Remote VASP serving residents in Cameroon
Foreign-incorporated entity that offers exchange, custody, or transfer services to residents of a jurisdiction without establishing a local entity or office.
Remote VASP is not permitted in Cameroon.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- no
- Local entity required
- No
- Licensing burden
- None
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
AML Obligations
- CEMAC Regulation No. 02/CEMAC/UMAC/CM/22 imposes AML/CFT obligations on VASPs, but VASPs are not legally permitted to operate in Cameroon due to the BEAC ban.
- Were a VASP to operate, it would need to comply with Cameroon's Law No. 2016/007 of 12 July 2016 on AML/CFT, including customer KYC (ID verification, beneficial owner identification, source of funds/wealth), transaction monitoring, and STR filing to ANIF (Cameroon's FIU) without delay.
- Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) would be required for PEPs, high-risk jurisdictions, non-face-to-face customers, and complex/unusual transactions.
- No Travel Rule applies because there are no legally recognized VASPs in Cameroon.
- In practice, unlicensed operators are not complying with AML obligations as the framework does not permit legal operation.
Key Restrictions
- BEAC Communiqué No. 003/GR/2022 (May 2022) bans all cryptocurrency-related activities across the CEMAC zone, including Cameroon, making any VASP operation illegal.
- No licensing or registration framework exists for VASPs — there is no legal pathway to become a compliant operator.
- Financial institutions are prohibited from holding or facilitating virtual assets, making banking access effectively impossible for any crypto business.
- Cryptocurrencies are not recognized as legal tender within the CEMAC zone.
Key Risks
- Direct criminal enforcement risk: operating a VASP violates the BEAC ban, exposing operators to asset confiscation, account freezing, and imprisonment under general financial crime laws (Law No. 2018/002).
- The GIT (Global Investment Trading) Ponzi scheme case (2022-2023) demonstrates that Cameroonian authorities actively prosecute crypto-related operations, even where the primary offense is fraud — setting a dangerous precedent for any crypto operator.
- Despite the ban, crypto usage in Cameroon is significant and growing, creating a disconnect between law and market reality that could lead to unpredictable enforcement.
- No legal pathway to compliance means any operator is categorically illegal, even with best AML practices.
- Cameroon remains under FATF grey-listing with enhanced follow-up, increasing pressure on authorities to enforce AML/CFT obligations, potentially targeting crypto operators.
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
This was true when written but is no longer. A legal framework exists: Reglement n° 01/22/CEMAC/UMAC/CM/COSUMAF du 21 juillet 2022 (in force 1 August 2022) introduced 'jetons numeriques' and 'actifs numeriques' into CEMAC market law (arts. 76 and 160), and the COSUMAF Reglement general du 23 mai 2023 (in force 24 May 2023) created the PSAN regime — exploitation d'une plateforme de negociation d'actifs numeriques is an enumerated service requiring COSUMAF agrement. Reglement n° 02/24/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 20 decembre 2024, art. 42(1), separately forbids exercising VASP activity without prior approval. What remains true is the practical conclusion: no implementing instructions have been issued, no licensed PSAN is publicly known, and COBAC D-2022/071 still denies exchanges access to banking services.
A VASP/PSAN authorisation regime does exist and covers Cameroon, at CEMAC level. (i) The COSUMAF Reglement general du 23 mai 2023 (in force 24 May 2023) creates the prestataire de services sur actifs numeriques status, defines jetons numeriques functionally (art. 336: 'tout bien incorporel representant, sous forme numerique, un ou plusieurs droits'), reserves digital-token placement to PSAN, and requires COSUMAF agrement for buying/selling digital assets against legal currency, third-party custody, operating a trading platform, order reception/transmission, portfolio management, advice and placement. (ii) Reglement n° 02/24/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 20 decembre 2024 defines 'actifs virtuels' and 'prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels', makes them assujettis, and at art. 42(1) provides that no one may carry on VASP activity professionally without prior approval or authorisation from the competent authority (art. 39: 10-year record retention; art. 42(5)(a): originator/beneficiary travel-rule information). The record's practical conclusion is nevertheless close to reality: no implementing instructions have been published, no PSAN agrement is publicly known, and COBAC D-2022/071 continues to prohibit supervised institutions from any crypto dealing. The accurate framing is 'a regime exists in law but is not operational', not 'no regime exists'.
Evidence fact cm.licensing.beac-communiqu-on-cryptocurrencies-december not found (may have been renamed).
No 'BEAC Communiqué No. 003/GR/2022' exists. The real May 2022 act is the Décision COBAC D-2022/071 du 6 mai 2022 relative à la détention, l'utilisation, l'échange et la conversion des cryptomonnaies ou cryptoactifs par les établissements assujettis à la COBAC. It was issued by COBAC (the CEMAC banking supervisor), not BEAC; it is an individual decision addressed to supervised establishments, not a règlement of general application; and it prohibits only those establishments from acquiring, holding, transferring, converting or booking crypto-assets, while requiring them to install internal controls to detect crypto operations and to inform COBAC and BEAC. It does not prohibit holding, buying or selling crypto by the general public, and it does not preclude legal VASP operation — the COSUMAF Règlement Général du 23 mai 2023 in fact provides for PSAN agrément. The six-member list of CEMAC states (Cameroon, CAR, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon) is correct, as is BEAC's identification as the regional central bank.
