'actif virtuel' (art. 2, 2°) and 'prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels' (art. 2, 51°) and makes PSAV assujettis (art. 3, c). No competent authority has been designated, so no licensing regime is operational.

BCEAO's Cautious Stance: The BCEAO has historically adopted a cautious, and at times prohibitive, stance towards cryptocurrencies due to concerns about monetary stability, consumer protection, money laundering, and illicit financing. They have issued warnings to financial institutions and the public about the risks associated with cryptocurrencies.

Côte d'Ivoire is not a FATF member; it is a GIABA member and is assessed by GIABA. Its second-round mutual evaluation was conducted by GIABA (on-site visit 6-24 June 2022, MER adopted 2023), not by an IMF-led team, and has been followed by three enhanced follow-up reports (2024, 2025, 2026). Côte d'Ivoire was under FATF increased monitoring during 2025 — it is on the EU high-risk third-country list from 5 August 2025 (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184), which mirrors the FATF grey list, and it was not among the countries de-listed at the October 2025 plenary (Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa). No evidence was found that its FATF action plan includes VASP regulation; the UEMOA-level VASP framework is still only in drafting (BCEAO C-CRYPTO committee, May 2026).

There is no BCEAO licence category for virtual-asset service providers. BCEAO agrément as an établissement de monnaie électronique (Instruction n°008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015, art. 8; minimum capital 300,000,000 FCFA, art. 11) or as a payment institution (Instruction n°001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024) is required only where the firm actually issues e-money or provides payment services; neither instrument mentions crypto-actifs or actifs virtuels. A crypto exchange as such cannot obtain, and is not required to hold, either licence.

No 'Directive n° 03/2018/CM/UEMOA on the harmonisation of payment services regulation' could be located in any BCEAO or UEMOA source; the BCEAO compendium chapter on payment systems and instruments lists no 2018 directive (its instruments are Règlement n°15/2002/CM/UEMOA, Directive n°08/2002/CM/UEMOA, Instruction n°01/2003/SP, Instruction n°008-05-2015 and related texts). Payment-institution regulation in the UMOA is set by Instruction n°001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024.

No 'Instruction n° 002/2019/RB/UEMOA' exists; the citation format ('/RB/UEMOA') is not BCEAO's, which numbers instructions n°00X-MM-YYYY. Approval of e-money issuers is governed by Instruction n°008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015 (art. 8 agrément préalable, art. 11 capital 300 million FCFA) and of payment institutions by Instruction n°001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024.

URLs: These directives are typically found on the official BCEAO website, often in the "Texts & Regulations" or "Publications" sections.

BCEAO Official Website: https://www.bceao.int/ (You'd need to navigate to the "Textes & Réglementations" section to find the specific directives).

Required Compliance: Entities, even if not explicitly licensed for crypto, should adhere to general AML/CFT obligations if they deal with financial transactions. Once a specific VASP framework is established, these will be mandatory.

Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA du 2 juillet 2015 existed but has been superseded by the UMOA Loi uniforme relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et le financement de la prolifération du 31 mars 2023. In Côte d'Ivoire the operative national text is Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, which transposes that uniform law (definitions of actif virtuel and PSAV at art. 2, 2° and 51°; PSAV as assujettis at art. 3, c; ten-year record retention at art. 23; suspicious-transaction reporting to CENTIF).

URL: Again, available on the BCEAO website in the regulatory section.

Crypto-to-crypto and fiat-to-crypto activity is alike unlicensed in practice, but not unregulated in law: since Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels are assujettis to the full Ivorian AML/CFT regime (art. 3, c), whatever the fiat leg, with a ten-year record-retention duty (art. 23) and suspicious-transaction reporting to CENTIF-CI. What is missing is the operative layer: no competent authority has been designated for PSAV agrément/registration, so no VASP licence exists or can be obtained. It is also incorrect that a payment-institution licence could be 'required' of a crypto exchange — that licence covers payment services, not virtual-asset services.

Côte d’Ivoire already has an established regulatory framework for food safety and documentation requirements, governed by multiple Ivorian government bodies, rather than a hypothetical future licensing regime.

Robust AML/KYC policies and procedures.

Verified: personal data protection in Côte d'Ivoire is governed by Loi n° 2013-450, enforced by ARTCI (Autorité de Régulation des Télécommunications/TIC de Côte d'Ivoire). Not verified: the characterisation that cybersecurity measures 'face coordination challenges and security gaps' and are 'still being developed', and ANSSI's role — no primary Ivorian source could be fetched (artci.ci is JavaScript-gated). Neither instrument is crypto-specific: no Ivorian data-protection or cybersecurity rule addresses virtual-asset service providers.

