Is Crypto Legal in Fiji?

Investment of Money/Asset: An investor provides value (money, other crypto, assets).

In a Common Enterprise: The investor's funds are pooled with others, and their fortunes are linked to the success or failure of the enterprise.

With an Expectation of Profit: The investor anticipates financial gain (e.g., capital appreciation, dividends, revenue share).

Deriving Primarily from the Efforts of Others: The profits are expected to come from the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of the issuer or a third party, rather than the investor's own active participation.

Security Tokens: These are tokens that explicitly represent traditional securities, such as shares in a company, bonds, units in a collective investment scheme, or other financial instruments. Examples include tokens representing equity, debt, or profit-sharing rights.

Investment Tokens: Any token offered with the expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others, where the investor is largely passive. This includes

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and Security Token Offerings (STOs) that raise capital for a project in exchange for future profits or ownership.

Utility Tokens that are sold to finance a project with a promise of future utility and an expectation of profit from the underlying platform's success (e.g., pre-sale of tokens for a platform not yet built, where the primary motive for purchase is investment gain rather than immediate use).

Fractionalized NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens): If an NFT is fractionalized and offered to multiple investors with an expectation of profit from the underlying asset (e.g., fractional ownership of art, real estate) managed by a third party, these could be considered investment contracts.

Pure Utility Tokens: If the token provides immediate access to a product or service, its primary purpose is consumption, and there is no expectation of profit from the issuer's efforts (e.g., a token used as a voucher for existing services).

Pure Payment Tokens/Cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum): While the RBF does not recognise them as legal tender, if they are primarily used as a medium of exchange and not offered as an investment scheme by an issuer, they are less likely to be considered securities. However, platforms facilitating their trading would still fall under AML/CFT regulations.

Governance Tokens: If they purely grant voting rights or control over a decentralised protocol without any direct economic interest or expectation of profit from a central entity.

Prospectus Requirement: Generally, an offer of securities to the public in Fiji requires the preparation and registration of a prospectus with the Registrar of Companies. This prospectus must contain all material information necessary for investors to make an informed decision.

Licensing: The issuer or any entity advising on, marketing, or facilitating the offering of such security tokens may need to be licensed as a financial services provider by the RBF or other relevant authorities, depending on the nature of their activities (e.g., an investment adviser, broker-dealer, or fund manager).

Exemptions: The Companies Act 2015 provides certain exemptions from prospectus requirements, which might apply to token offerings

Small Offers: Offers to a limited number of persons.

Sophisticated Investors: Offers made only to professional or institutional investors who meet specific criteria.

Private Offers: Offers not made to the public.

Even if exempt from prospectus, the general anti-fraud and misleading conduct provisions of the Act would still apply.

RBF Approval/Notification: For any significant capital raising, foreign exchange implications, or the introduction of new financial products, direct engagement with and potential approval from the Reserve Bank of Fiji would likely be required, especially given their cautious stance on crypto.

Regulated Markets: Trading would ideally need to occur on a licensed securities exchange or a regulated platform. Fiji's existing stock exchange (South Pacific Stock Exchange) or a future RBF-licensed entity would be the only legal avenues for trading.

Licensing for Platforms: Any platform facilitating the secondary trading of security tokens would need to be appropriately licensed as a securities exchange or a financial market operator by the RBF. Given the lack of specific crypto licenses, this would be a high bar to meet under existing legislation.

AML/CFT Compliance: Any entity (exchange, broker, OTC desk) involved in the secondary trading of virtual assets (whether securities or not) is considered a "financial institution" or "designated non-financial business and profession" under Fiji's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism Act 2017. They would be subject to stringent AML/CFT obligations, including customer due diligence (KYC), suspicious transaction reporting, and record-keeping.

Market Integrity: Rules against market manipulation, insider trading, and other unfair trading practices (from the Companies Act or other financial market regulations) would apply.

Cease and Desist Orders: For unregistered offerings of tokens deemed securities to the Fijian public.

Public Warnings: The RBF has frequently issued general warnings about the risks of cryptocurrency, often implicitly cautioning against unregulated offerings.

Application of General Fraud Laws: In cases of scams or misleading representations related to crypto, existing criminal and civil laws against fraud, misleading conduct, and consumer protection would be applied.

Exchange Control Violations: If tokens are used to circumvent Fiji's exchange control regulations (e.g., for illicit capital flight), the RBF could take action under the Exchange Control Act.

