The Comparative Guide On Cryptocurrency Legislations Guidelines 2022 The Law Firm Network 2 EDITION

2022
THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON

CRYPTOCURRENCY
LEGISLATIONS
& GUIDELINES
second edition
LEGAL NOTE
The information contained in this publication is general information and not intended to constitute legal advice by
The Law Firm Network, the editor, authors or attorneys of the contributing law firms and they expressly disclaim
any such interpretation by any party. Specific legal advice depends on the facts of the specific case and may vary
from situation to situation. Should you require legal advice, please seek assistance of a counsel.
© The Law Firm Network and Contributors 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior
permission of the publisher.
PUBLISHED BY:
Zurich, Switzerland
E-MAIL: rafaeltruan@lfnglobal.com
TEL: +34 9131 06660
www.lfnglobal.com
Executive Director: Rafael Truan Blanco

LFN Chairman: Peter Krarup (Mazanti-Andersen)
Regional Directors:
EMEA - Stephan van de Kant (Wieringa Advocaten)
The Americas - Alejandro Fiuza (Brown Rudnick LLP)
Asia-Pacific - Dang The Duc (Indochine Counsel)
IT Emerging Technologies Practice Group Co-chairs:
Marcus Tan (Marcus Tan & Co)
Raf van Gysel (Ponet & LVP Advocate)
Editor: Gonzalo Oliva Beltrán (Barreiro. Oliva. De Luca. Jaca. Nicastro)
Publications Director: Marek Turcza (TURCZA Kancelaria)
Graphic design and DTP: Bartosz Wiczynski (TURCZA Kancelaria)
linkedin.com/company/the-law-firm-network/
EDITOR'S NOTE
04 GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN

Partner at Barreiro. Oliva. De Luca. Jaca. Nicastro
ARGENTINA
05 GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN

Partner at Barreiro. Oliva. De Luca. Jaca. Nicastro
COLOMBIA
09 JUAN A. VALLEJO & JUAN SEBASTIAN GAVIRIA GARLATTI

Partner and lawyer at NIETO ABOGADOS
GERMANY
13 ELISABETH S. WYREMBEK, LL.M.

Associate at HAVER & MAILÄNDER RECHTSANWÄLTE
INDIA
19 AMIT KIRAN
Partner at Poovayya & Co
INDONESIA
22 IRA A. EDDYMURTHY, SYAHDAN Z. AZIZ, JONATHAN M. STREIFER, CALLISTA PUTRI MAYARI

Lawyers at SSEK Legal Consultants
ITALY
30 GIACOMO GORI
Of Counsel at Cocuzza & Associati Law Firm
KENYA
35 DR. NJARAMBA GICHUKI

Lawyers at Wanyaga and Njaramba Advocates
LIECHTENSTEIN
37 REMO MAIRHOFER
Partner at Mairhofer Advokatur
MEXICO
41 RICARDO RIOS FERRER

Partner at RÍOS-FERRER, GUILLÉN-LLARENA, TREVIÑO, RIVERA Y GUTIÉRREZ ABOGADOS
THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 2

NETHERLANDS
45 VICTOR BOUMAN
Partner at Wieringa Advocaten
RUSSIA
49 YEGOR KRAVCHENKO
Partner at Westside Law Firm
SPAIN
53 RAFAEL TRUAN BLANCO & CAMELIA HAMZA

Partner and lawyer at Thomás De Carranza Abogados
SRI LANKA
58 HANSI ABAYARATNE
Partner at D. L. & F. De Saram
UNITED KINGDOM
62 TIM DAVISON
Partner at Brown Rudnick LLP
USA
71 BROWNRUDNICK'S “DIGITAL COMMERCE PRACTICE"

Brown Rudnick LLP
VIETNAM
79 THAI GIA HAN & STEVEN JACOB

Partners at Indochine Counsel
3
EDITOR'S NOTE
by Gonzalo Oliva-Beltrán
PARTNER AT BARREIRO. OLIVA. DE LUCA. JACA. NICASTRO
FIRST EDITION
Exactly thirty years ago, two researchers outlined the first idea of a system where document
timestamps could not be tampered with. But it was not until a little bit more than ten years
ago that the world heard about blockchain technology.
Now in the wake of the 21st century, technology does been equally regulated in all jurisdictions however
not seem to be about globalization anymore -now popular it might be. And even in those jurisdictions
taken for granted-, but about decentralization. If where it has, it has been assimilated -from a regulatory
globalization revealed that as a planet we are perspective- to securities, currency, or generally as
centripetally connected, decentralization now goods.
confirms that we are centrifugally hyper - connected.
This guide intends to be a snapshot of the current
As legal practitioners, not only are we challenged by cryptocurrency regulations in some of the countries
the concept of decentralization, but we also need to that are represented at The Law Firm Network. It does
reassess the legal nature of time-honored institutions not intend to be legal advice and readers are
like currency, securities, agreements, property, justice. encouraged to contact the local law firm for further
information or guidance.
Cryptocurrency is probably the most popular
utilization of decentralized technology, but it has not
SECOND EDITION
It is with great enthusiasm that we release this second edition of our guide, now with sixteen
countries represented, out of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
As the reader will see, complete regulation and precisely the changing nature, and constant evolution,
absolute lack of it coexist globally in this matter. If we of cryptocurrency (and cryptoassets in general), that
were only to skim-read this guide, I would suggest we triggers the need for lawyers to be updated on the
take a few minutes to focus on the question about the latest developments. As Abraham Lincoln once said, if
definition of cryptocurrency. Probably the core of this we could first know where we are, and whither we are
publication, it is hard not to ask ourselves if we will tending, we could then better judge what to do, and
reach a general agreement on the nature of how to do it. We hope you enjoy this updated guide.
cryptoassets in the near future. In any case, it is

ARGENTINA
LAW FIRM Barreiro. Oliva. De Luca. Jaca. Nicastro
AUTHORS GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN, Partner
CONTACT goliva@bodlegal.com +5411 4814 1746
1 QUESTION
Which legislative and regulatory provisions, or any other guidelines or policies that govern or
regulate cryptocurrency in your jurisdiction?
There are currently no regulations or legislation dealing with cryptocurrency in Argentina as a whole. Different State
agencies have, however, addressed cryptocurrencies and crypto assets in the context of their specific competencies. We
list them below:
a) Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA): on May 2014, the BCRA published a report regarding potential risks of using
cryptocurrencies. The BCRA reported that “virtual currencies are not issued by this Central Bank or by other international
monetary authorities, therefore, they do not have legal tender, nor do they have any backing”. In addition, the BCRA points
out the high volatility of cryptocurrencies' prices and that their use has been linked to money laundering and fraud.
Furthermore, in regards with the exchange market, the BCRA has in 2019 established that the issuing entities of credit, pre-
paid and debit cards must obtain prior authorization of the BCRA to send payments abroad when such cards are used to
acquire crypto assets in certain transactions. In 2020 the BCRA stated that crypto assets are to be regarded as external
liquid assets.
b) Inclusion in the income tax law: since 2017 digital currencies are included in the scope of the national income tax law.
Thus, the result of disposal of digital currencies is subject to income tax.
c) Money laundering regulations: the Unit of Financial Information (Unidad de Información Financiera) has since 2014
established that certain entities, mainly financial, are obliged to strengthen their level of control of transactions involving
crypto currencies. Such entities are as well to report these types of transactions.
d) On its turn, the Securities Exchange Comission has refrained from regulating, but in May 2021 has issued a warning to
the public concerning crypto assets and initial coin offerings (“ICOs”), together with the Central Bank. These entities
addressed potential risks and advised the public to adopt a prudent approach towards crypto assets, taking into account: 1)
that they are not legal currency in Argentina 2) their volatility 3) potential operational problems, such as hacks 4) the lack of
guarantee backing up transactions involving crypto assets 5) lack of information and transparency by providers 6) risks of
money laundering, financing of terrorism and breach of currency exchange regulations 7) the transnational nature of these
transactions.
2 QUESTION
regulate entities or operators that provide services relating to cryptocurrency? Must they be
registered or licensed by any specific regulatory authority?
There are currently no specific regulations or legislation for entities or operators that provide services relating to
cryptocurrency in Argentina. However, the following must be noted:
a) Revenue Agency (AFIP) Resolution No. 4614/2019: it provides a specific regulation for the management and
intermediation services of virtual accounts, virtual wallets, investments, and financing. This resolution also establishes an
information regime.
5
ARGENTINA
Nonetheless, the term cryptocurrency is not used by the AFIP, but instead the term “digital currency”. In this way, electronic
money can also be included in the definition of digital currency.
b) Argentinian Consumer protection Law (No. 24.240): due to the type of service offer by wallets and exchanges, the
consumer protection law applies to entities or operators that provide services relating to cryptocurrencies.
QUESTION 3
Please describe which part or kind of services involving cryptocurrency that have yet to be
governed or regulated.
The regulation in force concerns mainly the financial, tax, and exchange aspects of transactions involving crypto
currencies. Hence, all other aspects that could surround cryptocurrencies (such as civil law aspects for instance) remain
unregulated.
QUESTION 4
Which bodies are responsible for enforcing the applicable laws and regulations? What powers
do they have?
The bodies responsible for enforcing the applicable laws and regulations are the issuing bodies. In general, they can
establish administrative fines, warnings, suspensions, closings, and prohibitions.
QUESTION 5
How does the government or authority in your jurisdiction treat cryptocurrency (legal
treatment and general approach)?
As explained in Q1, the BCRA considers that cryptocurrencies have no legal tender nor do they have any backing in
Argentina. Government agencies have warned the public of potential dangers of operating with cryptocurrencies, and
regulated specific areas surrounding them. However, we can affirm that a great share of the transactions, activities, and
aspects of cryptocurrencies and assets still remain under the scope of the principle of legality in Argentina. This means that
what is not prohibited by law is to be allowed. Thus, until a more comprehensive regulation is enacted, many aspects will be
subject to interpretation on a case-by-case basis.
QUESTION 6
How is cryptocurrency legally defined in your jurisdiction? Have there been any judicial
decisions which have helped to define them with the existing legislations or court precedents?
(e.g. as a currency, commodity, property)
The only definition of “cryptocurrency” found in the Argentinian ecosystem is that of the Unit of Financial Information in
Resolution No. 300 of 2014. The Unit defined them as “the digital representation of value that can be object of digital
commerce and whose functions are the constitution of a means of exchange and/or unit of account, and/or value reserve,
but that are neither legal currency, not issued, nor backed up by any country or jurisdiction”. This definition is to the effects
of the Unit´s resolution and not one of general application.

Up to now, Argentinean Courts have not elaborated any judgment specifically defining cryptocurrency neither. However, a
2018 decision by a district Criminal Court (Cámara del Crimen Nro. 3 de Resistencia) interprets the theft of ethers from a
wallet´s user as a crime concerning the user´s assets. The Court found that through the use of hacking and a VPN, the
accused had “provoked the transfer of an asset with economic content (virtual currency) in detriment of the victim´s
patrimony…”. In the same decision the Court labels the ethers as “data” equivalent to a certain amount of US dollars being
illegally transferred to the hacker.
7 QUESTION
How are different type of fundraising activity involving cryptocurrency defined in your
jurisdiction? (i.e. Initial Coin Offering (ICO), Security Token Offering (STO), Initial Exchange
Offering (IEO) & Stable Token)?
There are no general definitions of these terms under Argentinean law or regulation.
As for ICOs, the CNV has stated that ICOs are high risk speculative investments and should only be invested by an expert
on the subject. The CNV does not exclude ICOs from its regulatory spectrum and each specific case will have to be
examined to define the issue. On December 2017, the National Securities Commission (CNV) published on its website a
statement. This statement warns the investing public about ICO's operations and specifies the following risk for those who
chose to invest in these instruments: (i) no specific regulation; (ii) price volatility and lack of liquidity; (iii) potential fraud; (iv)
inadequate access to relevant information; (v) early stage projects; (vi) technological and infrastructure failures and (g)
transnational nature of negotiations.
8 QUESTION
Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a specific regulatory regime in your

jurisdiction? Must they be registered or licensed by a regulatory authority? Upon being
licensed are they allowed to accept legal currency?
Cryptocurrency trading platforms are not subject to a specific regulatory regime in Argentina, other than specific
information obligations before the Revenue Agency.
These platforms do not have to be registered or licensed by a regulatory authority.
Cryptocurrencies are not considered as money or currency under Argentinian law.
9 QUESTION
What is the is the current approach in your jurisdiction to the treatment of cryptocurrency
regarding money laundering and terrorist financing?
Resolution No. 300/14 of the Financial Information Unit (UIF) acknowledges that virtual currencies represent a global
expanding business that has been gaining economic relevance over the last years. This said, the UIF explains that the use
of virtual currencies involves a series of risks for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. The UIF
decides that specific entities must report operations with virtual currencies.
There are not further resolutions of the UIF regarding this matter.
7
ARGENTINA
QUESTION 10
Is there any bill in process in your jurisdiction regarding cryptocurrency?
There are four bills pending at the moment; three at a national level, and four at a provincial level.
At a national level, both the Government´s party and the opposition party have filled bills at the Congress, aiming to push for
a comprehensive regulation of transactions involving cryptocurrencies. Further, one additional bill proposes that salary
and fees paid for the export of services from Argentina be allowed to be paid in cryptocurrencies. This proposal aims at
neutralizing the loss of purchasing power of remuneration in Argentina.
Locally, the province of Misiones has pioneered in the filling of bills concerning cryptocurrencies. The novelty in this case is
that the bill filled by one deputy pursues the creation of an exchange itself.
QUESTION 11
Is there any Law, Resolution or official guideline that regulate blockchain in your jurisdiction?
There are currently no specific regulations or legislation dealing with blockchain in Argentina.
QUESTION 12
Are there any other key issues concerning cryptocurrency in your jurisdiction that legal
practitioners should be aware of?
It is uncertain for how long Argentina will continue in the path of specific regulation, mostly oriented to the financial aspects
of cryptocurrencies. It is to be noted that exchanges and local companies claim for a clear regulation that contributes to
managing the risks of their activity. The expectation from these entities is that the regulation be discussed jointly with the
authorities, and that it ultimately contributes to the growth of the industry.