It is correct that no crypto-specific licensing path is available in practice, but wrong that there is 'no specific regulation'. Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 (Côte d'Ivoire's transposition of the UMOA loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP du 31 mars 2023, and the first UEMOA transposition) defines 'actif virtuel' at art. 2(2) and 'prestataire de services d'actifs virtuels' at art. 2(51) — expressly covering fiat/virtual-asset exchange, virtual-to-virtual exchange and transfer — and art. 3(c) makes PSAV assujettis. Art. 58 of the uniform law provides: '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.' No competent authority has been designated, so the prohibition on unlicensed activity binds while no agrément is obtainable. Also, PSAV are NOT 'viewed as a financial service': the law defines 'institutions financières' separately from PSAV.

Advanced cybersecurity and cold/hot storage solutions.

Strong internal controls and audit.

The first half is broadly right: activity that actually issues electronic money or provides payment services is caught by Instruction n° 008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015 (émetteurs de monnaie électronique; art. 8 prior agrément by the BCEAO) or Instruction n° 001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024 (établissements de paiement) — neither of which contains any reference to crypto-actifs, monnaies virtuelles or actifs virtuels. The second half is wrong: pure crypto-to-crypto activity is NOT unregulated. Art. 2(51)(b) of Ordonnance n° 2023-875 expressly covers 'échange entre une ou plusieurs formes d'actifs virtuels' and art. 2(51)(c) 'transfert d'actifs virtuels'; art. 3(c) makes such providers assujettis; and art. 58 of the uniform law prohibits professional PSAV activity without prior agrément or autorisation. What is true is that no competent authority has been designated under art. 59, so no agrément can be obtained and nothing is operational.

Key Requirements (Under BCEAO PSP/EMI Regulation):

Minimum capital for an électronic-money issuer is a single fixed figure, not a variable one, and it is in the hundreds of millions — not billions — of FCFA. Instruction n° 008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015, art. 11: 'Le capital social minimum d'un établissement de monnaie électronique est de trois cents millions FCFA' (300,000,000 FCFA), which must be fully paid up before agrément. Payment institutions are the tiered regime: Instruction n° 001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024, art. 11, sets 10 / 20 / 30 / 100 million FCFA by service. Neither figure applies to crypto-asset service providers, for which no capital requirement exists anywhere in UEMOA law.

AML/KYC: Mandatory Customer Due Diligence (CDD) procedures, record-keeping, and suspicious transaction reporting (STR) to the national financial intelligence unit (CENTIF in Cote d'Ivoire).

Local Presence: Typically requires a locally incorporated entity and local management with expertise in financial services.

Governance structure in Côte d’Ivoire shows consolidated executive rule with weakened checks and balances, and risk management frameworks face ongoing economic vulnerabilities as noted in IMF reviews.

Technical Infrastructure: Secure and resilient IT systems for payment processing.

Consumer Protection: Measures to protect users' funds and ensure transparent service.

Correct that the figure varies by licence type, and correct at the low end, but the upper bound is fabricated. The whole range sits in the tens-to-hundreds of millions of FCFA, never billions: Instruction n° 001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024, art. 11, sets établissement de paiement capital in tiers of 10 / 20 / 30 / 100 million FCFA according to the services provided; Instruction n° 008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015, art. 11, sets a single fixed 300,000,000 FCFA for an établissement de monnaie électronique. Neither regime covers crypto-asset activity.

AML/KYC: Comprehensive policies and procedures in line with BCEAO and FATF standards. This includes CDD, enhanced CDD for high-risk clients, transaction monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting suspicious activities to CENTIF.

Local Presence: A locally incorporated legal entity in Cote d'Ivoire (or another UEMOA member state) is required, along with local management and operational staff.

Governance & Risk Management: Clear organizational structure, sound internal controls, risk management framework, and qualified management.

Technical Infrastructure: Secure and compliant IT systems.

Preliminary Contact: Initial discussions with BCEAO to understand requirements and specificities of the project.

Detailed business plan outlining services, target market, financial projections.

Legal documents (articles of incorporation, shareholders' agreements).

Organizational chart and CVs of key management personnel (fit and proper assessment).

Review and Due Diligence: BCEAO conducts a thorough review of the application, which may include interviews, requests for additional information, and on-site inspections.

Approval/Refusal: If the application is deemed satisfactory, the BCEAO issues an approval decision. This can be a lengthy process, often taking several months to over a year.

Post-Approval: Ongoing reporting obligations, compliance with prudential rules, and regular audits.