AML/CFT Breaches: Entities failing to comply with AML/CFT obligations for virtual assets would face penalties under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism Act 2017.

Guidance: The RBF frequently publishes press releases and public notices regarding financial regulations, including warnings about cryptocurrencies. Searching their "Publications" or "News" sections for terms like "cryptocurrency," "virtual assets," or "digital currency" is advisable.

Relevance: Defines "security," "debenture," "share," and outlines requirements for offers of securities to the public, including prospectus requirements. This is the primary legislation for classifying tokens as corporate securities.

URL (Official Source, may require searching within): https://www.parliament.gov.fj/

Relevance: Provides the general framework for financial management and oversight in Fiji, empowering the RBF.

Relevance: Regulates transactions involving foreign currency and capital flows. Crypto transactions that cross borders could fall under this Act.

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism Act 2017

Relevance: Implements FATF standards. Any entity dealing with virtual assets, whether classified as securities or not, would fall under its purview for AML/CFT obligations.

The Financial Transactions Reporting (Amendment) Act 2021 is superseded by the 2022 amendment, making it no longer the current regulatory reference for Fiji.

Financial Transactions Reporting Regulations 2000 (and subsequent amendments): These regulations provide detailed rules and procedures for implementing the FTRA.

Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Guidance Notes: The FIU frequently issues detailed guidance notes, circulars, and advisories for various sectors, including those that might cover virtual assets or designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), to help them comply with their obligations.

Individual Customers: Obtain and verify identity using reliable, independent sources (e.g., national ID cards, passports, driver's licenses). This includes full name, date of birth, residential address, and nationality.

Legal Entities (Companies, Trusts, etc.): Obtain and verify the entity's name, legal form, proof of existence, registered address, and the names of directors/partners/trustees.

Beneficial Ownership: Identify and verify the ultimate natural person(s) who own or control the customer, or on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. For legal entities, this typically involves identifying individuals with 25% or more ownership/control.

Purpose and Nature of the Business Relationship: Understand the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction to assess potential risks.

Ongoing Monitoring: Continuously monitor the business relationship and transactions to ensure they are consistent with the VASP's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile. This includes monitoring for unusual or suspicious activities.

Simplified CDD (SDD): May be applied in low-risk situations, provided sufficient information is available to determine that the customer/transaction presents a low risk of money laundering or terrorism financing.

Enhanced CDD (EDD): Must be applied in higher-risk situations, which typically include

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and their family members/close associates.

Complex, unusually large transactions, or unusual patterns of transactions that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose.

Customers involved in high-risk sectors or using high-risk products/technologies (virtual assets themselves are often considered higher risk).

Source of Funds/Wealth: In high-risk situations, VASPs may be required to obtain information on the source of funds or wealth of the customer.

Reporting Threshold: There is no monetary threshold for reporting. Any transaction (including attempted transactions), regardless of value, where the VASP suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect involves money laundering, terrorism financing, or any other criminal activity, must be reported.

Content of Report: STRs must contain comprehensive information about the customer, the transaction, the grounds for suspicion, and any other relevant details.

Timing: STRs must be submitted promptly to the FIU, typically within a few days of forming the suspicion.

Internal Reporting: VASPs must establish internal procedures for reporting suspicious activities to a designated AML Compliance Officer, who is then responsible for filing the STR with the FIU.

All CDD information (customer identification data, beneficial ownership information).

Transaction records (details of all virtual asset transfers, including origin, destination, value, and timestamp).

Records of internal policies, procedures, and training related to AML/CFT compliance.

Records of any risk assessments performed.

Retention Period: Records must be maintained for a period of seven (7) years following the completion of the transaction or the termination of the business relationship, whichever is later.

Accessibility: Records must be readily accessible to the FIU and other competent authorities upon request.

Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Fiji

Role: The FIU is the central national agency responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence reports (like STRs) related to suspected money laundering and terrorism financing. It also supervises and monitors compliance with AML/CFT obligations across all reporting institutions, including VASPs. The FIU provides guidance, conducts examinations, and has enforcement powers.

Role: The RBF is responsible for monetary policy, financial stability, and prudential regulation of licensed financial institutions. While they have expressed caution regarding cryptocurrencies, their direct role in licensing and prudential supervision of non-bank VASPs for AML purposes is secondary to the FIU.

Stablecoins functioning as electronic money in Fiji are now banned by the Reserve Bank of Fiji and therefore do not fall under the National Payment System Act 2021’s licensing regime.

