DeFi protocol frontend 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.

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.

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.

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.

Local presence and management.

Capital requirements (significant).

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.

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.

Evidence fact ci.aml.identification-and-verification-of-identity not found (may have been renamed).

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:

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.

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).

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.

Evidence fact ci.custody.overall-regulatory-stance-bceao not found (may have been renamed).

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

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.

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).