BCEAO Official Website: https://www.bceao.int/ (Navigate to "Textes & Réglementations" for official documents)

No 'Directive n° 03/2018/CM/UEMOA on the harmonisation of payment services regulation' could be located in any BCEAO or UEMOA source; the BCEAO compendium chapter on payment systems and instruments lists no 2018 directive (its instruments are Règlement n°15/2002/CM/UEMOA, Directive n°08/2002/CM/UEMOA, Instruction n°01/2003/SP, Instruction n°008-05-2015 and related texts). Payment-institution regulation in the UMOA is set by Instruction n°001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024.

No 'Instruction n° 002/2019/RB/UEMOA' exists; the citation format ('/RB/UEMOA') is not BCEAO's, which numbers instructions n°00X-MM-YYYY. Approval of e-money issuers is governed by Instruction n°008-05-2015 du 21 mai 2015 (art. 8 agrément préalable, art. 11 capital 300 million FCFA) and of payment institutions by Instruction n°001-01-2024 du 23 janvier 2024.

Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA du 2 juillet 2015 existed but has been superseded by the UMOA Loi uniforme relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et le financement de la prolifération du 31 mars 2023. In Côte d'Ivoire the operative national text is Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, which transposes that uniform law (definitions of actif virtuel and PSAV at art. 2, 2° and 51°; PSAV as assujettis at art. 3, c; ten-year record retention at art. 23; suspicious-transaction reporting to CENTIF).

The visa requirement itself is real but the framing is wrong in three ways. (i) The regulator has been AMF-UMOA since its 2022 renaming, not CREPMF. (ii) The trigger is not 'any public offering' but the formal art. 19 test in the Annexe to the 3 July 1996 Convention — titres spread among ≥100 unrelated persons, OR recourse to any public-solicitation process, OR BRVM listing; where met, arts. 113/115 of the Règlement Général require a prior visa from the Conseil Régional (AMF-UMOA) on pain of nullité de l'opération, with a note d'information under art. 123. (iii) No AMF-UMOA text classifies any digital asset as a titre: neither the Annexe nor the Règlement Général mentions actifs numériques, actifs virtuels, crypto or tokens, and no visa has been granted for a token offering. So the requirement applies only by analogy to a hypothetical instrument that would independently qualify as a valeur mobilière.

Directionally right, wrongly named and overstated. Market intermediation in UEMOA is reserved to Sociétés de Gestion et d'Intermédiation (SGI) approved by the Conseil Régional — now AMF-UMOA since the 2022 renaming, not 'the CREPMF'. But the exclusivity in Règlement Général art. 37 is for négociation-compensation of listed valeurs mobilières for third parties; it is not a blanket rule that every offering must be 'managed by' an approved intermediary. And no digital asset has been brought within this regime: the Règlement Général contains no reference to tokens or actifs numériques, and there is no AMF-UMOA-approved intermediary for digital-asset offerings.

No such instrument exists. There is no CREPMF/AMF-UMOA 'Instruction n° 001/2021/PCMF/COS-UMOA of January 12, 2021 on the Regulation of Public Offerings of Digital Assets', and no UEMOA securities instrument of any number regulates digital-asset offerings. The AMF-UMOA Règlement Général (verified full-text fetch) contains no reference to actifs numériques, actifs virtuels, crypto-actifs or tokens; it covers only valeurs mobilières, OPCVM and titres de créance négociables. The only genuine CREPMF output on crypto is the investor-warning communiqué of 18 March 2021, which is a warning, not a regulation, and creates no offering regime. The only rule capable of catching a token offering in Côte d'Ivoire is the generic appel public à l'épargne test in art. 19 of the Annexe to the 3 July 1996 Convention (≥100 unconnected persons, or any publicité/démarchage, or BRVM listing), which requires a prior visa. Separately, 'COS-UMOA' is not an AMF-UMOA organ and the '/PCMF/COS-UMOA' numbering format is not one the regulator uses.

Key Requirements (Hypothetical/Future-oriented): If regulated, would likely require:

No Ivorian AML/CFT instrument numbered 'Ordonnance n° 2019-1089 du 18 décembre 2019' or 'Loi n° 2014-393 du 20 juin 2014' exists. Côte d'Ivoire's AML/CFT statutory chain is: Loi n° 2005-554 du 2 décembre 2005 → Loi n° 2016-992 du 14 novembre 2016 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment des capitaux et le financement du terrorisme → Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et de la prolifération des armes de destruction massive, which is Côte d'Ivoire's transposition of the UMOA Loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP du 31 mars 2023.

Both instruments are non-existent, so nothing was 'modified and strengthened'. The core AML/CFT text for Côte d'Ivoire is now Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, which transposes the UMOA Loi uniforme du 31 mars 2023 and replaces Loi n° 2016-992 du 14 novembre 2016. Côte d'Ivoire is a GIABA member, not a FATF member; FATF standards reach it via the UMOA uniform law and GIABA follow-up.