National Payment System Act 2021: This Act empowers the RBF to license and regulate payment service providers, including those issuing electronic money.

Parliament of Fiji (Search for "National Payment System Act 2021")

PacLII - Fiji Legislation (Search for "National Payment System Act 2021")

Securities: If a stablecoin offers an expectation of profit, represents ownership in an underlying asset or entity beyond simple fiat backing, or is marketed as an investment, it could potentially be classified as a security under the Companies Act 2015 or other relevant financial markets legislation. However, this is less likely for typical fiat-backed stablecoins.

PacLII - Financial Transactions Reporting (Amendment) Act 2021

If a stablecoin is classified as e-money or a similar payment instrument under the National Payment System Act 2021, the RBF would almost certainly impose strict reserve requirements. This would typically include

Fiji now maintains a 1:1 backing with highly liquid, low-risk assets in its monetary system, primarily through foreign exchange reserves and short-term government securities.

Segregation: Reserves must be held separately from the issuer's operational funds.

Prudential oversight in Fiji involves regular reporting and audits, though recent evidence suggests compliance gaps may affect their effectiveness.

These specific requirements would be detailed in subsidiary regulations issued by the RBF under the NPS Act.

E-money/Payment Service Provider License: If a stablecoin issuer is deemed to be providing a payment service or issuing electronic money, it would require a license from the Reserve Bank of Fiji under the National Payment System Act 2021. This licensing process involves rigorous checks on capital, governance, risk management, and AML/CFT compliance.

If a stablecoin is regulated as e-money or a payment instrument, strong redemption rights would be a mandatory requirement. The issuer would be legally obligated to redeem the stablecoin for its equivalent fiat value (e.g., FJD) at par, upon request by the holder, without undue delay, and typically without excessive fees. This is a fundamental consumer protection principle for e-money. The National Payment System Act 2021 and its subsidiary regulations would stipulate these rights.

Given Fiji's general cautious approach and the absence of specific stablecoin legislation, there are no specific rules or frameworks for algorithmic stablecoins. It is highly probable that algorithmic stablecoins, due to their inherent volatility and lack of full fiat backing, would not qualify as "electronic money" or a permissible payment instrument under current or future RBF regulations. The RBF would likely view them with extreme skepticism and strong warnings would be issued against their use or issuance within Fiji. They would likely be considered high-risk virtual assets for AML/CFT purposes.

The Reserve Bank of Fiji has publicly stated its interest in exploring a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The RBF is in the research and consultation phase regarding the potential benefits and risks of issuing a digital Fijian dollar.

Should Fiji decide to issue a CBDC, it would be a direct liability of the RBF and would operate as a sovereign digital currency. A CBDC would likely interact with private stablecoins by either

Coexisting: Private stablecoins could operate alongside a CBDC, potentially filling niches or offering specific functionalities not provided by the CBDC.

A successful CBDC in Fiji cannot reduce demand for private stablecoins because Fiji has banned virtual asset services, making CBDC adoption and competition with stablecoins unlikely.

Fiji's regulatory approach to private stablecoins remains strict and unchanged, with no anticipated clarification or increased stringency from a solidified CBDC strategy.

Role: The central bank and primary regulator of financial services and payment systems in Fiji. The RBF monitors developments in virtual assets and has issued public warnings regarding their risks. Any new financial product or service, including those related to virtual assets, would typically require prior approval from the RBF.

Role: Responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence related to money laundering and terrorist financing. The FIU's mandate would extend to virtual asset activities if they fall under the scope of "financial transactions" as defined by AML/CTF legislation.

Website: Fiji Financial Intelligence Unit

Date: 1983 (with subsequent amendments)

Role: Establishes the Reserve Bank of Fiji and outlines its powers and responsibilities regarding monetary policy, financial system stability, and regulation of financial institutions. It provides the RBF with the authority to oversee and potentially restrict new financial products or services that could pose risks.

Reference: While a direct URL to the Act itself might require searching the Fiji Parliament website for current consolidated laws, the RBF operates under this mandate.

the accurate statement about Fiji's financial transaction reporting legislation is that it has been amended, with only 28 out of the initial 36 provisions still in effect as of the latest analysis.

Date: 2004 (with subsequent amendments, e.g., 2012, 2023)

Role: This is Fiji's primary AML/CTF legislation. It requires reporting entities (which typically include banks, financial institutions, money remitters, etc.) to report suspicious transactions to the FIU. While it doesn't explicitly mention "virtual assets," if a VASP or crypto-related business were deemed a "financial institution" or conducted "financial transactions" under this Act's definitions, they would fall under its reporting obligations.