COLOMBIA
LAW FIRM NIETO ABOGADOS
AUTHORS JUAN A. VALLEJO & JUAN SEBASTIAN GAVIRIA GARLATTI
CONTACT juan.vallejo@nietolegal.com +57 1 345 3663
1 QUESTION
Currently, Colombia has no specific regulation concerning cryptocurrency. Nevertheless, the Colombian Central Bank and
the Superintendence of Finance have analyzed the Colombian legal framework currently in place and how it would treat
cryptocurrencies.
The Colombian Central Bank has established the following concerning what it calls “virtual currencies”:
They are not a valid currency in Colombia, since the only legal currency in the country, pursuant to Law 31 of 1992, is
the Colombian Peso in the form of paper bills and metal coins being the only currency able to extinguish obligations.
They are not money for legal effects.
They are not a currency since they have not been recognized by the Colombian foreign exchange regime as such as
they are not backed by central banks.
They are not cash nor a cash equivalent.
There is no obligation for anyone to receive virtual currencies as means of payment.
They are not financial assets nor investment property according to accounting rules.
They are not securities, pursuant to Law 964 of 2005.
On the other hand, the Superintendence of Finance, back in 2016 and 2017, warned that, because of their pseudo-anonym
nature, cryptocurrencies would facilitate money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation of mass destruction
weapons. Accordingly, that agency established that cryptocurrencies are not securities and that, hence, the entities under
the Superintendence’s surveillance are not allowed to invest in them and their operators are not authorized to advice or
manage operations on cryptocurrencies.
Notwithstanding the above, in September 2020, the government enacted Decree 1234, 2020, which allowed the
Superintendence of Finance to manage a “Sandbox” to test innovative technological developments in financial services. In
this “Sandbox”, starting in March 2021, the Superintendence of Finance has been testing platforms such as Binance and
Buda through their alliances with Colombian traditional banks and financial entities, allowing them to freely make
operations with digital assets under the supervision of the Superintendence of Finance. This “Sandbox” testing will last for
a year and will operate with four cryptocurrencies approved by the Superintendence of Finance: Bitcoin, Ethereum,
Litecoin, and Bitcoin Cash.
2 QUESTION
As we previously mentioned, the Superintendence of Finance enabled a “Sandbox” testing environment for
9
COLOMBIA
cryptocurrency platforms that are thus able to provide their services under the supervision of that government agency. The
“Sandbox” requires an alliance of a cryptocurrency services provider with a Colombian bank or financial entity of which the
end user must become client to access the services relating to cryptocurrency.
Moreover, it should be noted that, provided that entities or operators of cryptocurrency services do not collect money from
the public (collect money from more than 20 people or acquiring 50 or more obligations from any given number of people)
without immediately giving goods or services in exchange, they would not need to be licensed yet. Conversely, if they do
collect money from the public they should participate in the Superintendence of Finance’s “Sandbox”.
QUESTION 3
No service involving cryptocurrency in Colombia have been regulated. Cryptocurrency is not considered by Colombian
authorities as a valid currency nor as a valid mean of payment or to extinguish obligations.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
It will largely depend on how future regulation will treat these matters. In any event, it is very likely that the Superintendence
of Finance and the Colombian Central Bank will have a role in the enforcement of such regulations as cryptocurrency
services are financial services.
QUESTION 5
The Colombian Central Bank, from 2016 to 2020 had a rather radical scepticism and mistrust towards cryptocurrency.
From the end of 2020, however, it started to change its approach towards cryptocurrencies by limiting to state that they are
not regulated.
The Superintendence of Finance declared in November 2017, that that agency, the Colombian Central Bank, and the
Treasury Ministry are working to find the best way to decide whether cryptocurrencies should be regulated or not.
QUESTION 6
There is no legal nor judicial definition of cryptocurrency in Colombia. Nonetheless, the Superintendence of Finance have
referred to it simply as a digital asset. As previously mentioned, pursuant to Colombian law and to the Superintendence of
Finance and Central Bank's statements, cryptocurrency is not a valid currency in Colombia nor a security.

7 QUESTION
In Colombia, there are no legal nor regulatory definitions of fundraising activities involving cryptocurrency.
8 QUESTION

If a given cryptocurrency trading platform does not collect money from the public, it would not in principle be subject to any
regulation as it would be merely selling or buying an asset. Conversely, in the “Sandbox” there are cryptocurrency trading
platforms that collect money from the public, accepting legal currency to provide their services.
9 QUESTION
Colombian authorities are cautious regarding cryptocurrency and their alleged potential for money laundering, terrorism
financing, and financing of weapons of mass destruction.
The Superintendence of Companies have included companies that provide virtual assets related services among the
companies that have to comply with the money laundering, terrorism financing, and financing of weapons of mass
destruction prevention and risk management regime, being also subject to an additional intensified due diligence process
to verify its counterparties and its virtual assets.
Additionally, companies that received virtual assets as equity will also be subject to the intensified due diligence process.
10 QUESTION

There have been three projects of bills on cryptocurrency in 2018, 2019, and 2021, none of which have been effectively
enacted as law.
11 QUESTION
Currently, there is no regulation of any kind on blockchain in Colombia.
11
COLOMBIA
QUESTION 12
Colombian authorities have been traditionally skeptical concerning cryptocurrencies, specially in relation to its alleged
potential for money laundering, terrorism financing, and financing of weapons of mass destruction. However, the
Superintendence of Finance “Sandbox” and the recent three bill projects are evidence of an increased interest of the
Colombian government to regulate cryptocurrency as a financial innovation.

GERMANY
LAW FIRM HAVER & MAILÄNDER RECHTSANWÄLTE
AUTHORS ELISABETH S. WYREMBEK, LL.M. Associate
CONTACT ew@haver-mailaender.de +49 (0) 711-227 44-59
1 QUESTION
There is currently no specific cryptocurrency law in Germany. For now, cryptocurrencies are subject to general regulatory
requirements applicable to capital markets, banking, financial services, money laundering, tax and other areas. However,
with the existing laws being geared towards money or e-money, the special features of cryptocurrencies are yet only
selectively regulated.
In some areas, regulatory changes have already been introduced, with provisions now explicitly referring to various actions
in the context of cryptocurrency, and thus gradually providing for more legal certainty. However, given the complexity of the
subject matter, it is fair to say that a comprehensive and conclusive legal framework is yet missing. Therefore, when
evaluating issues with respect to cryptocurrencies, it is indispensable to conduct a case-by-case analysis, particularly by
taking into account the existing landscape of general laws and regulations, including the partially overlapping European
laws and regulations, as well as notifications and statements issued by diverse competent authorities.
Decisive regulatory progress has been made on 1 January 2020, when the German legislator, by implementing the 5th
Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) into German law, introduced explicit provisions with respect to cryptoassets, inter
alia qualifying cryptoassets as financial instruments (Section 1 (11) sentence 1 no. 10 German Banking Act
(Kreditwesengesetz – KWG) and providing a legal definition of 'cryptoassets' (Section 1 (11) sentence 3 KWG).
Furthermore, the 'crypto custody business', i.e. the services for the custody, management and protection of cryptoassets
(Section 1 (1a) sentence 2 no. 6 KWG) are now explicitly classified as financial services. Subject to further amendment on
1 July 2021, the scope of financial services was further expanded to the operation of crypto security registers (Section 1
(1a) sentence 2 no. 8 KWG).
On 10 June 2021, the German Electronic Securities Act (eWpG) came into force. It allows the issuance of bearer bonds as
crypto securities in electronic form, which are to be registered in crypto securities registers. In considering the existing
initiatives of the Fintech industry to issue securities by means of blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT), the
legislator refrained from committing to a specific crypto technology, and instead chose a technologically neutral regulation
in order to foster innovation.
2 QUESTION
As noted above, there is no specific provisional framework addressing entities or operators that provide services relating to
cryptocurrency. Instead, cryptocurrency activities are subject to the general regulatory requirements. Depending on the
specific activity and the type of token the service relates to, banking laws, laws on securities and anti-money laundering
laws may be applicable.
13
GERMANY
Provided that the service in question qualifies as financial instrument under the KWG, a license under Section 32 (1) KWG
is required for a variety of business activities if they are conducted on a commercial basis or to an extent that requires a
business operation set up in a commercial manner. However, whether a specific activity is regulated and which
requirements, if any, have to be observed, must be examined for each activity individually. The most essential activities
related to cryptoassets, i.e. mining, trading, services, as well as crypto custody business, are subject to varying degrees of
regulation:
Mining in the private sector is in general not regarded a business requiring a license. However, regulatory requirements
may arise in special constellations, e.g. in the case of a prior advertisement, which may trigger prospectus
requirements or if returns are to be made to the investors. However, mining and mining-pools that commercially grant
shares of the proceeds from mined or sold cryptocurrencies, constitute a financial service usually requiring a license
under Section 32 (1) KWG.
The provision of certain commercial services with cryptoassets as well as commercial trading with cryptoassets can be
subject to licensing if qualified as financial services under Section 1 (1a) sentence 2 KWG. However, proprietary
transactions by private individuals are generally not subject to authorisation, as long as no services are provided for
third parties. Whereas providers acting as 'exchange offices', i.e. offering to exchange legal tenders against
cryptocurrencies (and vice versa) are generally considered to meet the criteria of proprietary trading requiring
authorisation. This is the case if cryptocurrencies are not only mined, bought or sold in order to participate in an existing
market, but if there is an additional service element contributing to the maintenance of such market, i.e. by publicly
advertising regular buys or sells.
The crypto custody business is subject to authorisation under the KWG (Section 1 (1a) sentence 2 no. 6 KWG). It is
legally defined as the custody, administration and safeguarding of cryptoassets or private cryptographic keys used to
hold, store or transfer cryptoassets for others, as well as the safeguarding of private cryptographic keys used to hold,
store or transfer crypto securities for others within the meaning of Section 4 (3) German Electronic Securities Act
(Gesetz über elektronische Wertpapiere – eWpG). This broad definition goes beyond the scope of the 5th Money
Laundering Directive, as it refers to cryptoassets and also comprises custody and administration services. The
obligation to obtain a license therefore particularly applies to providers of exchange platforms and cryptocurrency
wallets. However, the authorisation requirement does not apply to users securing their cryptoassets independently.
Licensing requirements may also be triggered for a multitude of related services, depending on the individual
circumstances and technical characteristics. This may become relevant particularly for actions potentially to be considered
as investment broking, the operation of multilateral trading facilities, financial broking services, contract broking and
proprietary trading. Authorisation may further be relevant for other usually regulated financial intermediary activities
carried out in the context of cryptocurrency, such as financial portfolio management and investment advice. Finally, a
license may be required with respect to Initial Coin Offerings (ICO).
In addition to potential licensing requirements, entities and operators that provide services relating to cryptocurrency are
obliged to collect data and to comply with due diligence obligation under the German Crypto Asset Transfer Regulation
(Kryptowertetransferverordnung – KryptoWTransferV), which came into force on 1 October 2021 (see also Q9). Special
obligations may further derive from the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz – WpHG) with respect to
security tokens, as far as they are comparable to securities.
QUESTION 3
Cryptocurrency remains an area of continuous development and complex discussions. While the German legislator has
been quite active with respect to capital markets, banking, financial services, money laundering, and tax, important
aspects of civil law, corporate law, data protection and security law, and criminal law dimensions are yet to be regulated.
In any case, the overall legal framework that is aspired by the German legislator is one that creates a healthy balance
between regulatory necessity and innovative edge, eventually creating a level playing field for all technologies and
stakeholders involved, and promoting competition.

4 QUESTION
do they have?
In general, the enforcing bodies are the competent authorities designated in the respective laws and regulations.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) is subject to the legal and technical oversight of the Federal Ministry of
Finance and responsible for the supervisions of banks and financial services providers, insurance undertakings and
securities trading. As such, it ensures that businesses are not being conducted without official authorisation and it is also
the authority to review strict operational and personnel requirements when granting a license. Finally, the BaFin is also the
authority responsible for the task of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. The Bafin is also responsible for
the enforcement relating to unauthorized business. For that purpose, it possesses far-reaching powers of investigation
and intervention. This includes unannounced on-site inspections and searches of business premises, which can be
conducted without a court order in the event of imminent risk. The authority's investigation powers are not limited to the
company operating the unauthorised business but may also be extended towards any other company assumingly involved
in initiating, concluding or settling the unauthorised business. Once a business is found unauthorized, the BaFin has the
power to issue a ceased and desist order to the respective company. It is further worth noting that the BaFin cooperates
with other supervisory and prosecuting authorities within the EEA and other countries with respect to its enforcement
activities, as well as with the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt – BKA) and the criminal police offices of
the federal states (Landeskriminalämter).
5 QUESTION
Given the emergence and rapid growth of new technologies in the context of cryptocurrencies, the Federal Government of
the time published its so-called 'Blockchain Strategy' in September 2019, whereby the term 'blockchain' is used as a
synonym for 'distributed ledger technologies'. The basis for the development of this strategy was an extensive online
consultation process in which expert opinions of associations, companies, organisations and institutions were gathered.
The paper aims at setting out the course for the token economy by enlisting ten principles for the then pursued regulatory
policy: advancing innovations, giving an impetus to investments, guaranteeing the finance system's stability,
strengthening sustainability, enabling fair competition, deepening the digital single market, expanding international
collaboration, integration the stakeholder, guaranteeing IT security and data protection, and finally, recognizing the
necessity to constantly scrutinise the legal framework conditions.
While it can be expected that the current government will continue to pursue a policy which will actively engage in
cryptocurrency developments, it remains to be seen how it will be shaped and implemented in detail, particularly with
respect to the goals outlined in the 'Blockchain Strategy'.
6 QUESTION
By implementing the 5AMLD into German law on 1 January 2020, the legislator introduced a legal definition of
'cryptoassets' (Section 1 (11) no. 10, sentence 3 KWG). Cryptoassets are defined as digital representations of a value that
is not issued or guaranteed by any central bank or public authority and does not have the legal status of currency or money,
but is accepted by natural or legal persons, by virtue of an agreement or actual practice, as a means of exchange or
payment, or for investment purposes, and which can be transferred, stored and traded by electronic means. The definition
further explicitly excludes e-money.
15
GERMANY
The definition is generally considered to be a catch-all provision, particularly by the BaFin, which goes beyond the scope of
the 5AMLD, and is designed to include a broad range of tokens, i.e. currency tokens, security tokens, and other tokens
relevant for financial markets.
However, there are remaining discussions as to whether others tokens (e.g. hybrid forms of tokens), which neither qualify
as 'a means of exchange or payment' nor 'for investment purposes' are to be considered financial instruments within the
scope of the KWG. One way to approach this gap is to individually examine the respective tokens with respect to their
specific characteristics, investigating similarities to cryptocurrency tokens and security tokens, particularly distinguishing
whether or not the token is tradable and suitable as general means of exchange or payment, or reflecting any quasi-
investor expectation, in value or accounting terms, or whether it is intended to be used as such. According to the BaFin,
these requirements are neither met by electronic vouchers relating to goods or services nor by non-tradable electronic
tokens in multi-partner programs.
QUESTION 7
The current legal framework does not provide a legal definition for neither of the named terms. However, fundraising
activities are regularly referred to and sometimes explicitly defined by authorities in guidelines and other notices. For
example, the German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), by issuing a draft circular addressing individual questions on the
treatment of virtual currencies and tokens under income tax law, defined the term 'Initial Coin Offering (ICO)' as follows:
The term Initial Coin Offering is based on the English term Initial Public Offering (IPO). This refers to an IPO in which shares
from existing shareholders or from a capital increase are offered on the capital market. While shares are sold in such an
initial placement, an ICO is about the issuance of tokens in exchange for units of a virtual or state currency. In an ICO,
capital is raised in the same way as in an IPO.
However, whether the implementation of a specific fundraising activity involving cryptocurrency is subject to regulatory
requirements (i.e. prospectus obligations and authorisation requirements), is assessed on the basis of existing laws and
regulations and the specific characteristics of the respective activity and tokens involved. As far as the question of
authorisation obligations is concerned, two phases of the intended activity must be distinguished. First, the issuance of
crypto tokens or the prior advertising for such may already constitute an activity subject to authorisation. And secondly,
activities of the issuer or third parties that are downstream of the issuance of the tokens, such as the subsequent trading of
tokens, may trigger authorisation obligations. Whether downstream activities are subject to authorisation, however,
depends on the regulatory classification of the tokens.
QUESTION 8
There is no specific regulatory regime for cryptocurrency trading platforms, also referred to as cryptocurrency exchanges.
However, general regulatory requirements are applicable, if certain conditions are met.
Cryptocurrency trading platforms can be based on different types of business models. Under certain conditions, such
platforms or exchanges may require a license. Whether or not a license is required, depends of the technical
implementation and the individual structure of the transactions.
Cryptocurrency trading platforms may qualify as financial commission business (Section 1 (1) sentence 2 no. 4 KWG),
which is subject to authorisation. The BaFin considers this the case if the following conditions are met:
the individual participants are authorised to give instructions to the platforms until the execution of the order by
specifying the number and price of the trades,