Under Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, PSAV (prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels) are named expressly: art. 2(2) defines 'actif virtuel', art. 2(51) defines PSAV — covering exchange virtual-asset/fiat, exchange between virtual assets, transfer, 'conservation et/ou administration d'actifs virtuels' and participation in issuer offers — and art. 3 lists PSAV alongside institutions financières and EPNFD (DNFBPs) as assujettis. VASPs are therefore explicitly named, not swept in by analogy.

The 2002 UEMOA anti-money-laundering instrument no longer forms part of the applicable framework. The regional chain now runs: Directive n° 04/2007/CM/UEMOA du 4 juillet 2007 (financement du terrorisme) → Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA du 2 juillet 2015 → Loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP adoptée par le Conseil des Ministres de l'UMOA le 31 mars 2023, complétée par la Décision n° 021/CM/UMOA du 21 décembre 2023 et la Décision n° 003/CM/UMOA du 28 mars 2024 (seuils) et les Instructions BCEAO n° 001-03-2025 à 003-03-2025 du 18 mars 2025. In Côte d'Ivoire the applicable text is Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023.

Correct that the UEMOA/UMOA layer sets the framework and that member states must transpose it, but the mechanism is misstated: a UEMOA *règlement* is directly applicable and needs no transposition, whereas *directives* and the UMOA *loi uniforme* do. The current instrument is the Loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP adopted by the Conseil des Ministres de l'UMOA on 31 March 2023, which Côte d'Ivoire transposed by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 (Senegal: Loi n° 2024-08; Benin: Loi n° 2024-01; Burkina Faso: Loi n° 046-2024/ALT).

The substance is right — crypto-assets are not legal tender in the UEMOA, are not regulated by the BCEAO, and no operational VASP licensing regime exists; and the absence of a bespoke regime does not displace AML/CFT obligations (Ordonnance n° 2023-875, art. 3, makes PSAV assujettis outright). Two corrections: (i) the three communiqué dates (12 December 2013, 5 December 2017, 22 May 2018) could not be verified — the BCEAO's current avis et mises en garde index shows no crypto warnings at those dates; (ii) 'no formal licensing regime' overstates the position — art. 58 of the uniform law as transposed does prohibit carrying on PSAV activity without prior agrément or authorisation, but art. 59 defers all PSAV-specific requirements to a competent authority that no UEMOA state, including Côte d'Ivoire, has designated, so the requirement exists on paper and is inoperative. The BCEAO created its C-CRYPTO drafting committee in May 2026 and held a Dakar conference on 8 May 2026; Governor Kassi Brou (July 2026): 'Ce n'est pas une monnaie. Ce n'est pas réglementé.'

The verification standard is correct and is in force in Côte d'Ivoire: Ordonnance n° 2023-875, art. 17, requires assujettis to identify the client and 'vérifier leur identité au moyen de documents, sources, données ou renseignements indépendants et fiables'. The enumerated data elements (name, date and place of birth, nationality, address, profession, ID number) are not set out in that article; they are fixed by BCEAO Instruction n° 003-03-2025 du 18 mars 2025 relative à l'identification, la vérification de l'identité et la connaissance de la clientèle, whose text was not read.

For Legal Persons/Entities (e.g., businesses): Obtaining and verifying the company's name, legal form, address of registered office, registration number, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and identifying the directors and persons authorized to represent the legal person.

Correct in substance but imprecise on the threshold: Ordonnance n° 2023-875, art. 2(12), defines the bénéficiaire effectif as the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the client, and for companies as a person holding, directly or indirectly, 'plus de vingt-cinq pour cent du capital' — i.e. *more than* 25%, not '25% or more'. Côte d'Ivoire additionally created a beneficial-ownership register by Loi n° 2024-362 du 11 juin 2024, with access rules set by Décret n° 2024-583 du 26 juin 2024.

Purpose and Nature of the Business Relationship: Understanding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.

Ongoing Monitoring: Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutinizing transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions are consistent with the obliged entity's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile.

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): Applying EDD measures in higher-risk situations, including:

Business relationships with Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).

Complex, unusual, or large transactions.

Situations where the customer is not physically present for identification purposes (non-face-to-face transactions).

Transactions involving new technologies and products (which could include virtual assets) whose anonymity could favor ML/TF.

Simplified Due Diligence (SDD): Permitted in low-risk situations, as defined by regulation.

Obligation to Report: Obliged entities must report any transaction (or attempted transaction) that they suspect is linked to money laundering or terrorist financing to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

Reports are made to the CENTIF (CENTIF-CI), not to 'CELLIF'. The body's name is the Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières de Côte d'Ivoire, acronym CENTIF-CI; 'CELLIF' does not exist in Ivorian or UEMOA law or practice.