Reference: The latest consolidated version can often be found on the Fiji Parliament website or through legal databases. A general search for "Fiji Financial Transactions Reporting Act" will yield relevant information.

Date: 1997 (with subsequent amendments)

Role: Provides for the confiscation of proceeds of crime and related matters. This Act would apply to any criminal activity involving virtual assets, just as it would for traditional assets.

Reference: Similar to the FTRA, consolidated versions are usually available via government legal portals.

Crypto Trading (Personal): There is no explicit ban on individuals buying, selling, or holding cryptocurrencies for personal use. However, users operate at their own risk, with no regulatory protections or recourse within Fiji's legal framework.

Crypto Exchanges and VASPs: This is where the "restrictive by default" approach becomes apparent.

No Dedicated Licensing: Fiji does not have a specific licensing regime for cryptocurrency exchanges or other Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs).

RBF Approval Required: The Reserve Bank of Fiji's stance is that any entity offering new financial products or services must obtain prior approval from the RBF. Given the RBF's cautious approach and the lack of a clear regulatory framework for virtual assets, obtaining such approval for a dedicated crypto exchange is highly unlikely under existing traditional financial licenses.

AML/CTF Obligations: Even if a crypto-related business were to operate, it would be subject to the AML/CTF obligations under the Financial Transactions Reporting Act (FTRA) and oversight by the FIU, depending on how its activities are classified.

Warnings: The RBF has consistently issued warnings to the public about the risks associated with investing in or using virtual assets, including price volatility, lack of consumer protection, cybersecurity risks, and potential for fraud and illicit activities.

Adoption: Fiji has adopted the framework for regulating VASPs and applying AML/CFT obligations to them, which includes the principles of the FATF Travel Rule. This is primarily done through amendments and interpretations of its existing AML/CFT legislation and supplementary guidance issued by the RBF.

Financial Transactions Reporting Regulations 2010 (FTRR): Provides detailed rules and procedures under the FTRA.

RBF AML/CFT Guidelines: The Reserve Bank of Fiji issues various guidelines to financial institutions and Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), which now extend to VASPs.

Effective Date: While there isn't a single "Travel Rule effective date," VASPs were brought under the AML/CFT regulatory scope as Fiji updated its framework in response to FATF recommendations. The RBF issued specific guidance on Virtual Assets and VASPs to clarify their obligations.

The FATF's 2022 Follow-Up Report for Fiji noted improvements in Recommendation 15 (New Technologies), upgrading its rating to "Largely Compliant," indicating progress in bringing VAs and VASPs into the AML/CFT framework.

Fiji's AML/CFT framework generally aligns with FATF standards. For the Travel Rule, the threshold for collecting and transmitting originator and beneficiary information typically mirrors the FATF's guidance

USD/EUR 1,000 (or equivalent in Fijian Dollars - FJD): This is the usual threshold for transactions where VASPs must obtain and transmit required originator and beneficiary information.

Transactions below this threshold are still subject to suspicious transaction reporting obligations.

Exchanges: Virtual-to-virtual and fiat-to-virtual asset exchanges.

Transfer services: Providers that facilitate the transfer of virtual assets.

Custodians: Entities holding or administering virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets on behalf of others.

Issuers: Providers involved in issuing new virtual assets (e.g., Initial Coin Offerings - ICOs).

Any other entity that engages in or operates a business of exchanging, transferring, holding, or underwriting virtual assets.

Information Collection: For transactions exceeding the threshold, VASPs must obtain and hold

Originator's wallet address (if not directly linked to the VASP account)

Originator's physical address OR national identity number OR customer identification number OR date and place of birth

Beneficiary's wallet address (if not directly linked to the VASP account)

Information Transmission: The originating VASP must transmit the required originator and beneficiary information to the beneficiary VASP during or before the virtual asset transfer.

Information Holding: VASPs must securely store all collected information for at least five (5) years, in line with general AML/CFT record-keeping requirements.

Interoperable Solutions: While Fiji's legislation or guidance may not prescribe a specific technical solution (e.g., TRISA, Sygna, VerifyVASP, etc.), VASPs are expected to adopt reliable and secure methods to meet these data collection and transmission requirements.

Risk-Based Approach: VASPs are expected to implement a risk-based approach to identify and mitigate ML/TF risks, including those associated with transfers to/from unhosted wallets.