Il n'existe aucune interdiction générale des crypto-actifs en zone CEMAC et la BEAC n'a émis aucun texte d'interdiction. La mesure de 2022 est la Décision COBAC D-2022/071 du 6 mai 2022, prise par la COBAC (superviseur bancaire), qui interdit aux seuls établissements assujettis à la COBAC de détenir, utiliser, échanger ou convertir des cryptoactifs pour compte propre ou pour compte de clients, de les comptabiliser au bilan, et leur impose un dispositif de détection et une remontée d'information à la COBAC et à la BEAC. Les personnes physiques et les entreprises non assujetties ne sont pas visées. À l'inverse, le Règlement n° 01/22/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 21 juillet 2022 (en vigueur le 1er août 2022) admet les 'actifs numériques' et 'jetons numériques' sur le marché financier d'Afrique centrale et soumet les prestataires de services sur actifs numériques à l'agrément de la COSUMAF.
Il est exact qu'aucune interdiction générale des crypto-actifs n'est appliquée au Cameroun — mais parce qu'aucune n'a jamais été édictée, et non parce qu'une interdiction antérieure serait tombée en désuétude. La Décision COBAC D-2022/071 du 6 mai 2022 ne visait que les établissements assujettis à la COBAC et reste en vigueur pour eux ; l'usage des cryptoactifs par le public n'a jamais été prohibé, le gouverneur de la BEAC s'étant borné à déconseiller l'investissement (nov. 2022).
Regulator Name: Bank of Central African States (BEAC - Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale), the central bank for the CEMAC region (which includes Cameroon).
Le fondateur de Global Investment Trading (GIT), promoteur de la plateforme Liyeplimal, est Émile Parfait SIMB — et non 'Emile Parfait Mbori', qui n'existe pas. Le jeton était le Limo / Limo dollar (commercialisé aussi sous le nom LimoCoin) — et non un 'Mofor Coin'. Les faits reprochés sont l'escroquerie et la collecte illégale de fonds : le MINFI avait mis en demeure GIT, parmi 17 entités, de cesser ses collectes illégales de fonds (communiqué d'octobre 2020) et la COSUMAF avait publié des mises en garde en octobre 2020 et juin 2021 pour exercice sans agrément.
The substantive claim is right but the instrument identity is wrong. There is no "Regulation No. 02/CEMAC/UMAC/CM/22" and no 2022 CEMAC AML regulation. The instrument is Reglement n° 02/24/CEMAC/UMAC/CM, signed at Libreville on 20 December 2024 (CEMAC/UMAC Ministerial Committee, extraordinary session), effective on signature and abrogating all contrary provisions of Reglement n° 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 11 avril 2016. It does define virtual assets - art. 2(72): "Digital representation of a value that can be digitally traded, transferred or used for payment or investment purposes... does not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities and other financial assets already covered by specific regulatory provisions" - and defines prestataires de services d'actifs virtuels; art. 6(e) lists "virtual or digital asset service providers" among the assujettis, so VASPs carry the same AML/CFT obligations as financial institutions. It is a FATF-aligned revision (approved by GABAC Plenary Resolution No. 10 of 28 September 2024). The 2022 CEMAC instrument that touches digital assets is a different one: Reglement n° 01/22/CEMAC/UMAC/CM/COSUMAF du 21 juillet 2022 on the regional financial market.
Loi n° 2016/007 du 12 juillet 2016 is Cameroon's Code Penal, not an AML/CFT law, and it did not create ANIF. Cameroon has no standalone national AML/CFT statute: the framework is the directly applicable CEMAC regulation - today Reglement n° 02/24/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 20 decembre 2024, previously Reglement n° 01/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 11 avril 2016 and before that Reglement n° 01/03-CEMAC-UMAC-CM du 4 avril 2003 - supplemented for supervised financial institutions by Reglement COBAC R-2023/01 on LBC/FT diligences (in force 1 July 2024). ANIF was created by Decret n° 2005/187 du 31 mai 2005 (organisation and functioning of the Agence Nationale d'Investigation Financiere), operational since January 2006 and attached to the Ministere des Finances; its regional legal basis is art. 25 of Reglement n° 01/03-CEMAC-UMAC-CM, which instituted an ANIF in every Central African state.
There is no 'BEAC Cryptocurrency Ban'. Operating a virtual-asset business in Cameroon is not per se a violation of any BEAC communiqué. The relevant exposure is different: (a) a COBAC-supervised establishment that deals in crypto breaches Décision COBAC D-2022/071 du 6 mai 2022 and faces COBAC disciplinary sanctions; (b) anyone providing PSAN services without the COSUMAF agrément required by the Règlement Général du 23 mai 2023 acts unlawfully; and (c) art. 42 of Règlement n° 02/24/CEMAC/UMAC/CM du 20 décembre 2024 conditions professional PSAV activity on prior agrément or authorisation. Ordinary individuals transacting in crypto are not caught by any of these.
Imprisonment (under general financial crime laws).
Confiscation of assets.
Freezing of accounts.
Lack of Legal Tender Status: Cryptocurrencies are not recognized as legal tender within the CEMAC zone.
Cameroon has been on the FATF list of Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring ('grey list') since June 2023 and remains listed as of August 2026 — that half is correct. But the GABAC mutual evaluation of Cameroon was adopted on 21 October 2021 and published in 2022, not 2023; and there is no CEMAC-wide mutual evaluation report at all, so the contrast drawn against a 'CEMAC MER' is against a document that does not exist.
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.
Remote VASP operations serving Cameroonian residents are effectively prohibited — the BEAC May 2022 ban makes all crypto activities illegal across the CEMAC zone, no licensing framework exists, and operators face criminal enforcement risk including asset confiscation and imprisonment, despite high de-facto crypto adoption.
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- May a non-resident provider serve residents from abroad?
- Does cross-border service trigger licensing, registration, or AML obligations?
- What enforcement risk exists for unlicensed remote operators?