Content of Report: The report should include all available information concerning the customer, the transaction, and the reasons for suspicion.

No Tipping-Off: Obliged entities and their employees are prohibited from disclosing to the customer or to third parties that an STR has been filed or that an investigation is underway.

All customer identification data (e.g., copies of identification documents).

Account files and business correspondence.

Transaction data in a way that allows for reconstruction of individual transactions (including amounts, currencies, dates, sender/recipient details, and nature of the transaction).

The retention period in Côte d'Ivoire is ten (10) years, not five. Ordonnance n° 2023-875, art. 23, requires assujettis to 'conserve[r] pendant une durée de dix ans, à compter de la clôture de leurs comptes ou de la cessation de leurs relations' the documents relating to client identity and to operations. The ten-year period is not new: Loi n° 2016-992 du 14 novembre 2016, art. 35, already imposed it, and art. 23 of the UMOA Loi uniforme du 31 mars 2023 does the same.

The expanded name is right but the acronym is wrong: the body is the Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières de Côte d'Ivoire, acronym CENTIF-CI (not 'CELLIF'), created by décret n° 2006-261 du 9 août 2006.

The described role is accurate — Côte d'Ivoire's FIU receives, analyses and disseminates suspicious transaction reports to the competent authorities — but the acronym is wrong: it is CENTIF-CI, not 'CELLIF'. It was created by décret n° 2006-261 du 9 août 2006 as a service à compétence nationale placed under the tutelle of the Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances, and is an administrative-type FIU answering FATF Recommendation 29.

Website (if available): Accessing a specific official website for CELLIF can be challenging as many FIUs are integrated into a Ministry of Finance. However, information is often found on the Ministry's site or through GIABA:

While a direct, independent website for CELLIF may not be readily available or consistently maintained, information about Cote d'Ivoire's FIU and its contact details are often provided within the reports of international bodies like GIABA or the Egmont Group. For general information on FIUs in West Africa:

Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)

The BCEAO is the regional central bank of the eight UMOA states and licenses/supervises banks, établissements financiers, e-money issuers and payment institutions, so the fiat leg of any virtual-asset business (accounts, payment services, e-money) falls under its framework. But the extension is narrower than claimed: the BCEAO's e-money and payment instruments (Instruction n° 008-05-2015; Instruction n° 001-01-2024) contain no reference to crypto-actifs, and neither the BCEAO nor Côte d'Ivoire has designated the 'autorité compétente' that art. 58-59 of the loi uniforme reserve for prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels. AML/CFT supervision in CI runs through CENTIF-CI and the Commission Nationale des Sanctions (Ordonnance n° 2022-237; Décret n° 2024-58), not the BCEAO.

There is no operational VASP licensing regime in Côte d'Ivoire or UEMOA — but the claim that no requirement exists at all is wrong. Art. 58 of the UMOA loi uniforme of 31 March 2023, transposed in Côte d'Ivoire by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, provides: '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.' A statutory prior-authorisation requirement therefore exists on paper; art. 59 defers all operational requirements to a 'competent authority' which no UEMOA member state, including Côte d'Ivoire, has yet designated. So there is a prohibition without a licensing counter to apply at, not an absence of regulation.

BCEAO Warning: The BCEAO maintains a cautious stance, considering cryptocurrencies unregulated and risky. This creates a challenging environment for formal VASP operations.

The cited 'Ordonnance n° 2019-1089' is not Côte d'Ivoire's AML/CFT statute and appears nowhere in CENTIF-CI's official register of texts. The instrument in force is Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et de la prolifération des armes de destruction massive, which transposes the UMOA loi uniforme of 31 March 2023 and supersedes Loi n° 2016-992 du 14 novembre 2016. The substantive point is also understated: PSAV are not entities that 'should consider themselves' obliged — art. 3(c) of the Ordonnance lists 'les prestataires de services d'Actifs virtuels' as assujettis outright, art. 2(51) defines PSAV to include exchange, transfer and conservation of virtual assets, and art. 23 imposes ten-year record retention. Loi n° 2016-992, the predecessor, contains no mention of actifs virtuels at all.

Regulatory Risk: Operating without explicit authorization or a clear regulatory framework from the BCEAO or national authorities exposes VASPs to significant regulatory and legal risks, including potential future prohibitions or unexpected enforcement actions.

The BCEAO's formal position is articulated in its September 2021 communiqué warning against cryptocurrencies, which serves as the primary regulatory reference. While direct links to subsequent specific custody-related communiqués are not publicly available in English, the 2021 communiqué and BCEAO's broader publications on financial innovation (e.g., digital payments) consistently reiterate a cautious approach to non-fiat digital assets.