the individual participants do not know their trading partners and the platform does not act as representative of the
participants but in its own name,
the economic advantages and disadvantages of the trades affect the participants who transfer money to platform
accounts or transfer cryptocurrency to their addresses, and
the platform is obliged to account to the participants for the execution of transactions and to transfer acquired
cryptocurrency.
If a platform does not qualify as financial commission business, it may be considered to be engaged in the operation of a
multilateral trading facility (Section 1 (1a) sentence 2 no. 1b KWG), which is also subject to authorisation. Such a system
represents the interests of a large number of persons in the purchase and sale of financial instruments within the system
and in accordance with established rules in a manner that results in a contract for the purchase of those financial
instruments. This means that there is a set of rules governing membership, cryptocurrency trading between members and
reports of completed trades. A trading platform in the technical sense is not required. Multilateral means that the operator
connects only the parties to a potential transaction on cryptocurrency. Expressions of interest, orders and quotes also
count as interest in buying and selling. Multilateral means, above all, that there is no need for an order for mediation in an
individual case. According to the rules, the interests must be brought together by software or protocols to conclude a
contract, without the parties being able to decide in an individual case whether they want to enter into a cryptocurrency
transaction with a particular contracting party. Whether the contract is subsequently settled within the system is irrelevant.
The concept of multilateral trading facilities is considered particularly likely to apply to platforms, on which providers post
cryptocurrency and set a price threshold above which a trade is to be settled, or where providers secure transactions
through escrow by transferring cryptocurrency to the platform and these are only released when the provider confirms
payment.
Finally, platforms offering regionally structured lists of persons or companies offering cryptocurrency for sale or purchase
against payment, are considered by the BaFin to regularly qualify as investment and acquisition brokerage (Section 1 (1a)
sentence 2 no. 1 and 2 KWG), which is both subject to authorisation.
9 QUESTION
Cryptocurrency activities may be subject to the German Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz – GwG) and the KWG.
Both laws implement the 4AMDL and 5AMDL and are therefore also largely inspired by the Financial Action Task Force's
(FATF) Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for Virtual Currencies.
By introducing cryptoassets as a financial instrument (Section 1 (11) no. 10 KWG) and crypto custody business as a
financial service for the custody, management and protection of cryptoassets (Section 1 (1a) sentence 2 no. 6 KWG),
banking and financial service institutions must obtain a KWG licence for a broad range of activities if they are conducted on
a commercial basis or to an extent requiring a commercial business operation (Section 32 (1) GwG). As demonstrated
above, this is generally the case for cryptocurrency exchange platforms and comparable token trading models, the
operation of crypto custody business or the maintenance of a crypto security register. Institutions requiring a KWG license,
are amongst the subjects obligated to comply with anti-money laundering regulations (Section 2 (1) sentence 1 no. 1 and 2
GwG).
Institutions subject to the GwG must comply with various obligations, i.e. the establishment of a risk management system,
the appointment of a money laundering officer, the maintenance of a customer due diligence and the obligation to report
suspicious transactions to the Central Financial Transaction Investigation Unit.
The general customer due diligence obligations must be fulfilled for transactions carried out outside of a business
relationship (e.g. for so-called occasional customers), but only insofar as it concerns the transfer of crypto assets that
correspond to an equivalent value of € 1,000 or more at the time of the transfer (Section 10 (3) sentence 1 no. 2 c) GwG).
The transfer of crypto assets is defined as any transfer of crypto assets between natural or legal persons in the context of
financial services or banking business which does not exclusively constitute crypto custody within the meaning of the KWG
(Section 1 (30) GwG). In order to comply with the general customer due diligence obligations, the obliged institution must
identify the contracting party, determine whether the contracting partner is acting for a beneficial owner, clarify the purpose
of the business relationship, determine whether the contracting partner is a politically exposed person or a related person
and continuously monitor the business relationship and the transactions.
17
GERMANY
The money laundering risk associated with the transfer of crypto assets is further to be reduced by the German Crypto
Asset Transfer Regulation (Kryptowertetransferverordnung – KryptoWTransferV), which came into force on 1 October
2021. The order contains enhanced due diligence requirements (for the obligated subjects within the meaning of Section 2
(1) sentence 1 no. 1 and 2 GwG) that must be observed when transferring crypto assets. The regulation serves to
implement the international standards of the FATF's Recommendation 15, i.e. the so-called 'travel rule', which is the
obligation to obtain, hold, and transmit required originator and beneficiary information, immediately and securely, when
conducting virtual asset transfers.
QUESTION 10
There is no bill in process specifically addressing cryptocurrency on the national level at this time. However, against the
backdrop of the European Commission's Regulation of Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) proposal published in September
2020, it is likely to be expected that the national legislative landscape will be significantly influenced by the European
approach.
QUESTION 11
At that time, there is no law, resolution or official guideline specifically regulating blockchain in Germany. Instead, the same
regulatory framework mentioned above applies regardless of the technology used. This is because the German legislator
decided to pursue a technologically neutral approach, so that the current regulations are not linked to a specific technology,
but rather to their specific application.
QUESTION 12
It is worth noting that, in June 2021, the German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) has issued a draft circular addressing
individual questions on the treatment of virtual currencies and tokens under income tax law. According to the approach
presented by the BMF, virtual currencies qualify as immaterial assets. As a result, profits from activities in the context of
cryptocurrencies may in general be subject to income tax. Whether or not taxation applies, depends on the specific
circumstances, particularly whether the activity is carried out in a private or commercial manner. On a private level, profits
generated from cryptocurrency activities may be subject to personal income taxation, if the respective cryptocurrencies
are held less than one year. On a commercial level, business income taxation may apply to both individuals and
companies. This may become particularly relevant with respect to mining activities, irrespective of their frequency and
duration but also to ICOs where utility tokens are issued in exchange for cryptocurrency.
Activities related to cryptocurrencies may also be subject to value added tax (VAT). In this regard, the approach taken by
the BMF is in general that of the European Court of Justice in its Hedqvist judgment, i.e. VAT will not be triggered by an
exchange of cryptocurrency to fiat money and vice versa. According to the BMF, this should also apply to transaction fees
or cryptocurrency received by miners. However, service fees for the provision of wallets or cryptocurrency platforms may
be subject to VAT. In any case, uncertainties remain, particularly with respect to security tokens and utility tokens. Given the
enormous complexity of German tax, it is all the more important to conduct a diligent case-by-case assessment when
advising on steadily emerging cryptocurrency activities.

INDIA
LAW FIRM Poovayya & Co
AUTHORS AMIT KIRAN, Partner
CONTACT amit@poovayya.net +91 99016 70055
1 QUESTION
Presently, cryptocurriences are unregulated in India.
India's central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”) through its circular dated April 6, 2018 (the “Circular”), banned all
banks and financial institutions from dealing with or providing services to entities dealing with virtual currencies, including
cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets. While the Circular effectively stopped the interchange of virtual currency to fiat
currencies, it did not prohibit peer to peer platforms that did not require the conversion of virtual currency.
The Circular was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court of India, and set aside by way of a judgement dated
March 4, 2020. Therefore, there currently exists no regulatory or legal framework governing cryptocurrency in India.
2 QUESTION
As stated above, cryptocurrency is currently unregulated in India and therefore it is not possible to obtain any
cryptocurrency-specific licenses or approvals from any governmental authority.
Subject to the nature of the services being offered, entities and operators may require additional registrations/licenses
from regulatory authorities. For example, if the services being provided are in the nature of banking and insurance, they
may require the approval of the RBI or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India.
3 QUESTION
As stated above, pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court, all aspects of virtual currencies, from mining to trading,
presently remain unregulated.
19
INDIA
QUESTION 4
do they have?
As per the Indian Constitution, the issuance and regulation of currency, coinage and legal tender falls within the exclusive
domain of the Central Government, and as such, to be recognised as valid legal tender, such currency is to be issued or
authorised by a valid central government legislation or ordinance.
The RBI remains the apex authority for the formulation, implementation and regulation of the monetary policy and banking
in India, and as such, the RBI has a broad range of powers, including the ability to issue, regulate, restrict or ban the
circulation of currency. It is to be note that while the aforementioned judgement of the Supreme Court set aside the Circular,
they also affirmed the powers of the RBI to regulate such sector.
QUESTION 5
The RBI is strongly against the use of virtual currencies, stating that owing to their decentralised, anonymised and
unregulated nature they do not afford a mechanism to handle grievances or check illegal activities such as terror financing
or money laundering. Further, it has stated that the continued use of virtual currencies would result in the erosion of the
existing monetary structure and credit system, and owing to its mandate as the central bank in India, the Circular was
necessary in public interest to protect the interest of consumers, regulated entities and payment systems from exposure to
high volatility and to ensure accountability for financial transactions.
The Government of India has also taken a similar position, but has been more amenable than the RBI to regulating the use
of virtual currencies through a legislative framework and a consultative approach.
Presently, there are two bills on this subject pending before the Parliament of India, namely the Crypto-token Regulation
Bill, 2019 and the “Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019” (the “Draft Bills”). The
Draft Bills broadly regulate the mining, generating, holding, selling, dealing , issuing, transferring, disposing of or using
cryptocurrency in India, but specifically excludes the use of distributed ledger technology (for example, blockchain). The
Draft Bills also provide for heavy penalties for breaches, extending up to Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Million Only (INR
250 Million) (approximately US$3.4m).
QUESTION 6
The Supreme Court of India by way of a judgment dated March 4, 2020 has defined virtual currency as: “…a digital
representation of value that can be traded digitally and functioning as (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of
account; and/or (3) a store of value, but not having a legal tender status”
Additionally, Section 2(1)(a) of the Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019 defines
cryptocurrecy as: “….any information or code or number or token not being part of any Official Digital Currency, generated
through cryptographic means or otherwise, providing a digital representation of value which is exchanged with or without
consideration, with the promise or representation of having inherent value in any business activity which may involve risk of
loss or an expectation of profits or income, or functions as a store of value or a unit of account and includes its use in any
financial transaction or investment, but not limited to, investment schemes”. Please note that this is one of the Draft Bills
and therefore does not have legal force as yet.

7 QUESTION
While fundraising through virtual currency is in very early stages, owing to growing national and international interest, the
Securities Exchange Board of India (the Indian capital market regulator) has engaged in dedicated discussions on the
multifaceted advantages and risks associated with virtual currencies, thereby signifying the Indian Government's interest
in better understanding and working towards the potential formulation of an Indian legal framework for issuance, use and
regulation of virtual currencies and ICOs. As the law currently stands, fundraising activity involving cryptocurrency is not
regulated in India.
8 QUESTION

No, there are no specific regulations that would apply to trading platforms at present. However, this is subject to change,
given the3pendency of the Draft Bills in Parliament.
21
INDONESIA
LAW FIRM SSEK Legal Consultants
AUTHORS IRA A. EDDYMURTHY, SYAHDAN Z. AZIZ, JONATHAN M. STREIFER, CALLISTA PUTRI MAYARI
CONTACT iraeddymurthy@ssek.com +62 21 521 2038
QUESTION 1
Noting the speculative nature of cryptoassets, the Indonesian Ministry of Trade (“MOT”) has acknowledged cryptoassets,
including but not limited to digital coins (virtual currency or cryptocurrency), as tradable commodities for which the
Commodity Futures Trading Regulatory Agency (Badan Pengawas Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditi or “Bappebti”) acts
as the regulator and supervisor. This authority is regulated by Law No.10 of 2011 regarding Commodities Future Trading
and MOT Regulation No. 99 of 2018 regarding General Policy on the Implementation of Cryptoasset Futures Trading.
Cryptocurrency trading is also subject to a different set of rules, which are mainly laid out in Bappebti Regulation No. 5 of
2019 regarding Technical Provisions for the Implementation of the Cryptoasset Physical Market in Futures Exchange, as
last amended by Bappebti Regulation No. 3 of 2020 (“Bappebti Reg. 5/2019”).
In essence, cryptocurrencies may be traded if they have been so approved by the head of Bappebti. To be approved for
trading in Indonesia, a cryptocurrency must fulfil several requirements, which include being based on distributed ledger
technology; being a utility crypto or a crypto-backed asset; and having had its associated risks evaluated, including the risk
of money-laundering and funding of terrorism funding and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Cryptoasset
traders also must have in place standard operating procedures that, at the minimum, cover the following:
marketing and confirmation of cryptoasset customers;
transaction implementation;
3 internal controls and supervision;
4 dispute settlement for cryptoasset customers; and
5 implementation of anti-money laundering (“AML”), terrorism financing, and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction policies.
Further, it is noteworthy that based on Law No. 7 of 2011 regarding Currency (“Currency Law”), the Indonesian rupiah
(“IDR”) is the only lawful currency in Indonesia and any transaction in Indonesia for payment, the settlement of other
liabilities that must be settled with money, and/or other financial transactions must use IDR. From the CNBC Indonesia
Economic Outlook 2021, it appears that Bank Indonesia (“BI”), the Indonesian central bank, has reinforced the mandatory
use of IDR provisions by emphasizing the impossibility of a cryptoasset being recognized as a means of payment for the
next ten years in Indonesia.
QUESTION 2
As of this report date, a company is required to obtain several licenses to provide any cryptoasset products and/or services
in Indonesia. Based on the 2020 Indonesian Standard Classification of Business Fields (Klasifikasi Baku Lapangan Usaha

Indonesia or “KBLI”), governed under Central Statistical Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik) Regulation No. 2 of 2020
regarding KBLI, the crypto exchange business activity falls under KBLI No. 66153 (Commodity Physical Trader). However,
Bappebti highly recommends that business players also add the business activity under KBLI No. 63122 (Web Portal
and/or Digital Platform with Commercial Purposes) to their Business License, because a crypto exchange must be
provided via a digital platform.
The KBLI is used to classify economic activities in Indonesia, dividing them into several business sectors. A company's
KBLI number or numbers will be stated on the Business Identification Number (Nomor Induk Berusaha or “NIB”) of the
company upon its establishment.
In light of the above, the three main licenses to engage in crypto exchange business activity in Indonesia are:
Crypto Asset Physical Trader (Pedagang Fisik Aset Kripto) license from the Bappebti for KBLI No. 66153;
Electronic Service Provider (“ESP”) registration from the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (“MOCI”); and
3 Business License for Provider of Commerce through Electronic System (Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan Melalui
Sistem Elektronik or “SIUPMSE”) from the MOT for KBLI No. 63122.
Crypto Asset Physical Trader
A company is required to obtain Crypto Asset Physical Trader approval from Bappebti, as stipulated in Bappebti Reg.
5/2019, to carry out business activities as a Crypto Asset Physical Trader in Indonesia. The approval process requires the
fulfillment of certain capitalization, manpower, and technical requirements.
For completeness, please refer to our response to question 8 below.
3 QUESTION
To date, the crypto business in Indonesia is limited to crypto exchange activities. There is as of this report no crypto
exchange in Indonesia providing features such as Crypto Earn (staking), Crypto Pay, Pre-Paid Card, or Crypto Credit, as
Crypto.com offers.
Please see our response to question 7 below. In addition, the regulations are also silent on “crypto remittance”. Moreover, it
is currently unclear whether tokens may be offered to Indonesian residents from abroad.
Based on Bappebti Reg. 5/2019, in the case of several mechanisms for a cryptoasset transaction, each respective
mechanism must obtain approval from the head of Bappebti. By this provision, we view that upon obtaining approval from
the head of Bappebti, new products and/or services concerning crypto exchange may be operated in Indonesia. We
understand that a company may need to engage in discussions with Bappebti to obtain such approval. Despite this, we
view that it would be difficult for a company to operate a “services linked to payments”, e.g. “pay with crypto” (for every
payment crypto would be sold and the cash used to settle the payment); “crypto-back” (cashback on every payment
received by the customer in the form of their designated cryptocurrency), etc. feature as BI has issued several provisions
that restrict cryptoassets from being used for a payment transaction. As discussed above, the obligation to use IDR for
transactions in Indonesia is governed under the Currency Law. Therefore, we view that the implementation of the “services
linked to payments” feature may not be feasible in Indonesia for at least the next ten years.
Separately, regarding cross-border crypto services, the Indonesian crypto services regulations do not state or indicate that
they are applicable to trading platforms operating from outside Indonesia and should be seen as only applicable to traders
operating in Indonesia. If the trade activities are purely on a cross-border basis, where a company is not operating in
Indonesia, we view that, technically, such activities will not be subject to the Indonesian cryptoasset regulations and,
therefore, will not be subject to Bappebti registration, licensing, and/or approval requirements. Notwithstanding the above
enforceability stance, we note one recent example involving Binance, the biggest global crypto-trading platform. Bappebti
deemed Binance an illegal trading platform for not being appropriately licensed in Indonesia and terminated access to
Binance in the country.
23
INDONESIA
QUESTION 4
do they have?
If a company conducts business activities with its crypto-asset products and/or services without prior approval from
Bappebti and/or is in incompliance with the prevailing regulations, that company may be subject to administrative
sanctions. These sanctions are (i) written warning; (ii) administrative fine; (iii) freezing or revocation of business activities;
(iv) freezing or revocation of license; and/or (v) cancellation of approval.
All sanctions in MOCI Regulation No. 5 of 2020 regarding Provision of Electronic System for Private Purpose (“MOCI Reg.
5/2020”) are administrative sanctions, such as warning letters, temporary suspension, administrative penalty (there are no
details in the regulation on the amount), and revocation of ESP registration certificate. The ultimate sanction in MOCI Reg.
5/2020 is blocking access to the ESPs' electronic systems in Indonesia. Access can be granted again once the EPS has
fulfilled its obligations.
QUESTION 5
Ultimately, it is standard procedure for Bappebti to assess registration applications for any overseas-owned entity, or any
entity for the matter, as a central “infrastructure” for cryptocurrency has yet to be established in Indonesia. Therefore, the
registration of a business of this nature is expected to involve a large volume of queries and correspondence with the
authorities to obtain necessary confirmations.
As mentioned, not only does Indonesia still ban the use of cryptocurrency as a means of payment, but the Governor of BI
has officially confirmed that prohibition will remain in place for at least the next ten years. While dismissing the possibility of
cryptocurrency being recognized as a legal currency in Indonesia for the foreseeable future, BI has discussed plans to
develop digital IDR and conveyed that good progress has been made toward digitalizing payments.
Separately, it appears the Indonesian government has given residents the green light to trade cryptocurrency by refusing
to impose an outright ban on all crypto-related transactions, even with the recent headwinds that digital assets have faced
globally, such as the recent declaration by China that, despite being one of the world's largest cryptocurrency markets, all
cryptocurrency transactions are officially illegal in its jurisdiction.
Instead, it appears the Indonesian government will focus its regulatory efforts on the prevention of crimes in which
cryptocurrency is involved. Cryptocurrencies are still treated as tradable assets and commodities in Indonesia.
Considering the above, it is safe to say that Indonesia will remain a “green zone” for crypto business players, who will likely
be able to continue their business activities in the country for at least the next couple of years.
QUESTION 6
Based on the applicable regulations, a cryptoasset is defined as a commodity that can be the subject of futures contracts
that can be traded on futures exchanges, and it shall be an intangible commodity in the form of a digital asset, using
cryptography, peer-to-peer network, and distributed ledger, to manage the creation of new units, verify transactions, and
secure transactions without any intervention of other parties. Also, as an acknowledged type of cryptoasset in Indonesia, a
coin is considered a cryptoasset form that has an independent blockchain configuration and has characteristics similar to
the first cryptoasset, namely, Bitcoin.