Monetary Penalties: Substantial fines for individuals and corporate entities.

Imprisonment: For individuals involved in serious breaches or deliberate non-compliance.

Loss of License/Registration: VASPs failing to comply may face revocation of their operating license or registration.

Reputational Damage: Significant harm to the business's reputation and trust.

Suspension or Prohibition: Regulatory authorities can suspend operations or prohibit individuals from holding positions in VASPs.

Often available on the Fiji government legislative website or via the RBF.

Direct link might vary, search for "Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2004 Fiji" on the RBF site or Fiji's Attorney-General's Chambers website.

These reports provide detailed assessments of Fiji's AML/CFT regime, including progress on Recommendation 15.

No specific license for cryptocurrency custody exists. As cryptocurrencies are not recognized as regulated financial products under the current RBF framework, there is no specific "crypto custodian license."

If an entity's operations extend beyond pure custody into other financial services (e.g., exchange, lending, brokerage) and those services fall under existing definitions within the Banking Act 1995 or other financial services legislation, then appropriate licenses for those activities would be required. However, such legislation does not currently explicitly include digital assets.

No specific rules for cryptocurrency asset segregation exist. Since there is no specific regulatory framework for crypto custody, there are no mandates for how client digital assets should be segregated from the custodian's proprietary assets.

However, best practices in the industry, and general principles of fiduciary duty, would suggest that any reputable custodian should implement robust segregation to protect client assets.

No specific insurance or bonding requirements for cryptocurrency custodians exist. Given the absence of a dedicated framework, there are no mandates for custodians to carry specific insurance policies or bonding to cover potential losses due to hacks, fraud, or operational failures.

No specific cold storage mandates exist. There are no regulatory requirements dictating the use or proportion of cold storage (offline storage) for digital assets held in custody. Industry best practices, again, would guide custodians to use a combination of hot, warm, and cold storage for security.

No specific definition of a "qualified custodian" for digital assets exists. The RBF has not introduced any regulatory definitions or criteria for what constitutes a qualified custodian in the context of cryptocurrencies.

No publicly announced specific custody legislation is pending. While the RBF continuously monitors global developments and may be considering future frameworks, there have been no public announcements or drafts of specific legislation related to digital asset custody in Fiji.

The RBF's general stance is one of caution and ongoing assessment. They have indicated that they are studying various aspects of digital currencies and payments, but this has not yet translated into specific regulatory frameworks for custody.

The RBF is the central bank and primary financial regulator. Their website is the official source for their statements, warnings, and any future regulatory developments.

This act establishes the legal framework for combating money laundering and terrorist financing in Fiji. Any entity dealing with virtual assets, especially in a custodial capacity, would likely be considered a "reporting institution" or fall under the broader AML/CTF obligations.

For general reference: https://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act/ftra2004245/ (Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute - PACLII provides access to Fijian legislation).

This act governs banking and deposit-taking institutions in Fiji. While it doesn't cover cryptocurrencies, it would define what activities do require a banking license, and currently, crypto custody generally falls outside these definitions.

Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) – Responsible for AML/CTF oversight; website: https://www.fijifiu.gov.fj

National Anti‑Money Laundering Council (NAMLC) – Sets policy and reviews risk assessments.

Financial Tracking Reporting Act 2016 – Primary legislation governing money‑laundering reporting obligations.

Customer Due Diligence (CDD): Identify and verify all customers before onboarding.

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): Required for politically exposed persons (PEPs) or high‑risk jurisdictions.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR): Mandatory reporting of any transactions suspected to be linked to money laundering or terrorist financing.

Record Retention: Maintain customer records and transaction logs for at least five years.

Beneficial Ownership Transparency: Disclose ultimate beneficial owners to the FIU.

Fiji Financial Intelligence Unit - Home (contains 2025 National Risk Assessment details)

The 2025 National Risk Assessment classified Fiji’s money‑laundering risk as High. Fiji Financial Intelligence Unit - Home

No specific licenses for cryptocurrency exchanges exist; entities are covered under the broader “financial institution” definition requiring FIU registration. Financial Tracking Reporting Act 2016

Penalties for AML/CFT breaches can reach FJD 200,000 or five years’ imprisonment under the FTR Act. Financial Tracking Reporting Act 2016

No tax guidance on cryptocurrency gains has been issued by Fiji’s Ministry of Finance as of 2025. Ministry of Finance Fiji