A widely cited stance, though not a specific custody rule, is their consistent warning against crypto:

The substance is correct — crypto-assets are not legal tender in UEMOA, are not issued or regulated by the BCEAO, and the BCEAO has publicly urged caution (Governor Kassi Brou, 2026: 'Ce n'est pas une monnaie. Ce n'est pas réglementé. Donc soyez prudents.'). But the passage in quotation marks is not an actual BCEAO text; the record itself concedes it is a synthesis ('This general statement reflects numerous communiqués over the years'), so it must not be cited as a quotation. It is also now incomplete: since May 2026 the BCEAO has been actively drafting a UMOA crypto framework through the C-CRYPTO committee.

The BCEAO's official website (https://www.bceao.int/) designates its "Publications" and "News" sections, primarily in French, as the official channels for updates on its stance regarding digital currencies. No direct "custody regulation" document exists on the site as of this date.

There are no specific BCEAO licensing requirements for crypto custody, as cryptocurrencies are not recognized or regulated by the BCEAO. However, entities engaged in activities that intersect with traditional financial services (e.g., handling fiat currency, money transfers, or operating as a bank or payment institution) are subject to existing WAEMU financial licensing requirements, including AML/KYC obligations under the BCEAO's regulatory framework. National-level business licensing (e.g., registration with the Commercial Court in Côte d'Ivoire) also applies.

Segregation of Client Assets Rules:

The BCEAO's regulatory framework does not include specific rules for the segregation of cryptocurrency assets. While BCEAO regulations mandate segregation for fiduciaires in the traditional financial system (e.g., for securities maintained by investment service providers), these regulations explicitly exclude digital assets not recognized as financial instruments. Entities holding crypto assets may still be subject to general consumer protection or business contract laws at the national level in Côte d'Ivoire, but no specific segregation mandate from the BCEAO exists.

The BCEAO has not issued any mandates requiring insurance or bonding for digital asset custodians. This is consistent with the broader lack of regulation for crypto assets. However, entities that also operate as traditional financial institutions may be subject to existing insurance/bonding requirements for their licensed activities (e.g., operational risk insurance for banks), but these do not specifically cover crypto custody. The absence of such protections increases risk for users in the event of loss, theft, or custodian insolvency.

The BCEAO has not issued any specific mandates for cold storage or any other method of storing digital assets. This reflects the broader absence of a regulated crypto custody framework. In contrast, traditional financial institutions are subject to BCEAO prudential rules for the safekeeping of physical assets (e.g., cash in vaults, securities held by depositories), but no equivalent exists for unregulated digital assets.

No specific definition for crypto assets. The concept of a "qualified custodian" as defined in jurisdictions like the US (e.g., under the Advisers Act) does not exist for digital assets in Cote d'Ivoire, as there's no framework to define or regulate such entities.

No custody-specific legislation is pending, but the claim that there is 'no public information or official announcement' about forthcoming crypto regulation is no longer true. The BCEAO has publicly established the 'Comité chargé de l'élaboration de la réglementation relative aux crypto-monnaies dans l'UMOA (C-CRYPTO)' and convened an international conference in Dakar on 8 May 2026 to produce 'recommandations stratégiques et opérationnelles' toward a harmonised UMOA framework. The record's own prediction — that regulation would arrive regionally and start with AML/CFT — has already been borne out: art. 58-59 of the loi uniforme of 31 March 2023, transposed in CI by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, are the AML-first layer.

Basis: UN Security Council Resolutions are legally binding on all UN member states, including Côte d'Ivoire. These resolutions typically impose asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes on individuals, entities, and countries deemed threats to international peace and security (e.g., related to terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specific regimes like North Korea or Iran).

Asset Freeze: VASPs must immediately freeze any virtual assets (and traditional assets) owned or controlled by designated individuals or entities.

Prohibition: Prohibit making any funds, virtual assets, or economic resources available to, or for the benefit of, sanctioned persons/entities.

Côte d'Ivoire does impose reporting duties on assujettis, but the record collapses two distinct channels. Suspicious-transaction reporting goes to CENTIF-CI under the LBC/FT/FP regime transposed by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 (art. 60 of the UMOA uniform law of 31 March 2023). Targeted-financial-sanctions matters — asset freezes, attempted transactions with designated persons — run through the dedicated national SFC machinery created by Décret n° 2024-216 du 17 avril 2024 (mise en œuvre des sanctions financières ciblées liées au FT et au FP), with a Comité de Coordination du Gel Administratif whose composition and functions are set by Arrêté n° 0487/MFB/CAB du 7 juin 2024 and list-dissemination modalities by Arrêté interministériel n° 0482/MFB/MAEIAIE du 28 juin 2024. So CENTIF is not the sole or even the primary addressee for freeze reporting. Additionally, in practice no virtual-asset service provider is subject to any of this in an operational sense, since no PSAV agrément exists in CI.