In a 2016 criminal case (High Court of Jakarta, Case No. 103/PID/2016/PT.DKI), the public prosecutor, in their indictment,
appeared to recognize Bitcoin as personal property, which the court accepted. In the indictment, the public prosecutor
called Bitcoin a separate form of commodity, independent from an internet server, that can be commercially transacted.
7 QUESTION
To date, no Indonesian regulation has been issued that specifically regulates ICO, STO, IEO, or Stable Token. There is
therefore no clear guidance regarding the definition, legal status, and implementation of such types of fundraising activity
involving cryptocurrency in Indonesia.
In addition, “securities” is defined in Law No. 8 of 1995 regarding Capital Market as promissory notes, commercial papers,
shares, bonds, evidence of debt, collective investment contract participation units, futures contracts over securities, and
any derivative of securities. Based on this definition, taking a conservative approach, tokens would not qualify as securities
under Indonesian law.
Fundamentally, a cryptoasset can only be traded if it has been included by the Head of Bappebti in the list of cryptoassets
that can be traded in the physical cryptoasset market in Indonesia. There are currently 229 tradeable cryptoassets as listed
in the attachment of Bappebti Regulation No. 7 of 2020 regarding Stipulation of the List of Cryptoassets that Are Allowed to
Be Traded in the Cryptoasset Physical Market.
As discussed further above, all transactions in Indonesia shall be in IDR as required by the Currency Law. The fund used by
the customers shall also be made in IDR.
8 QUESTION

Digital Platform
Fundamentally, the digital marketplace is not regulated by either the BI or the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan or “OJK”). Rather, it is regulated by the MOT under Government Regulation No. 80 of 2019 regarding Trading
Through Electronic System, and its implementing regulation, MOT Regulation No. 50 of 2020 regarding Provisions of
Business Licensing, Advertisements, Guidance and Supervision of Business Practitioners in Trade Through Electronic
Systems (“MOT Reg. 50/2020”). To operate a digital marketplace, a company must obtain a Trade through Electronic
System Business License and other supporting licenses as necessary. There is no particular rule for digital marketplaces
which facilitate the sale of digital assets.
A company will need to use an electronic/digital platform to facilitate the trading of cryptoassets, which will involve, among
other things, obtaining and processing the personal data of users. The company will therefore be required to obtain an ESP
registration from the MOCI, pursuant to MOCI Reg. 5/2020. Briefly, to obtain an ESP registration a company shall open an
account to access the MOCI's registration platform, filling in the prerequisite data and information, and fulfilling technical
prerequisites. The application shall be subject to verification by the MOCI.
Although we understand that the main KBLI number for cryptoasset trade is KBLI No. 66153, as discussed above,
Bappebti recommends adding KBLI No. 63122 (web portal/digital platform for commercial purposes), as the crypto
exchange will be provided via a digital platform. The specific business license for KBLI No. 63122 is SIUPMSE, as required
under MOT Reg. 50/2020. Accordingly, all companies that provide electronic communications for trade transactions must
apply for a SIUPMSE.
In addition to the above, note that Indonesian consumer protection law contains several obligations for business actors to
protect the rights of consumers.
25
INDONESIA
Payment Provider
Without a banking license, but with the appropriate licenses, a company is allowed to accept legal currency.
BI essentially classifies nine types of payment system service provider license by bundling them based on activities and
associated risks (i.e., principal, switching, issuer, acquirer, payment gateway, clearing, settlement, fund transfer, and e-
wallet (an electronic service (i) to store all payment instrument data including payment instruments using cards and
electronic money, and (ii) to store credits (funds) to conduct payments)). Under the applicable BI regulation, payment
system service providers consist of:
Payment Service Provider (Penyedia Jasa Pembayaran or “PSP”), which is defined as a bank or non-bank institution
that provides a service to facilitate payment transactions with consumers; and
Payment System Infrastructure Provider (Penyelenggara Infrastruktur Pembayaran or “PSIP”), which is defined as a
party that provides infrastructure that can be used to carry out the movement of funds. A PSIP is a company that
conducts clearing and/or settlement activities.
The regulation further provides that there are three categories of PSP license, namely, (i) PSP License Category 1, (ii) PSP
License Category 2, and (iii) PSP License Category 3. A PSP license can be used to engage in several activities if the
activities are in the same category.
If a company plans to provide payment services, it will be required to obtain a PSP license from BI. It is worth noting that, in
practice, a company may consider cooperating with a third-party payment system service provider in Indonesia to provide
such payment system services.
QUESTION 9
Any transaction mechanism implemented by cryptoasset traders must be evaluated for the risk of money laundering and
funding of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as governed by Bappebti Regulation No. 6 of
2019 regarding the Implementation of AML and Prevention of Financing of Terrorism Programs in Relation to the
Implementation of Physical Commodity Market in Futures Exchange; Bappebti Regulation No. 8 of 2017 regarding the
Implementation of AML and Prevention of Financing of Terrorism Programs by the Futures Broker; and Bappebti
Regulation No. 10 of 2017 regarding Guidelines for Implementing Immediate Blocking by Futures Brokers of Funds Owned
and Controlled by Persons or Corporations Included in the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Funding List.
For completeness, Indonesia mainly regulates AML and prevention of terrorism financing through:
Law No. 8 of 2010 regarding the Eradication of Money Laundering, which regulates the types of transactions that must
be reported to the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis
Transaksi Keuangan or “PPATK”) and the entities responsible for reporting such transactions. Under this law, any party
that conceals or disguises the origin, source, location, allocation, assignment, or actual ownership of assets known or
reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crimes may be subject to monetary sanction and imprisonment.
Financial service providers must comply with Know-Your-Customer (“KYC”) principles and report suspicious financial
transactions they believe are related to money laundering to the PPATK. The reporting party is required to report to the
PPATK any suspicious financial transactions, and any transaction entered into with its customers having a certain
minimum amount and/or any financial transaction involving the transfer of funds from and to other countries no later
than 14 (fourteen) business days after such transaction is conducted;
BI Regulation No. 19/10/PBI/2017 regarding the Implementation of AML and Prevention of Terrorism Funding for Non-
Bank Institution Payment Service Providers and Non-Bank Foreign Currency Exchange Business Activity Providers,
which was enacted to prevent the funding of terrorism. Under the law, an act of terrorism financing is defined as a direct
and/or indirect act to provide, collect, grant, or loan funds to persons that knowingly would use the funds to conduct
terrorist acts. Companies that fund terrorism in Indonesia may face hefty monetary fines and have their assets seized
and their permits revoked. Moreover, such companies may also be dismantled or expropriated by the government;
Financial service providers must comply with KYC principles and report suspicious financial transactions they believe
are related to terrorism to the PPATK. Failure to do so will result in fines. Financial service providers that provide fund
transfer services must also request the sender of funds to present identification and information explaining the purpose
of the fund transfer and must keep a record of all transactions for at least up to five years. Funds of the alleged
financiers of terrorism may be frozen at the request of the PPATK, investigators, public prosecutors, a judge, and other
legally designated parties;
3 OJK Regulation No. 12/POJK.04/2017, as amended by OJK Regulation No. 23/POJK.01/2019 regarding
Implementation of AML and Terrorism Financing Prevention Programs in the Financial Services Sector, which applies
to financial service providers that receive fees from customers in return for their services. These providers must have in
place policies, supervisory protocols, and procedures to mitigate the risk of money laundering and financing of
terrorism related to their customers, and report the implementation thereof to the OJK and suspicious transactions to
the PPATK; and
4 Bappebti regulations, under which cryptoasset physical traders must comply with the provisions of AML and prevention
of terrorism financing and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction programs governed by the head of Bappebti.
Cryptoasset physical traders must have in place policies, supervisory protocols, and procedures to mitigate the risk of
money laundering and financing of terrorism related to their customers, have a management information system
concerning AML and the prevention of terrorism financing, and screen and train their human resources on the same.
In addition to the foregoing, any party may also implement the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) recommendations,
which were adopted by the Indonesian regulations on these matters.
10 QUESTION

It is unclear whether there is any cryptocurrency-related bill in process. In Indonesia. However, we noted that the
infrastructure for the Futures Exchange and Futures Clearing Agency in Indonesia has not yet been established, and we
understand the government hopes to establish the Futures Exchange by the end of 2021.
We note that because the Futures Exchange has not yet been established, the application process to obtain Bappebti
licensing approval is currently on hold. Bappebti approval requires the applicant to be a member of the Futures Exchange
and the Futures Clearing Agency and obtain a recommendation from the Futures Exchange. Trading systems also must be
connected to the Futures Exchange and the Futures Clearing Agency. We understand that the issuance of Crypto Asset
Physical Trader licenses is on hold until the necessary infrastructure is in place.
11 QUESTION
While there is no specific rule or regulation in Indonesia for blockchain technology, blockchain technology is referred to in
three different regulations issued by the Government, BI, and the OJK. These regulations were issued to facilitate and
support innovative industry players in electronic systems, financial services, and payment systems. Specifically, in Bank
Indonesia Regulation No. 23/6/PBI/2021 (“BI Reg. 23/2021”), blockchain technology is referred to in relation to Payment
Service Providers. BI Reg. 23/2021 provides that the use of blockchain technology or distributed ledger technology for fund
transfers, electronic money, electronic wallet, and/or mobile payments shall be considered as the provision of financial
technology in the payment system sector. Blockchain technology also is mentioned in OJK Regulation No.
13/POJK.02/2018 regarding Digital Financial Innovation in the Financial Services Sector (“OJK Reg. 13/2018”) in
connection with digital financial innovation related to other financial services activities. OJK Reg. 13/2018 provides
examples of other financial services activities, such as invoice trading, voucher, and tokens.
In addition to the aforementioned regulations, the government had issued Government Regulation No. 5 of 2021 regarding
Implementation of Risk-Based Business Licensing (“GR 5/2021”). GR 5/2021 is an implementing regulation for Law No. 11
of 2020 on Job Creation in the communication and information technology sector, and stipulates provisions related to the
postal, telecommunications, broadcasting, and electronic system and transaction sub-sectors, including blockchain
technology. In response to the presence of various new technologies such as blockchain, GR 5/2021 regulates business
licensing based on risk.
27
INDONESIA
QUESTION 12
Data Protection
Indonesia has yet to enact a data protection regulation that would apply to data generally. The closest that Indonesia has is
Law No. 11 of 2008 regarding Electronic Information and Transactions, as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 (“EIT”) (“EIT
Law”), which is under the regulatory authority of the MOCI. The EIT Law regulates the handling of personal data utilizing
electronic media. The EIT Law does not extend to personal data once it no longer exists in an electronic system, which
arguably includes electronic information once it is printed in hard copy.
The EIT Law is intended to have extraterritorial applicability. Accordingly, this regulation applies to a company to the extent
that its actions involve electronic information and transactions related to Indonesia or any person in Indonesia.
The EIT Law itself does not define “personal data”. An implementing regulation to the law defines "personal data" as “every
data about a person whether it is identified and/or maybe identified, by itself or in combination with other information,
directly or indirectly, through an electronic and/or non-electronic system”. In this case, electronic account information
contains, among other things, personal data, AML/KYC information, and transaction data, all of which may be
directly/indirectly traced back to the customer's personal identity. On the above basis, we treat the entirety of account
information as the personal data of the relevant customer.
While the EIT Law itself applies to all personal data when handled utilizing electronic media, the EIT Law implementing
regulations, including the one above which defines “personal data”, are narrower in scope in that, by their terms, they apply
only to the processing of personal data when done by an ESP. A company may be classified as an ESP depending on the
nature of the electronic system used. Regardless, it is recommended that all companies, as a matter of best practices,
follow the standards applicable to an ESP. We will therefore address the consent required under the implementing
regulations of the EIT Law.
Assuming that the company is bound by or chooses to follow the EIT implementing regulations, the company must meet
the requirements below to handle account information abroad:
Consent of Data Subject: An ESP must obtain the consent of the relevant data owner before taking any action related to
the owner's personal data. Consent must be given in writing after the personal data owner confirms the veracity,
confidentiality, or non-confidentiality, and purpose of the personal data. The consent must be given in the Indonesian
language. However, there is no prohibition on the consent's including a translation into a second language (e.g., a
bilingual Indonesian and English consent form). In practice, a “Click to Accept” form of consent is sufficient for
purposes of the EIT Law and MOCI regulations; and
Cross-Border Data Transfer: Any transfer of personal data managed by an ESP domiciled in Indonesia to outside of
Indonesia must comply with the following requirements: (i) coordinate with the MOCI or the officials/agencies
authorized to handle the cross-border data transfer, and (ii) implement the provisions of laws and regulations regarding
cross-border data exchange. To date, there is no regulation clarifying the method by which the coordination
requirement is to be satisfied or enforced. In practice, we understand that ESPs report the plans for and the result of
cross-border data transfers voluntarily in good faith. This coordination requirement applies only if the company collects
its data through an Indonesian subsidiary. It does not apply to any offshore client entity.
Tax
Generally, any income arising from the sale of cryptocurrencies will be subject to income tax, but any other tax treatment as
to cryptocurrencies has yet to be precisely regulated.
We note that the Directorate General of Taxation is in the midst of making some changes regarding the imposition of final
income tax for cryptocurrency transactions. We will have to see how the proposed changes are implemented.