UN Security Council Sanctions Committees: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/information

The second half is right, the first half is wrong. The general obligation is indeed enshrined in national law: Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et le financement de la prolifération transposes the UMOA uniform law of 31 March 2023, and Côte d'Ivoire was the first UEMOA state to transpose it. But Côte d'Ivoire does not implement UN sanctions through 'many' resolution-by-resolution decrees. CENTIF-CI's own complete dated register shows a single consolidated targeted-financial-sanctions framework — Décret n° 2024-216 du 17 avril 2024, plus Arrêté n° 0487/MFB/CAB du 7 juin 2024 (Comité de Coordination du Gel Administratif) and Arrêté interministériel n° 0482/MFB/MAEIAIE du 28 juin 2024 (dissemination of designation lists) — designed to give effect to UNSC designations generically and without fresh national instruments per resolution, alongside the administrative-sanctions regime of Ordonnance n° 2022-237 du 30 mars 2022 and Décret n° 2024-58 du 14 février 2024 (Commission Nationale des Sanctions).

Basis: OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions primarily against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.

Extraterritorial Reach: OFAC sanctions can apply to non-U.S. persons (including VASPs) if:

They engage in transactions involving a U.S. person.

They use the U.S. financial system (e.g., USD stablecoins, or routing through U.S.-based entities).

They deal in property or interests in property that come within U.S. jurisdiction.

They engage in activities specifically prohibited by "secondary sanctions."

Sanctioned Persons (SDN List): Prohibit any transactions with individuals or entities on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List. All property and interests in property of SDNs that are in the U.S. or come within the possession or control of a U.S. person must be blocked. This extends to virtual assets.

Sanctioned Jurisdictions: Restrict or prohibit transactions involving certain countries or regions (e.g., Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk regions of Ukraine).

Technology & Software: Prohibit the provision of certain technology or software to sanctioned entities/jurisdictions.

Reporting: Report blocked transactions and rejected transactions to OFAC.

OFAC Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/2529/download

Basis: The EU implements sanctions to pursue its foreign and security policy objectives, often reflecting UN Security Council resolutions, but also adopting autonomous sanctions (e.g., against Russia, Belarus, specific regimes, terrorism). These are binding on all EU citizens and entities. Given Côte d'Ivoire's historical ties to Europe, many VASPs in the region may have EU connections, clients, or partners.

Asset Freeze: Freeze all funds (including virtual assets) and economic resources belonging to, or owned or controlled by, designated persons, entities, or bodies.

Prohibition: Prohibit making any funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, designated persons, entities, or bodies.

EU Sanctions Map: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main (Provides an overview of current EU sanctions regimes)

Basis: The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) sets international standards to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Côte d'Ivoire, through its membership in GIABA (a FATF-style regional body), is committed to implementing these standards. FATF has explicitly extended its recommendations to cover virtual assets and VASPs.

Risk-Based Approach: VASPs must assess and mitigate ML/TF risks, including sanctions risks.

Customer Due Diligence (CDD) & Know Your Customer (KYC): Obtain and verify customer identity, beneficial ownership, and purpose of business relationship.

Transaction Monitoring: Monitor transactions for suspicious activity, including potential sanctions evasion.

Record-Keeping: Maintain records of transactions and CDD information.

Travel Rule: For VA transfers above a certain threshold, VASPs must obtain and transmit required originator and beneficiary information.

Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (FATF): https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/guidance-vasps.html

Basis: The Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) issues regulations and directives for financial institutions within the UEMOA zone (which includes Côte d'Ivoire). These directives incorporate FATF standards for AML/CFT. While direct crypto-specific sanctions regulations from BCEAO are still developing, existing AML/CFT directives apply broadly to entities facilitating financial transactions.

Directive n° 02/2015/CM/UEMOA has been superseded by the UMOA Loi uniforme LBC/FT/FP du 31 mars 2023. In Cote d'Ivoire the currently applicable text is Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 relative a la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, le financement du terrorisme et de la proliferation des armes de destruction massive, which transposes that uniform law (Cote d'Ivoire was the first UEMOA state to transpose). A UEMOA directive is in any case not directly applicable — it binds only through national transposition.

BCEAO Website: https://www.bceao.int/ (Relevant publications are generally found under "Réglementation" or "Lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme").

Role: CENTIF is Côte d'Ivoire's FIU responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and other information related to money laundering and terrorist financing to competent authorities. VASPs fall under its purview for reporting obligations.