FAR-REACHING
LEGAL
SOLUTIONS
ITALY
LAW FIRM Cocuzza & Associati Law Firm
AUTHORS GIACOMO GORI, of Counsel
CONTACT ggori@cocuzzaeassociati.it +39 02 866096
QUESTION 1
At the moment, there is no specific regulation on cryptocurrencies in Italy. However, some indications can be taken from the
regulation of particular sectors.
Legislative Decree 231/2007 on anti-money laundering, as amended in 2017 and in 2019, contains some relevant
definitions.
Article 1, paragraph 2, lett. qq) provides that virtual currency means "a digital representation of value, not issued or
guaranteed by a central bank or public authority, not necessarily linked to a legal tender, used as a medium of exchange for
the purchase of goods and services or for investment purposes and transferred, stored and traded electronically".
Letter ff) of the same Article specifies that providers of services relating to the use of virtual currency are defined as "any
natural or legal person providing third parties, on a professional basis, including online, with services relating to the use,
exchange, storage of virtual currency and their conversion from or into legal tender or digital representations of value,
including those convertible into other virtual currencies, as well as the services of issuing, offering, transferring and
clearing and any other service relating to the acquisition, negotiation or intermediation in the exchange of the same
currencies".
Providers of services relating to the use of virtual currency, limited to the activity of converting virtual currencies from or into
hard currencies, fall within the category of financial operators.
As far as concerns European Union, in September 2020, European Commission submitted to the European Parliament a
proposal for a regulation containing two draft regulations to govern the matter.
A more general regulation concerns the creation of a market in the field of crypto-assets; another more specific regulation
aims to constitute a regime - regulatory stand box - related to the secondary market of security tokens.
However, the aforementioned proposals are only drafts: as a consequence currently there is no legislative or regulatory
framework for cryptocurrencies in Italy.
QUESTION 2
As stated above, cryptocurrency is currently unregulated in Italy and therefore it is not possible required to obtain any
cryptocurrency-specific licenses or approvals from any governmental authority.
However, Legislative Decree 1412010 assimilates providers of services related to the use of virtual currency to providers of
currency exchange activities. That implies that they must be enrolled in a special register held by a competent body.

Providers of services related to the use of virtual currency are, in this way, required to meet certain specific requirements
and to transmit electronically to the competent body the trades carried out.
3 QUESTION
As mentioned above, all aspects of virtual currencies, as their issuing and trading, basically remain unregulated.
It is necessary to underline that, according to the principles of Italian civil law, cryptocurrencies cannot be assimilated to
coins having legal tender status in a foreign country, with the result that they can, at the most, be considered just as a mean
of exchange like any other commodity.
4 QUESTION
do they have?
Given the membership of Italy in the European Union and the latter's competence for monetary policy, it is reasonable to
assume that the issuance, regulation, and supervision of cryptocurrencies shall be regulated primarily by European
authorities. This is also demonstrated by the regulations drafting by the European Commission in 2020 (supra Q.1).
The rules established by the European authorities should then be transposed at national level by Italian law, unless such
rules are contained in a Regulation with direct effect in the legislation of the EU member states.
Cryptocurrencies detailed regulation should instead be under the competence of the Bank of Italy (Banca d'Italia), as
responsible authority for supervising private banks, IMELs (Institutions for Electronic Money), payment institutions, and
financial intermediaries, for helping to determine monetary policy decisions, and for supervising monetary and financial
markets.
Specific regulation on this matter should also be carried out by Consob, as the authority with the function of protecting
investors and ensuring the stability and smooth functioning of the financial system.
5 QUESTION
The Bank of Italy and Consob have repeatedly expressed their perplexity and opposition to the use of cryptocurrencies.
These warnings, however, are not binding and do not constitute bans, but are mostly recommendations to the public.
In particular, the Bank of Italy and Consob warned about the risks of making investments in a matter that has no specific
regulation and which is currently governed only by practice or by analogy. For such reasons, the above-mentioned
authorities essentially dissuade investors (mostly retail investors) from investing in cryptocurrency, underlining that these
investments are not subject to any form of supervision, protection, and control by the vigilance public authorities.
In the absence of a unitary regulatory framework at European level, Consob and the Bank of Italy have recently published a
press release to raise awareness on the risks of crypto-activity, especially for small savers, which can lead to the loss of
even full amounts of money invested.
31
ITALY
Eba (European Bank Authority), Esma (European Securities and Markets Authority) and Eiopa (European Insurance and
Occupational Pensions Authority) reminded the public that virtual currencies are "high-risk instruments not guaranteed by
tangible assets; moreover, virtual currencies are not regulated under EU law and, therefore, offer no legal protection to
consumers". The authorities "are concerned that a growing number of consumers are buying virtual currencies in the hope
of continued growth in their value, but without any awareness of the significant risk of losing the money they have invested".
According to the aforementioned authorities, the main risks inherent in cryptocurrency trading include:
the lack of transparency on how prices are determined and the incomplete or too complex information to potential
buyers;
the evident instability of prices and the possibility of suffering the damage of the explosion of a speculative bubble;
savers lack of protection, both legal and contractual;
the risk of losses also due to cyber-attacks, malfunctions, or loss of access credentials to ewallets.
QUESTION 6
As mentioned above, some indications relative to the definition of cryptocurrencies can be deduced from Legislative
Decree 231/2007. Article 1, comma 2 lett. qq) provides that virtual currency means "a digital representation of value, not
issued or guaranteed by a central bank or public authority, not necessarily linked to a legal tender, used as a medium of
exchange for the purchase of goods and services or for investment purposes and transferred, stored and traded
electronically".
Among the judgments that could simplified the definition and identification of cryptocurrencies legal framework, it is worth
to mention the Court of Justice EU, C-264-14, Skatterverket/David Hedqvist, 22 October 2015 ruling: the Court excluded
the payment of VAT regarding the services of exchanging traditional currency (as Euro or Dollar) against units of the virtual
currency.
QUESTION 7
In Italy, the debate on cryptocurrencies and on security tokens has focused on their qualifying aspects, especially after the
introduction of the notion of "virtual currency" into our legal system for the purposes of extending the anti-money laundering
rules.
The Initial Coin Offering, identified as the offer to the public of digital representations of value, has only recently been
examined in a more in-depth manner, also because of the first pronouncements of the Consob. In such occasions, the
Consob vigilance Authority has provided for the legal qualification of the I.C.O., identifying it as a "financial product" in the
ambit of which are included both the financial instruments and, more generally, "any other form of investment of a financial
nature" in which the following elements are present: employment of capital, expectation of yield of a financial nature and
assumption of a risk directly connected and correlated to the employment of capital.
As a result of the classification of the token (I.C.O.) as a financial product, among other things, the rules governing offers to
the public and the placement and promotion of products at a distance must be applied.
The I.E.O. Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) offer an alternative model of token offering where the issuer/offeror/proponent
raises capital from the public by offering tokens for sale directly on exchanges without launching the project through an ICO
on its website.
It should be noted, however, that the abovementioned definitions do not belong to the legislative framework - which makes
no provision for this - but are definitions developed by Consob or by practice.

8 QUESTION

No, there are no specific regulations that would apply to trading platforms at present.
For the registration of providers of services relating to the use of virtual currency, please consider supra Q.1.
9 QUESTION
Legislative Decree No. 125/2019, transposing the Fifth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive 2018/843, introduced special
measures to prevent money laundering related to the use of virtual currencies.
The provision:
extends the definition of virtual currency in order to include the financing purpose, as well as the exchange purpose,
that may characterize some currencies and some of their use;
includes in the activity of moneychanger the services of conversion "into other virtual currencies as well as the services
of issuing, offering, transferring and clearing and any other service for the acquisition, negotiation or intermediation in
the exchange of such currencies";
includes in the discipline the providers of digital wallet services, the so-called wallet providers defined as "any natural or
legal person that provides, to third parties, on a professional basis, including online, services for the safeguarding of
private cryptographic keys on behalf of its customers, in order to hold, store and transfer virtual currencies".
In order to apply the anti-money laundering requirements and the relative regulatory framework to "providers of services
relating to the use of virtual currency”, they have been classified as "other non-financial operators".
Moreover, it should also be noted that Article 50 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2007 (A.M.L. Decree), as modified by
Legislative Decree no. 125/2019, states the "Prohibition of issuing and using anonymous electronic money products".
10 QUESTION

As mentioned above, currently there is no draft law on cryptocurrencies at national level.
As far as concerns European Union, in September 2020, European Commission submitted to the European Parliament a
proposal for a regulation containing two draft regulations to govern the matter.
A more general regulation concerns the creation of a market in the field of crypto-assets; another more specific regulation
aims to constitute a regime - regulatory stand box - related to the secondary market of security tokens. (supra Q.1)
11 QUESTION
In Italy, the blockchain is defined by Decree-Law 135/2018 which includes it within the category of technologies based on
distributed ledgers, i.e. "information technologies and protocols that use a shared, distributed ledger, replicable,
simultaneously accessible, architecturally decentralized on a cryptographic basis, such as to enable the recording,
33
ITALY
validation, updating and storage of both unencrypted and further cryptographically protected data verifiable by each
participant, not alterable and not modifiable".
In other words, the blockchain is essentially a general ledger in which transactions are recorded and which cannot be
distorted or manipulated in any way. The special features of this innovative system are decentralization, transparency,
security, and immutability
The Italian Ministry of Economic Development started on 18 June 2020 a public consultation to collect proposals on the
National Strategy for the national use of blockchain.
The work is based on the proposals of experts selected by the ministry, collected in the summary document of the "Italian
Strategy on distributed ledger and blockchain-based technologies." The text states that Italy wants to be at the forefront of
the development of the blockchain market, using these technological solutions to promote the country's digital
transformation. In addition, Italy wants to be a leading country to apply and deepen blockchain technologies in order to
encourage the attraction of businesses and start-ups in an open and secure ecosystem.
QUESTION 12
The spread of cryptocurrencies has exposed some economic problems: one of them is the possibility of a speculative
bubble. This means that the great increase in the value of some of these coins, primarily Bitcoin, would be based not on true
economic characteristics, and could bring great inconvenience in the future for those who invested.
Nevetheless, Bitcoin has been one of the best assets of 2020, especially in the recovery after the Covid-19 pandemic,
posting gains well above assets such as precious metals or compared to global exchanges. In the last 5 years Bitcoin has
made 4 years in full profit, respectively: +96% (2015), +160% (2016), +965% (2017), +90% (2019)

KENYA
LAW FIRM Wanyaga and Njaramba Advocates
AUTHORS DR. NJARAMBA GICHUKI, Partner
CONTACT njaramba@njarambagichuki.com +254 202 212794
1 QUESTION
There is currently no substantive legislation or regulations dealing with cryptocurrency in Kenya. This is despite a sizable
number of Kenyans jumping on the cryptocurrency gold rush that seems to have swept across the world over these past
few years. Indeed, the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has cautioned the public against use of, and engaging in trade
involving cryptocurrency as it is not legal tender.
2 QUESTION
Kenya has no legislative, institutional nor policy framework on cryptocurrency. Most cryptocurrency businesses operating
in Kenya are mostly foreign, and/or with no physical presence nor official incorporation/registration.
3 QUESTION
The entire cryptocurrency market is unregulated in Kenya and so do every aspect of it.
4 QUESTION
The Central Bank of Kenya being the principal financial sector regulator frowns upon cryptocurrency. It has severally
issued stern warnings to Kenyans against transacting in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency deeming it unstable and unsafe
35
KENYA
for use. Essentially, the CBK caveat fell short of terming trading of virtual currencies illegal.
The government’s disregard for cryptocurrency is largely informed by the underlying dynamics that pose major risks
including but not limited to:
Transactions in virtual currencies are largely untraceable and anonymous making them susceptible to abuse by
criminals in money laundering and/or terrorism financing;
Virtual currencies are traded in exchange platforms that tend to be unregulated all over the world. Consumers may
therefore lose their money without having any legal redress in the event these exchanges collapse or close business;
3 There are no underlying or backing of assets and the value of virtual currencies is speculative in nature. This may result
in high volatility in value of virtual currencies thus exposing users to potential losses.
4 Currency is jurisdictional in nature and greatly linked to sovereignty, and sometimes internal security. As such, like any
other government, Kenya would like to be in control of all monies in circulation within its borders. The concept of
cryptocurrency threatens this apparent control.
QUESTION 5
decisions which have helped to define them with the existing legislation or court precedents?
Kenya has no substantive legislative framework on cryptocurrency, thus, no legal definition of the same. There haven't
been any legal definitions of cryptocurrency coined through judicial precedence.
QUESTION 6
How are different types of fundraising activities involving cryptocurrency defined in your
jurisdiction? (i.e. initial coin offering (ICO), security token offering (STO), initial exchange
offering (IEO) & stable token)?
The Capital Markets Authority (CMA) of Kenya, the securities market regulator, has issued a public notice warning the
public against trading in Initial Coin Offering as a digital token to raise capital for cryptocurrency as it takes the form of
regulated activities yet unauthorised by the government. The CMA only brought up the term “Initial Coin Offering” for
purposes of the warning, given it is the only term that cryptocurrency traders have tried using in Kenya. According to the
CMA, ICO's are an unregulated form of digital tokens and a crowd sourcing method of raising capital for a new
cryptocurrency venture, where investors pay the promoters in fiat currency to develop the product in question, and in
return, receive the equivalent value in form of coins of the new cryptocurrency to be developed.
QUESTION 7
Is there any Bill in process in your jurisdiction regarding cryptocurrency?
No, there is none.
QUESTION 8
No, there are no other key issues besides the aforementioned.

LIECHTENSTEIN
LAW FIRM Mairhofer Advokatur
AUTHORS REMO MAIRHOFER, Partner
CONTACT remo.mairhofer@m-advokatur.li +423 340 11 20
1 QUESTION
In Liechtenstein, the Law on Professional Due Diligence to Combat Money Laundering, Organized Crime, and Terrorist
Financing (Due Diligence Act, DDA) and the Ordinance on Professional Due Diligence to Combat Money Laundering,
Organized Crime, and Terrorist Financing (Due Diligence Ordinance) generally apply to natural or legal persons whose
activities consist in the exchange of virtual currencies respectively tokens against legal tender or other virtual currencies
respectively tokens and vice versa. Token issuers who are not subject to registration but are domiciled or resident in
Liechtenstein and issue tokens in their own name or on a non-professional basis on behalf of the principal, provided they
settle transactions in the amount of CHF 1'000 or more are also subject of DDA. Further, operators of trading platforms for
virtual currencies respectively tokens fall within the scope of the mentioned act ordinance. According to DDA “operators of
trading platforms for virtual currencies respectively tokens” generally shall mean natural or legal persons who operate
trading platforms via which their customers transact an exchange of virtual currencies respectively tokens against legal
tender or other virtual currencies respectively tokens and vice versa.
2 QUESTION
Service providers relating to cryptocurrency have to be aware of the Law on Tokens and TT Service Providers (also called
the Blockchain Act). TT means transaction systems which allow for the secure transfer and storage of Tokens and the
rendering of services based on this by means of trustworthy technology. TT service providers who offer activities relevant
to user protection on a commercial basis and thus require registration (e.g. issuing, generating or holding tokens) must
comply with the minimum standards of the Blockchain Act. This applies to all TT service providers domiciled in
Liechtenstein. However, it is not applicable to TT service providers domiciled abroad who provide TT services to persons
domiciled in Liechtenstein, thus preventing any unreasonable restriction of market access of the token economy for
persons domiciled in Liechtenstein.
The Law on Bank and Investment Firms (Banking Act), the Law on Asset Management (Asset Management Act), the E-
Money Act, the Payment Services Act, the Law concerning specific undertakings for collective investment in transferable
securities (UCITSG), the Law concerning the Managers of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFMG) and the Law on the
Supervision of Insurance Undertakings (Insurance Supervision Act) could also be relevant for service providers.
37
LIECHTENSTEIN
QUESTION 3
The legislation mentioned in Q1 and Q2 above is continuously reviewed and adapted to meet current and future
requirements.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) is responsible for the supervision of TT service providers and the execution of the
associated statutory provisions. With regards to penalties, the Liechtenstein courts have jurisdiction.
QUESTION 5
The blockchain technology was first developed for Bitcoin, a private digital money system. Thereby, blockchain technology
functions as a register in which transactions can be securely stored. However, the applications of blockchain technology
are not limited to simple transactions of coins. Moreover, they offer the possibility for a wide range of economic services,
since assets or rights in general can also be mapped on blockchain systems. Above all, the low costs of digital transactions
(without intermediaries) open up new possibilities in the world of finance and services as well as in the industrial world.
These applications are collectively referred to as the 'token economy'. Liechtenstein recognised this trend early on and
create a legal framework and thus legal certainty for users and service providers.
QUESTION 6
According to DDA “Virtual currency” is defined as a digital representation of a value that was not issued or guaranteed by
any central bank or public body and is not necessarily pegged to a legally established currency and does not have the legal
status of a currency or money but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of exchange that can be transferred
as well as saved and traded electronically. As mentioned above, Liechtenstein has also implemented token as a separate
instrument in civil law. A token is thereby defined as a piece of information on a TT System which can represent claims or
rights of memberships against a person, rights to property or other absolute or relative right.

7 QUESTION
According to the Token and TT Service Provider Act (Blockchain Act) "Token Issuance" shall mean the public offering of
Tokens. This means offering to the public in any form and by any means of communication with the aim of selling tokens to
users. Commonly, token issuance is known as Initial Token Offering (ITO), Token Offering, ICO (Initial Coin Offering),
Security Token Offering (STO) or TGE (Token Generating Event).
8 QUESTION

Please see questions above.
9 QUESTION
10 QUESTION

11 QUESTION
The term 'Blockchain' originates from the application of Bitcoins, which involves the serial logging of transactions in a
distributed ledger and the blockwise verification of a certain number of transactions. In this process, the unchangeable
history of the transactions creates a relationship of trust between the actors. However, the Bitcoin blockchain is only one of
the possible technical implementations of blockchains. Therefore, an abstract, technology-neutral definition of the term
'Blockchain' was deliberately chosen in Liechtenstein for the legislation, not least to prevent the legal framework from
becoming outdated from a technological perspective after just a few years. The fact that trust is created by technology and
not only by organizations was the decisive factor in defining the term 'Trustworthy Technology' as the connecting factor for
the law. The term 'Trustworthy' means that the integrity of tokens, their unambiguous allocation and their secure exchange
should be guaranteed.
39
LIECHTENSTEIN
The Blockchain Act establishes the legal framework for all transaction systems based on trustworthy technology and
governs particularly the basis in terms of civil law with regards to tokens and the representation of rights through tokens and
their transfer as well as the supervision and rights and obligations of TT Service Providers. It is important to understand that
Liechtenstein has not regulated blockchain technology itself so as not to prevent or discourage innovation.
QUESTION 12

MEXICO
LAW FIRM RÍOS-FERRER, GUILLÉN-LLARENA, TREVIÑO, RIVERA Y GUTIÉRREZ ABOGADOS
AUTHORS RICARDO RIOS FERRER, Partner
CONTACT ricardo@riosferrer.com.mx (52 55) 5980 03 50
1 QUESTION
On March 09, 2018, it was published in the Official Federal Gazette the Financial Technology Institutions Law (“Fintech
Law”), which allows exclusively credit institutions and financial technology institutions 1 (“ITF”) to carry out operations with
virtual assets (cryptocurrency), pointing out that virtual assets will not be legal tender in Mexico.
The Fintech Law established that the Mexican Central Bank (“BANXICO”) was the authority responsible of issuing general
guidelines to: a) determine the virtual assets and its characteristics; b) establish the terms, conditions and restrictions for
the operations with virtual assets that may be performed by the authorized entities under the Fintech Law (credit
institutions and ITF), and c) determine the obligations that such authorized institutions must comply with when performing
operations with virtual assets, among others.
In compliance with the Fintech Law mandate, on March 8, 2019, BANXICO issued the “General guidelines applicable to
credit institutions and financial technology institutions regarding the operations carried out with virtual assets” (“Virtual
Assets General Guidelines”), which limits the use of virtual assets by the authorized entities for “internal operations” only
and obliges such entities to prevent at all times that the risk of such operations is transmitted, direct or indirectly to their
customers. Moreover, authorized entities will not be eligible for any authorization from BANXICO related to the
performance of operations with their customers that involve any transmission, exchange or custody of virtual assets.
2 QUESTION
The Fintech Law and the Virtual Assets General Guidelines referred above, are the two only applicable legal provisions
that regulate the operations that may be performed by the authorized entities using virtual assets, which shall request
previous authorization from BANXICO to perform any financial activity and/or operation using virtual assets.
In this regard, the Virtual Assets General Guidelines set a restriction for the conduction of operations using virtual assets,
determining that credit institutions and ITFs may perform operations using virtual assets only for the internal processes of
such entities. Therefore, said financial entities should prevent at all times that any risk related with the use of virtual assets
is transmitted, directly or indirectly, to their costumers.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Mexican regulation do not limit other entities (different from credit institutions or
ITFs) from offering services related to virtual assets, such as the sale and purchase of virtual assets; however such
operations will not be supported by any financial institution.
1 Entities authorized under the Fintech Law for crowdfunding and electronic funds payment.
41
MEXICO
QUESTION 3
In terms of the Fintech Law, virtual assets or cryptocurrency are not legal tender in Mexico, and therefore are not accepted
or recognized as legal currency by the Mexican Government.
However, as stated above, current regulation does not prohibit individuals or non-financial entities to purchase and sell
virtual assets. Therefore, in Mexico the services related to the purchase and sale of virtual assets can be accessed at the
risk of whoever decides to carry out such operations and with the clarity that they are not backed by any financial institution.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
In terms of the Fintech Law, BANXICO is the entity responsible of identifying virtual assets, and the issuance of regulatory
dispositions related to the use and management of virtual assets by the authorized entities under the Fintech Law.
Some other government entities may have interference regarding the effects of the use of cryptocurrencies within their
legal framework. For example, the Secretary of the Treasury is the authority responsible of identifying operations with
resources derived from illegal sources and vulnerable activities; or where appropriate, the Taxpayer Administration
Service (“SAT”) could intervene in the event that that the purchase of cryptocurrencies is subject to any tax payment.
QUESTION 5
In general, we could say that the Mexican government do not support the use of cryptocurrency, during a recent conference
given by the President -Andrés Manuel López Obrador-, he expressly discarded the use of cryptocurrencies as legal
tender in Mexico. Also, this year BANXICO, the National Banking and Securities Commission (“CNBV”) and the Ministry of
Treasury issued several articles pointing out the risks of using virtual assets in financial operations.
On the other hand, the Taxpayer Defence Attorney (“PRODECON”) conducted a preliminary study regarding the tax
regime applicable the income obtained from the sale of virtual assets, which concluded that income tax should be
applicable, since such operations could be considered as the sale of goods in terms of the provisions of the Federal Tax
Code.
QUESTION 6
Fintech Law defines a virtual asset as the "representation of value registered electronically and used by the general public
as a payment mean for all types of legal acts and which transfer can only be carried out through electronic means." On its
side, the Virtual Assets General Guidelines issued by BANXICO determine that the virtual assets that may be used by the
authorized entities, shall comply with the following characteristics:
Units of information, univocally identifiable, even fractionally, electronically registered, that do not represent the
ownership or rights of an underlying asset, or that represent said ownership or rights for a lower value;
Have controls in their emission which are defined through specific protocols and to which third parties can subscribe,
and
Have protocols to prevent information replicas from being available to be transmitted more than once at the same time.
As stated above, in no case can virtual assets be considered as national currency, foreign currency or any other asset
denominated in legal tender or in foreign currency.
Currently, no judicial decisions or precedents have been issued regarding the definition or use of virtual assets.
7 QUESTION
Mexican regulation does not regulate fundraising activities involving cryptocurrency nor defines these particular terms.
In the case of ICO, the Ministry of Treasury, BANXICO and the CNBV issued an statement warning that ICO is a fundraising
activity that may be performed legally, but given its complexity involve a very high risk of fraud. Moreover, some ICO
schemes could even violate the Securities Market Law or even constitute a financial crime, if used to raise public funds
illegally or the “tokens” offered under such scheme, could be classified as securities regulated under the Securities Market
Law.
8 QUESTION

Cryptocurrency trading platforms are not subject a specific regulatory regime in Mexico, nor is a register or license required
to operate such platform. However, Financial institutions are forbidden to participate on any activity related to the
exchange or trade of virtual assets.
9 QUESTION
According to the provisions of the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit
Origin, activities involving the sale, purchase or exchange of virtual assets, by individuals or entities different from financial
institutions, are identified as vulnerable activities, therefore the individuals or entities that perform such activities must
comply a series of requirements, such as identification of their clients, as well as to file reports and notices before the
Ministry of Treasury, if the amount of the operation exceeds 645 UMAS.
10 QUESTION

No, currently there is no bill in process regarding cryptocurrency.
43
MEXICO
QUESTION 11
Other than the Fintech Law and the Virtual Assets General Guidelines issued by BANXICO, currently there is in Mexico no
specific regulation or guidelines related to blockchain technology. In fact, BANXICO has stated it does not seek to limit the
use of technologies, such as distributed ledger and blockchain, and its regulation does not restrict the use of such
technologies when developed for private use and are not associated to a virtual asset.
However, as stated above, the operation of virtual assets by financial institutions or ITFs is limited to their internal
processes/operation and subject to an approval by BANXICO and that no risk is transferred to their customers.
QUESTION 12
Mexican authorities (CNBV, SHCP and BANXICO) have recently emphasized that the use of “stablecoins” which value is in
fact associated to a fiat currency, is not authorized in Mexico. Their argument is that the emission of such collection rights
against the issuer is not different from the raising activity restricted to financial entities regulated in Mexico. This means
that the use of the technology associated to a virtual asset to offer “stablecoins” shall need the corresponding authorization
under the Credit Institutions Law and the authorization from BANXICO to use such assets for their internal operations.

NETHERLANDS
LAW FIRM WIERINGA ADVOCATEN
AUTHORS VICTOR BOUMAN, Partner
CONTACT bouman@wieringa.nl +31 (0)20 624 68110
1 QUESTION
At the moment, only the Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft, Money Laundering and
Terrorist Financing Prevention Act) contains specific rules on cryptocurrency.
2 QUESTION
Yes, the Dutch government implemented 5AMLD (the fifth European 'Anti Money Laundering Directive') into the already
existing Wwft. Under this amended law, all crypto service providers are obliged to register with De Nederlandsche Bank
(DNB, the national bank). Officially, there is only a 'registration system', but there are so many requirements for a
registration that in practice it is widely considered to be a licensing system.
In a recent decision following an administrative law objection by a crypto service provider against the registration system,
the District Court of Rotterdam preliminarily ruled that DNB's interpretation of the registration regime appears to have
characteristics
1 of a licensing regime, as in its interpretation the registration system is subject to a fairly extensive prior
assessment. DNB was ordered to decide on the crypto service provider's objection, and has now dropped a registration
requirement that required crypto service providers to, among other things, verify the identity of the receiving party with each
cryptocurrency transaction. However, the process for crypto service providers to obtain a registration with DNB is still quite
extensive.
3 QUESTION
Much has not been regulated so far. In fact, only the Wwft regulates crypto services in the sense that crypto service
providers must register with DNB.
1 District Court of Rotterdam, 7 April 2021, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:2968, under 6.4.
45
NETHERLANDS
QUESTION 4
do they have?
DNB is responsible for supervising compliance with the Wwft by crypto service providers.
QUESTION 5
In general, cryptocurrency is accepted as a technology that should be given room to develop. At the same time, there is a
fear that cryptocurrency as a speculative tool poses dangers for small investors. This discussion flares up once in a while.
Recently, the head of the Centraal Planbureau (Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) spoke out in support of a ban on
cryptocurrency.2 The fear is that cryptocurrencies do not represent any underlying value and that they are in fact a kind of
pyramid scheme in which the last investors to step in are the losers.
QUESTION 6
Civil law:
On 14 May 2014, the District Court of Overijssel ruled that Bitcoins should not be qualified as fiat money or regular
money, but as a medium of exchange.3 In subsequent case law from other courts, this vision has been maintained
The Wwft defines 'virtual currencies' as: “a digital representation of value which is not issued or guaranteed by a central
bank or government, which is not necessarily linked to a legally established currency, and which does not have the legal
status of currency or money, but which is accepted by natural or legal persons as a medium of exchange, and which can
be transferred, stored and traded electronically”.
Tax law:
According to the Dutch tax authorities, cryptocurrencies are a form of assets that can be equated with money. The
taxpayer must determine the value of their assets at the value that can be given to it in economic transactions. The
4
exchange rate applicable on 1 January of the year the tax return pertains to must be used. Cryptocurrencies must be
classified as 'other belongings'.
2 https://www.ad.nl/geld/cpb-directeur-nederland-moet-cryptomunt-in-de-ban-doen~acc406b8/.
3 Rb. Overijssel 14 mei 2021, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2014:2667.
4 https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/werk-en-inkomen/content/cryptovaluta.

7 QUESTION
There are no legal definitions for the different types of fundraising. They are approached in a technical rather then a legal
manner. Because cryptocurrencies are not considered fiduciary money, ICO's in principle fall outside the scope of the Wet
op het financieel toezicht (Financial supervision act). Thus, ICO's are not governed by the legal rules that do apply to IPO's
(initial public offerings). As a result, investors are barely protected against risks under the current legislation.
Nevertheless, existing financial legislation can sometimes be applied analogously to the various forms of modern
fundraising. Under certain circumstances, security tokens, for example, can qualify as effects, which means that the Wet
op het financieel toezicht could apply. The applicability of existing financial legislation will have to be assessed on a case-
by-case basis.
8 QUESTION

All providers of crypto services must register with DNB. Officially, there is a registration regime, but it appears to have
characteristics of a licensing regime. The Wwft stipulates that there are two types of providers of services related to
cryptocurrency that must register with DNB. These concern natural persons, legal entities or companies which:
offer services for exchanging between virtual currency and fiduciary currency;
offer services to secure cryptographic private keys on behalf of their clients for custodian wallets, and the storage and
transfer of virtual currency.
The obligation to register applies to parties that offer their services on a commercial basis in or from the Netherlands.
9 QUESTION
In the Netherlands, as in all other EU Member States, 5AMLD has been implemented in the national legislation. This
legislation forces all crypto service providers to register with DNB. Those parties must verify their customers and report
suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit. The service providers have, so to speak, a 'gatekeeper function'
in the financial system.
10 QUESTION

Not that we are aware of.
47
NETHERLANDS
QUESTION 11
Not applicable.
QUESTION 12
Cryptocurrency is not considered to be fiat money but merely a means of exchange. Many provisions in the Civil Code refer
only to fiat money. For example, statutory interest can be claimed on any amount of money due. This is not possible with a
claim on cryptocurrency. It is good to keep that in mind.