CENTIF Côte d'Ivoire Website: https://www.centif.ci/

Cote d'Ivoire's targeted financial sanctions regime is built on United Nations Security Council designations, implemented nationally by Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023 (arts. 89-92 and 175-181 on gel des fonds / sanctions financieres ciblees) and Decret n° 2024-216 du 17 avril 2024 relatif a la mise en oeuvre des sanctions financieres ciblees en matiere de FT/FP, with the Commission Nationale des Sanctions constituted under Decret n° 2024-58 du 14 fevrier 2024. There is no 'UEMOA sanctions list' as such, and Ivorian law does not itself make screening against the OFAC SDN list or EU consolidated list mandatory — those bind Ivorian VASPs only through a US or EU nexus.

Perform real-time and ongoing screening.

Ensure robust KYC/CDD procedures to identify ultimate beneficial owners.

Cote d'Ivoire is not an OFAC-sanctioned jurisdiction: it appears nowhere in OFAC's table of active sanctions programs as of August 2026, so no geo-fencing or IP-blocking obligation arises from any comprehensive US embargo on Cote d'Ivoire. The premise the claim corrects is itself false rather than merely outdated — Cote d'Ivoire was never a comprehensively embargoed jurisdiction; the former Cote d'Ivoire programme was a targeted (listed-persons) regime, not a country-wide embargo.

Refuse to onboard customers identified as residents of sanctioned countries.

Monitor all cryptocurrency transactions for red flags indicative of sanctions evasion (e.g., transactions with known sanctioned addresses, unusual transaction patterns, transactions linked to darknet markets or illicit mixers).

Refuse to process or block any transactions that involve sanctioned individuals, entities, or jurisdictions, directly or indirectly.

Ensure no virtual assets are provided to or for the benefit of sanctioned parties.

Record-keeping: records of customer identification, due diligence and transactions must be retained for TEN (10) years, not five - art. 23 of Ordonnance n° 2023-875 du 23 novembre 2023, transposing art. 23 of the UMOA loi uniforme of 31 March 2023 ('conservent pendant une duree de dix ans, a compter de la cloture de leurs comptes ou de la cessation de leurs relations avec leurs clients').

Suspicious transactions and ATTEMPTED transactions must be declared 'immediatement' to CENTIF-CI (art. 60 of the loi uniforme, transposed by Ordonnance n° 2023-875). Sanctions/targeted-financial-sanctions hits are NOT a CENTIF reporting channel: they run through the targeted financial sanctions regime - Decret n° 2024-216 du 17 avril 2024 (mise en oeuvre des sanctions financieres ciblees FT/FP) and the Commission Consultative de Gel Administratif created by Arrete n° 0487/MFB/CAB du 7 juin 2024.

Fines: Significant monetary penalties for institutions and individuals.

Imprisonment: Individuals involved in serious breaches, particularly those related to terrorism financing or money laundering, can face lengthy prison sentences.

Reputational Damage: Severe harm to a VASP's reputation, leading to loss of customers and business opportunities.

Operational Restrictions: Potential revocation of licenses, prohibition from operating, or limitations on business activities.

International Action: Non-compliance with OFAC or EU sanctions can also lead to direct enforcement action by U.S. or EU authorities, including substantial fines and imprisonment for individuals, even if the primary operations are outside their direct jurisdiction, due to extraterritorial reach.

Cote d'Ivoire does operate a national targeted-financial-sanctions and administrative asset-freeze mechanism, but it is not maintained by CENTIF: it rests on Decret n° 2024-216 du 17 avril 2024 (mise en oeuvre des sanctions financieres ciblees liees au FT/FP), the Commission Consultative de Gel Administratif established by Arrete n° 0487/MFB/CAB du 7 juin 2024, and Arrete interministeriel n° 0482/MFB/MAEIAIE du 28 juin 2024 on the diffusion of TFS designations to reporting entities. Under the loi uniforme (art. 177) freezing decisions are published rather than kept confidential.

Entity Targeted: General public and financial institutions operating within the UEMOA zone (including Côte d'Ivoire). Violation Type: While not a "violation" in the traditional sense, the BCEAO's consistent stance warns against the use, holding, or facilitation of transactions involving cryptocurrencies, emphasizing their speculative nature, lack of regulatory oversight, and potential for fraud and money laundering. It effectively "enforces" a non-recognition policy. Penalty Amount: Not applicable, as this is a general regulatory stance and warning, not a specific penalty against an entity. Outcome: A clear declaration that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender, are not regulated, and pose significant risks. Financial institutions are generally dissuaded from engaging with them. This discourages formal crypto operations.

Outcome: A clear declaration that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender, are not regulated, and pose significant risks. Financial institutions are generally dissuaded from engaging with them. This discourages formal crypto operations.