RUSSIA
LAW FIRM Westside Law Firm
AUTHORS YEGOR KRAVCHENKO, Partner
CONTACT kravchenko@wslaw.ru +7(499)608 06 01
1 QUESTION
In Russia cryptocurrency is regulated by the Federal Law “On digital assets, digital currency and amendments to the
legislative acts of the Russian Federation» (the “Law”). The law was enacted on 31.07.2020 and entered into force on
01.01.2021.
The Law, inter alia, provides the definitions of “digital currency” (instead of “cryptocurrency”) and “digital financial assets”.
Digital financial assets are defined as digital rights including monetary claims, the ability to exercise rights to equity
securities, the right to participate in the capital of a non-public joint stock company, the right to demand the transfer of equity
securities. The circulation of digital financial assets is possible only by making (changing) entries in an information system
based on a distributed register as well as in other information systems.
The Law regulates issue and turnover of digital financial assets and digital currency as well as requirements for the
operators of information systems for issue and exchange of digital financial assets.
A number of federal laws in various fields were amended to get harmonized with the Law (federal laws “On Joint Stock
Companies”, “On Securities Market”, “On Counteracting Legalization (Laundering) of Criminally Obtained Incomes and
Financing of Terrorism", “On Central Bank of Russia”, “On Bankruptcy” etc.)
The courts have started to develop case law enforcing such changes. E.g., according to the acts of the Arbitrazh (state
commercial) Court, cryptocurrency was held an asset in the bankruptcy estate of a debtor.
Based on the Law the Central bank of Russia issues regulations (such as regulation dd. 25.11. 2020 N 5635-U on the digital
assets which may be owned only by qualified investors).
2 QUESTION
The requirements for the operators providing services regarding digital assets are set forth in the Law. The register of such
operators is maintained by the Central Bank of Russia.
Generally, the operators of information systems have the status similar to the professional participants of the securities
market, which are also regulated by the Central Bank of Russia.
The operators of information systems issuing the digital financial assets and the operators for exchange of digital financial
assets must be registered with the register maintained by the Bank of Russia. For this purpose, specific requirements for
internal policies and qualifications of executive officers of such operators are set forth by the Law. The Law also sets forth
49
RUSSIA
financial criteria for commercial entities to be included into the register of operators for exchange of digital financial assets:
they need to be either banks or bidding process organizer; other companies need to have of share capital amounting to
RUR 50 million and RUR 50 million of net assets.
QUESTION 3
The acceptance of cryptocurrency as consideration for buying goods is partially regulated: it is prohibited for the Russian
residents.
At the same time, it might be useful to have the legislation on currency control amended so that it sets a legal framework of
transfer of cryptocurrency by the Russian residents in cross-border transactions and of mining of cryptocurrency (which
issue is at present left blank).
QUESTION 4
do they have?
The Central Bank (Bank of Russia) is the regulator setting rules for the issue and turnover of digital assets. It introduces
regulatory acts, elaborates forms of documents, maintains the register of operators of information systems and supervises
the activities of such operators etc.
QUESTION 5
Cryptocurrency and digital assets in general are already treated as objects of civil rights and this approach is enforced by
the courts. However, the use of cryptocurrency as means of payment or as a consideration for goods and services
presently has serious restrictions, such as the prohibition for the Russian residents to accept it as a consideration.
QUESTION 6
The Law operates the term “digital currency”, which is a set of electronic data contained in the information system offered
and (or) can be accepted as a means of payment or as an investment, as opposed to Russian or foreign currencies. Digital
financial assets do not represent an obligation of any person except for the obligation of the operator of the information
3
system to ensure compliance with the procedure for the release of these electronic data and recording changes in its
status.

7 QUESTION
The Law regulates the issue and turnover of digital assets. At present there is an uncertainty in relation of the application of
these rules to all fundraising activities with the use of cryptocurrency.
8 QUESTION

The operators of information systems issuing the digital financial assets and the operators for exchange of digital financial
assets must be registered with the register maintained by the Bank of Russia.
The operator of the information system must elaborate the rules of such operation system, the requirements to which are
set forth by the Law and may be supplemented by the acts of the Central Bank.
9 QUESTION
The operators of information systems issuing the digital financial assets and digital financial assets operators are included
into the list of organizations (along with the banks, insurance companies, professional securities market participants etc.)
responsible for check of financial operations and reporting to the financial monitoring body.
10 QUESTION

The legislation is developing rapidly and the novelties are introduced regularly. Recently the Bank of Russia spoke of its
intention to issue its own cryptocurrency. We are anticipating that some changes in regulation may be introduced at this
stage.
11 QUESTION
Regulations relate to digital currency and digital financial assets, which are based on the distributed registers technology.
Necessity to integrate blockchain technology is mentioned in several official documents (such as “road maps” and
strategic goals declarations issued by various authorities), but there is no separate regulation for the use of blockchain if it
does not relate to digital financial assets and cryptocurrency.
51
RUSSIA
QUESTION 12
The Russian law sets forth several restrictions on the use of cryptocurrency but at present there is no unequivocal
legislation or positions of state authorities regarding the sanctions for the breach of such regulations. At present opinions
and legislative initiatives vary significantly from the necessity to issue digital financial assets by state owned corporations
to criminalization of mining of cryptocurrency.

SPAIN
LAW FIRM Thomás De Carranza Abogados
AUTHORS RAFAEL TRUAN BLANCO, Partner and CAMELIA HAMZA
CONTACT rafaeltb@tc-abogados.com +45 3319 3710
1 QUESTION
Other than a few drafts and guidance papers, there is no specific regulation on cryptocurrency in Spain. The Spanish
Securities and Exchange Commission ('CNMV') and the Bank of Spain issued two reports aimed at alerting investors
about the risk of crypto transactions and stated that cryptocurrencies are not issued, registered, authorized, or verified by
any regulatory agency in Spain. Nevertheless, regarding taxation, any profits derived from transactions with
cryptocurrencies are taxable under the Law on the Income Tax of Individuals. Moreover, Spain is currently in the process of
transposing the Fifth Directive (EU) 2018/843 through Royal Decree-Law 7/2021 which will compel crypto transactions to
comply with Spanish Anti-Money Laundering rules and to register with the Bank of Spain.
It is however worth mentioning autonomous regions regulations that mention crypto assets directly or indirectly:
Aragón (Spain) - Law on administrative simplification - Art. 51 bis - Use of distributed registries: includes the possibility
of using blockchain-based digital identity systems.
Navarra (Spain) - Ley Foral 21/2020: Modifies various taxes and other tax measures and imposes obligations related
to the transactions and holding of crypto assets.
As described in more detailed below, Law 11/2021, of July 9, on measures for the prevention and fight against tax fraud,
introduced for the common territory (Basque Country and Navarra are outside the common territory), the obligation to
declare a new block of assets located abroad corresponding to cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies.
2 QUESTION
As mentioned above, being that cryptocurrencies are not regulated in Spain, obtaining licenses from any regulatory
authority is not feasible. Companies trading or selling cryptocurrencies do not currently have an obligation to register with
the Bank of Spain, the CNMV, or any other official body.
3 QUESTION
Practically all aspects of Cryptocurrency have yet to be regulated in Spain. Cryptocurrencies are not considered as a
means of payment, are not backed by a central bank or other public authorities, and are not covered by customer protection
mechanisms such as the Deposit Guarantee Fund or the Investor Guarantee Fund.
53
SPAIN
QUESTION 4
do they have?
Seeing as there is no single comprehensive legislation regarding crypto, there is no single body that deals with enforcing
laws on cryptocurrencies. However, according to articles 240 bis and 292 of the Royal Decree-Law 5/2021, the CNMV is
the competent authority for the supervision of the advertising of crypto-assets or other assets and instruments that are
presented to the public as an investment opportunity. This is the case even if they are not activities or products subject to
regulation and/or supervision in Spain.
QUESTION 5
As aforementioned there is no specific regulation for cryptocurrencies for them to have a certain legal treatment; however,
they cannot be treated as legal tender as that is reserved exclusively for the euro as the national currency. The CNMV,
though unofficially, stated that virtual currencies per se should not be considered as securities either. Although, the sale of
Bitcoins is legal in Spain and so is establishing, managing, and exchanging them.
Moreover, the CNMV and the Bank of Spain's joint press statement (mentioned in Q1) discourage and warn investors from
investing in cryptocurrencies due to their highly unregulated, unsupervised, and risky nature. Despite cryptocurrencies
being occasionally classed as an alternative to legal tender, they have different characteristics:
“- The acceptance as a means of payment of a debt or other obligations is not mandatory

- Their circulation is very limited
- Their value fluctuates widely, meaning that they cannot be considered as a sound store of value or a stable unit of
account.”
QUESTION 6
Insofar as the European Union ('EU') is concerned, the Directive 2018/843 on the Prevention of the use of the Financial
System for the purposes of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing ('Fifth Directive') introduces the definition of virtual
currencies ('cryptocurrencies'). They are defined as the “digital representation of value that is not issued to a legally
established currency and does not possess a legal status of currency or money, but is accepted by natural or legal persons
as a means of exchange and which can be transferred, stored, and traded electronically”. Moreover, in the C-264/14
judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, it was highlighted that Bitcoin is a virtual currency whose exchange for traditional
currencies is exempt from VAT.
A definition of cryptocurrency further accepted in Spain is that of the World Bank: “a type of unregulated, digital money that
is issued, and usually controlled by its developers, used and accepted among members of a specific virtual community”.
As regards judicial decisions and binding consultations it is worth mentioning the replies from the State Secretariat of
Finance of the General Directorate of Taxes of the Ministry of Finance of Spain to binding consultations on crypto-assets.
They revolve around issues related to tax issues, including the application of VAT in the buying and selling of
cryptocurrencies.

As for Spanish judgments, we shall mention:
20 June 2019: First ruling of the Supreme Court on bitcoin in which it recalls that this crypto-asset is an intangible asset
that is not legally considered as money.
“Restitution of the bitcoins cannot be agreed…Bitcoin is not something that can be returned as it is not a material object,
nor does it have the legal status of money.”
6 February 2015: First ruling of the Provincial Court of Asturias, Spain, on bitcoin. The ruling brought forward three
conclusions:
A due diligence must be performed before accepting any payment from virtual currencies;
A full disclosure to the other party concerning the use of virtual currencies for payment; and
3 That virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, are considered 'alto riesgo' which translates to high risk. Hence the reason
behind the due diligence process and full disclosure.
7 QUESTION
The joint communication of the CNMV and the Bank of Spain on cryptocurrencies and ICOs states that transactions
structured as ICOs should be treated as issues or public offerings of transferable securities.
Article 2.1. of the Spanish Securities Law defining 'transferable security': “Any patrimonial right, regardless of its name,
which, because of its legal configuration and system of transfer, can be traded in a generalized and impersonal way on a
financial market.”
8 QUESTION

There is no specific regulation on cryptocurrency trading platforms, however, the CNMV has recommended that these
platforms, and as long as the assets traded are not considered as financial instruments, should voluntarily apply the
principles of securities market regulations and rules related to custody, registration, management of conflicts of interest
between clients, and transparency on fees. They should also adhere to anti-money laundering regulations.
9 QUESTION
The Spanish government launched a preliminary draft law amending the current anti-money laundering ('AML') legal
framework and transposing some EU AML provisions, including the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.
Moreover, the State Tax Administration Agency (Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria) issued the 2019 Tax and
Customs Control Plan which aims at laying out measures to reinforce the control of the use of cryptocurrencies due to its
increased use by crime organizations in the deep internet and the trafficking and trade in illegal goods. This plan states that
those who intervene as intermediaries in transactions with cryptocurrencies and their holders will have to disclose
information on those transactions. In this sense, the incorporation of cryptocurrencies into the model of goods and rights
abroad for tax purposes is envisaged, as well as the establishment of the above mentioned reporting obligation in the 2021
Tax and Customs Control Plan as part of the Draft Law on Measures to Prevent and Combat Tax Fraud.
55
SPAIN
QUESTION 10
As mentioned above there is a Draft Law on Prevention and Fight Against Tax Fraud which establishes two informational
obligations connected to holding and operating with virtual currencies in which exchanges are required to provide
information on the:
balances and transactions that cryptocurrency holders retain, and
cryptocurrency operations, such as acquisition, transmission, exchange, transfer, collections, and payments. In
addition, it would require cryptocurrency owners to disclose their holdings and any gains on their assets. Moreover, the
Government is working on passing the “Bill for the Digital Transformation of the Financial System” which includes
measures and legal frameworks for a regulatory sandbox.
QUESTION 11
Spain does not have any specific legislation regarding blockchain.
QUESTION 12
Legal practitioners must be made aware of certain issues regarding cryptocurrency in Spain. Such issues include:
Safeguarding users' crypto-assets

Having a private key to access crypto-asset funds stolen or made inaccessible due to a hack of the storage provider or
exchange platform can result in a loss of funds.
Thus, legal practitioners must be mindful of all issues regarding cybersecurity in the field of crypto-assets as once they
are stolen they could be found in illegal markets.
Inheritance of crypto-assets
The topic of inheritance is a difficult one as there are no regulations regarding cryptocurrencies, to begin with. However,
since cryptocurrency is considered an asset, it could be inherited as a person's inheritance includes all types of assets
and debts (physical or virtual).
It is advisable that when holding crypto-assets, a will should be drawn up stating the number of cryptos, and the key with
instructions to access the virtual wallet. In addition, a death certificate will be needed to change the cryptocurrencies to
the heir's name and prove that the person is indeed deceased.
Law 11/2021, of July 9, on measures for the prevention and fight against tax fraud, introduced for the common territory
(Basque Country and Navarra are outside the common territory), the obligation to declare a new block of assets located
abroad corresponding to cryptocurrencis or virtual currencies.
That is to say, as from 2021 cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies are part of the assets and rights located abroad (i.e.
balances in bank accounts, real estate, securities and insurance) susceptible to be declared.
This obligation will fall on the holders, beneficiaries, authorized persons or those who otherwise have the power of
disposal over the referred virtual currencies.
Therefore, as from 2022, the referred virtual currencies or cryptomoneys must be declared in the form 720

corresponding to the fiscal year 2021. However, as of December 2021, there is no regulation to develop this
requirement.
In the case of non-compliance with the obligation to report virtual currencies located abroad, the penalty will consist of a
fixed pecuniary fine of 5,000 euros for each piece of information or set of information referring to each virtual currency
individually considered according to its class, which should have been included in the declaration or which should have
been provided incompletely, inaccurately or falsely, with a minimum of 10,000 euros.
Meanwhile, the penalty will be 100 euros for each piece of data or set of data referring to each virtual currency
individually considered according to its class, with a minimum of 1,500 euros, when the tax return has been filed after
the deadline without prior request from the State Tax Administration Agency.
57
SRI LANKA
LAW FIRM D. L. & F. De Saram
AUTHORS HANSI ABAYARATNE, Partner
CONTACT savantha@desaram.com +9411 2695782
QUESTION 1
Cryptocurrencies, digital currencies or blockchain (“Virtual Currencies”) are largely unregulated in Sri Lanka. There is no
identified legal regime in Sri Lanka governing the usage, investment or dealing with Virtual Currencies.
However, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (“CBSL”) has issued public awareness notices alerting the citizens on the risk
associated with investing in Virtual Currencies. Furthermore, Virtual Currencies are not identified as a permitted
investment category under the Foreign Exchange Act No.12 of 2017 and regulations issued thereunder (Fx Laws). In terms
of Fx laws, carrying out cross border transactions dealing in Virtual Currencies via Electronic Fund Transfer Cards
(“EFTCs”) such as debit cards and credit cards are also not expressly permitted to be used for payments in foreign
currency related to Virtual Currencies transactions.
The Government of Sri Lanka (“GoSL”) has appointed a special committee to overlook the regularization of Virtual
Currencies and to examine the prospectus of using the same in a manner that may be beneficial to the financial market. It is
anticipated that a legal regime covering Virtual Currencies will be introduced.
QUESTION 2
CBSL, being the regulatory body for the financial market does not regulate the Virtual Currencies Industry and has not
issued any license or authorization to any entity or company to operate schemes involving Virtual Currencies, and has not
authorized any mining operations or Virtual Currencies exchanges.
QUESTION 3
There are no regulatory safeguards relating to the usage, investment or dealing in Virtual Currencies in Sri Lanka.

4 QUESTION
do they have?
Please note our responses above. Presently, there are no laws governing Virtual Currencies. Introduction,
implementations and enforcement of laws relating to Virtual Currencies will be the responsibility of CBSL and the
Department of Foreign Exchange of the CBSL.
5 QUESTION
The lack of applicable laws, regulations or policies regarding Virtual Currencies has made this a grey area in Sri Lanka and
has led to this being met with scepticism from the finance sector. However, in wake of the recent popularity it has gained
globally, the GoSL has appointed a committee to study the subject in the hope of making it beneficial to the economic and
financial development of Sri Lanka. The committee is yet to share its recommendations on Virtual Currencies.
The CBSL, however, has warned the general public of the significant financial, operational, legal, customer protection and
security-related risks posed by investments in Virtual Currencies to the users as well as to the economy and has
highlighted that Virtual Currencies are not issued by CBSL and are not generally backed by underlying assets. Therefore,
the value of Virtual Currencies is determined by speculation of the public on Virtual Currencies exchanges. This is viewed
as a deterrent message to the investors in Virtual Currencies.
6 QUESTION
There is no legal definition for Virtual Currencies in Sri Lanka. However as there are merchants in Sri Lanka who have
begun accepting payments in crypto currencies it could be said that is socially accepted as a currency as opposed to a
property or commodity.
7 QUESTION
CBSL has not given any license or authorization to any entity or company to operate schemes involving Virtual Currencies,
including cryptocurrency, and has not authorized any ICOs, mining operations or Virtual Currency exchanges. Any
fundraiser activities involving Virtual Currencies are prohibited in Sri Lanka, unless licensed or authorized by the CBSL.
59
SRI LANKA
QUESTION 8
The operation of Virtual Currencies exchanges and trading platforms are currently not regulated in Sri Lanka.
QUESTION 9
The international Anti-Money Laundering/ Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) standards set out by the
Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which are elaborated through 40 Recommendations. revised Recommendation 15,
requires all countries to adopt measures inrelation to Virtual Assets (VAs) and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs)
which includes cryptocurrencies and other cryptocurrency service providers such as cryptocurrency exchanges. When
reassessed by the Asia Group on Money Laundering (APG), Sri Lanka was found with several deficiencies in meeting
obligations set out in the revised FATF Recommendation 15 as per the assessment report. Sri Lanka has not adopted a
comprehensive regulatory framework at present. However, as the Central Bank is represented in the Expert Committee
appointed to formulate Sri Lanka's national policy on digital banking, blockchain and cryptocurrency mining it is expected
that this deficiency will be addressed as it was tasked with studying the laws and regulations of other countries in terms of
anti-money laundering, terrorism financing, criminal activities, and the Know Your Customer processes.
QUESTION 10
There is no bill in process at present with regard to Virtual Currencies. However, based on the observations and
recommendations shared by the committee in charge of Virtual Currencies and Block chain technology, there are
prospects of Sri Lanka building a national policy and legal framework with regard to digital currencies and block chain
technology in the near future.
QUESTION 11
Blockchain technology is not regulated in Sri Lanka. However, a committee has been appointed to study and formulate Sri
Lanka's national policy and framework on block chain technology and cryptocurrencies.

12 QUESTION
The key issue surrounding cryptocurrency at present is money laundering. Since the use of local credit and debit cards for
the purchase of cryptocurrency has been prohibited, the only form of payment available to purchase is cash. As a result,
money is most often sent out of Sri Lanka illegally for purchases and then brought to the country for sale. While there is no
applicable law relating to the currency itself and therefore, no infringement in obtaining it, how it is obtained at present will
include money being laundered out of the country at some point in the process of the currency exchange. Additionally, the
currency itself is used as a means of sending money out of the country illegally due to the strict exchange control
regulations in place at present.
61
UNITED KINGDOM
LAW FIRM Brown Rudnick LLP
AUTHORS TIM DAVISON, Partner
CONTACT tdavison@brownrudnick.com +44.20.7851.6143
QUESTION 1
There is currently no specific cryptocurrency law in the UK because cryptocurrencies are regulated largely through existing
regulation and legislation, including laws that cover other activity related to the cryptocurrency business.
In the UK, regulatory authorities prefer the term “cryptoassets”, rather than cryptocurrencies and, at present, a large
proportion of cryptoassets fall outside or are likely to fall outside current regulatory provisions. This means they may not be
subject to the same consumer protections or safeguards found in other areas of financial services and payments.
Due to the relative lack of consumer safeguards, financial regulators in the UK have issued warnings relating to any
investment in cryptoassets. They are not, however, subject to a general prohibition in the UK. As set out in section 5 below,
certain cryptoassets are regulated. Anti-money laundering regulations have also been extended to capture a broader
range of activities in relation to cryptoassets (including cryptocurrencies), irrespective of whether such activities are
subject to financial regulation.
When assessing if a particular cryptoasset or services relating to cryptoassets are subject to regulation in the UK,
consideration will need to be given about whether it falls under the wide reaching financial regulatory ambit of Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), consumer protection laws, the anti-money laundering regime or otherwise under
the payment services and electronic money regime of the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (“PSRs”) and the Electronic
Money Regulations 2011 (“EMRs”).
The current UK regulatory and legislative policy towards cryptoassets was set out in a report by the UK Cryptoassets
Taskforce (the “Taskforce”), published in October 2018 but this guidance was very basic and continues to evolve. The UK’s
Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has undertaken further consultation and subsequently published guidance on the
regulation of cryptoassets.
In the UK “cryptoassets” (defined widely to include cryptocurrencies) are not considered money or equivalent to fiat
currency in the UK. The Bank of England has, however, launched a discussion paper on how a central bank digital currency
might be constituted.
QUESTION 2
The applicable legislation will largely depend on the nature of the activities being undertaken.
The PSRs and the EMRs are the main UK laws which establish a regulatory framework applicable to those undertaking
payment services (including services such as money remittance and issuing electronic money) in the UK. This includes
authorisation, organisational, regulatory capital, safeguarding and conduct of business requirements.

The applicability of such laws will depend on whether the service is in respect of “payment services” or “a money service
business”:
A “Payment services”, as defined by the PSRs, necessarily involve 'funds' and cryptocurrencies are not considered
funds for these purposes. A list of payment services is set out in the PSRs and includes e-money issuers and money
remitters.
As such, if offering products and services that only involve cryptocurrencies (e.g. a crypto-to-crypto exchange) this will not
usually constitute a payment service. The FCA has, however, noted certain exceptions to this rule where the products or
services are deemed to be “e-money tokens”. For example, where a stablecoin is structured in a manner that constitutes
electronic money, a provider of products or services issuing or providing wallet services in relation to such a stablecoin
would be likely to trigger the application of both the PSRs and EMRs.
However, where fiat currency is involved (e.g., in the context of a fiat-to-crypto exchange) there will be funds involved.
Therefore, in such circumstances it would be necessary to undertake further analysis of the services to determine if
payment services are being provided and, if so, how the PSRs and EMRs might apply.
B A “Money Service Business” is defined by the FCA as carrying on a business that:

operates a bureau de change; or
transmits money, or any representation of monetary value, by any means; or
cashes cheques which are made payable to customers.
For example, any gambling business wishing to offer gambling facilities/virtual currencies that can be exchanged for cash
or traded for items need to hold an operating licence.
If the relevant business is a Money Service Business, then it will need to register with HM Revenue and Customs
(“HMRC”). If the business is already supervised by the FCA, it is not necessary for it to also register with HMRC.
Any cryptocurrency business that meets one or more of the following criteria must seek permission from, and register with,
the FCA:
A registered or head office in the UK;
Continuation of the day-to-day management of activities from a UK office, irrespective of where, geographically, the
crypto-asset activity is conducted;
Operation of one or more ATM(s) in the UK; or
A UK presence that is engaged in or facilitates crypto-asset activities.
Where a business has no UK-based office or undertakes no regulated activities within the UK – beyond merely having UK-
based clients – the business does not need to register with the FCA.
From 10 January 2020, the FCA became the anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) supervisor
for these types of firms, including firms that exchange money to and from cryptoassets and those that safeguard their
customers' cryptoassets. From this date, 'existing cryptoasset businesses' (i.e. firms operating immediately before 10
January 2020) have had to comply with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on
the Payer) Regulations 2017 (the “MLRs”); such firms were required to register by 16 December 2020 (though, provided
they registered by 16 December 2020, they may continue to operate until 31 March 2022, while their applications are being
considered by the FCA).
New businesses (who began operating after 10 January 2020), are required to obtain full registration with the FCA before
conducting business.
The FCA is advising consumers who deal with cryptoasset firms to:
Check if the firm they use is on the FCA's Register or list of firms with Temporary Registration.
If they are not, check whether they are entitled to carry on business without being registered with the FCA (this may
apply if they are registered in a different country).
Businesses involved in cryptoassets includes the operation of cryptocurrency ATMs and cryptocurrency exchanges. The
FCA has released further guidance on the requirement for authorisation but, in summary, a cryptocurrency exchange in
the UK must be registered with the FCA but whether it requires authorisation will depend on whether its activities fall under
the FCA's scope for financial activity.
63
UK
QUESTION 3
As mentioned in section 5 below, any token that is not a 'security token' or an 'e-money token' is an unregulated token. This
includes utility tokens (that are not e-money) and exchange tokens.
The FCA has warned that, for those cryptoassets that are unregulated and so fall outside the regulatory perimeter, there is
little protection for individual investors who choose to buy them and use them as a means of payment or exchange (other
than in contract law and consumer law but with no access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial
Ombudsman Service). Whether a cryptoasset (including crypto tokens issued as part of an ICO) falls within the perimeter
will be fact specific.
With the exception of the application of the MLRs to cryptoasset business, the FCA does not regulate the sale or transfer of
exchange tokens or intervene on behalf of consumers who lose their investments, whether as a result of volatility, loss of
cryptographic keys or hacking of exchanges.
However, certain activities that are not regulated under FSMA, but which use unregulated tokens, may be regulated, for
example, under the PSRs when used to facilitate regulated payments.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
Under FSMA, all financial activities within the UK must be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and to be
regulated, the FCA or the Prudential Regulation Authority (“PRA”) must authorise businesses (including not for profit and
sole traders).
The FCA use a wide range of enforcement powers – criminal, civil and regulatory and can take action such as:
withdrawing a firm's authorisation;
prohibiting individuals from carrying on regulated activities;
suspending firms and individuals from undertaking regulated activities;
issuing fines against firms and individuals who breach our rules or commit market abuse;
issuing fines against firms breaching competition laws;
making a public announcement when the FCA begin disciplinary action and publishing details of warning, decision and
final notices;
applying to the courts for injunctions, restitution orders, winding-up and other insolvency orders;
bringing criminal prosecutions to tackle financial crime, such as insider dealing, unauthorised business and false
claims to be FCA authorised; and
issuing warnings and alerts about unauthorised firms and individuals and requesting that web hosts deactivate
associated websites.
The PRA supervises the most significant institutions - its remit includes banks, building societies, credit unions and
insurers, as well as investment firms that have been designated. It has the power to impose a financial penalty or public
censure, for example. They can also prohibit an individual from working in the regulated financial services sector. They can
also vary a PRA-authorised firm's permissions to undertake regulated activities or require a firm to undertake or stop an
action.

5 QUESTION
In 2019 the FCA published its 'Guidance on cryptoassets' which described three broad categories of token in relation to
how they fit within existing FCA regulation: “e-money tokens”, “security tokens” and “unregulated tokens”:
A “e-money tokens” meet the definition of 'electronic money' in the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (the “EMRs”)
– broadly, digital payment instruments that store value, can be redeemed at par value, at any time and offer holders a direct
claim on the issuer. The FCA defines electronic money as follows:
“Electronic money (e-money) is electronically (including magnetically) stored monetary value, represented by a claim on
the issuer, which is issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions. It must be accepted as a
means of payment by a person other than the electronic money issuer. Types of e-money include: pre-paid cards and
electronic pre-paid accounts for online use.”
B “security tokens” have characteristics akin to specified investments, like a share or a debt instrument, as set out in
existing UK legislation, The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (the “RAO”).
Broadly, these are likely to be tokenised, digital forms of traditional securities or investments with rights to profits in an
enterprise. As with e-money tokens, these are already within the UK's regulatory perimeter and therefore subject to FCA
regulation.
C “unregulated tokens” are neither e-money tokens nor security tokens and include:
I utility tokens: tokens used to buy a service, or access a distributed leger technology (“DLT”) platform – this
could, for example, include access to online cloud storage; and
II exchange tokens: tokens that are primarily used as a means of exchange – this includes widely known
cryptoassets such as Bitcoin, Ether and XRP.
The FCA's classification of tokens above aimed to provide guidance on which tokens may lie within the FCA's regulatory
perimeter and may be subject to its regulation. However different classification methodologies exist, for example by
categorising tokens according to their economic function (for example, 'payment tokens and investment tokens'), or other
relevant characteristics, such as the rights they confer to users. Classifications have also evolved in line with the changing
nature of the market.
The kinds of instruments that are regulated under FSMA are set out in the RAO and known as “specified investments”,
including instruments such as shares, bonds , fund interests and derivative contracts. Therefore, in order to determine
whether a given cryptocurrency is subject to financial regulation in the UK, it is necessary to analyse whether it matches the
definition of any specified investment in the RAO. Those cryptoassets that do are labelled “security tokens” in the FCA
Guidance and will typically be subject to UK financial regulation.
To provide continuity and clarity for market participants, the British government proposes to maintain the FCA's broad
approach to classification as far as possible. However, to reflect the proposal to bring additional tokens and associated
activities into regulation, the government is currently considering whether a new category of regulated tokens may be
needed known as “stable tokens”.
In considering this classification, the government and the Taskforce in the UK recognise that, whilst cryptoassets are
typically underpinned by DLT, stable tokens could be designed using other types of technology. This classification is
therefore agnostic on the technology underpinning its use (e.g. whether it relies on DLT or not).
The market participants that will most likely need to be authorised to carry on activities involving regulated cryptoassets are
exchanges and trading platforms, custodian and wallet providers, payment providers and advisers, brokers and other
intermediaries. Issuers of security tokens (which are equivalent to shares and debentures) are unlikely to be carrying on a
regulated activity when they issue tokens, although they will need to comply with other regulatory obligations.
The FCA has established a formal Innovation Division which encompasses the regulator's various initiatives relating to
innovation in financial services that it has developed over recent years. Notably in relation to promotion and testing,
beneath this umbrella sit:
65
UK
The FCA's Regulatory Sandbox – this allows both authorised and unauthorised businesses to test their proposed
products in the market with real consumers provided they meet certain eligibility criteria. Successful applicants may
benefit from the various Sandbox “tools” that the FCA can deploy to facilitate real-world testing, such as restricted
authorisation, individual guidance, informal steers, waivers and no-enforcement action letters.
The Global Financial Innovation Network – this evolved from the FCA's proposal to create a global Sandbox and seeks
to provide a more efficient way for businesses in this space to interact with regulators across multiple jurisdictions,
assisting them to move between countries as they seek to grow their products, services or business models.
The FCA's Innovation Hub – this offers direct support from the FCA to eligible innovative businesses by providing a
dedicated contact for innovator businesses that are considering applying for authorisation or a variation of permission,
need support when doing so, or do not need to be authorised but could benefit from FCA support.
QUESTION 6
The UK regulatory authorities prefer the term cryptoassets, rather than cryptocurrencies, as it is more neutral and captures
a broader range of tokens than just those designed to act as a means of exchange in online transfers (to which the term
cryptocurrency typically applies). The term “cryptoasset” is not, however, defined in legislation or in the FCA Handbook.
The Taskforce has defined cryptoassets as:
"cryptographically secured digital representations of value or contractual rights that use [that is, are built on] some type
of DLT [this includes blockchain] and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically."
TheTaskforce has categorised cryptoassets into types of “token”, which are distinguished by their different characteristics
(as set out in section 5 above) and, in this regard, a 'standard' cryptocurrency (such as Bitcoin and Ether) would be
classified as an “unregulated token” but this analysis may be different for different forms of cryptocurrencies.
It should be noted that in some cases the terms “virtual asset” and “digital asset”, and “virtual currency” and “digital
currency” are used interchangeably with cryptoasset and cryptocurrency. However, sometimes the scope of the assets
that fall within those terms is different and care should be taken not to assume the terms have the same meaning.
The UK government established a Cryptoassets Taskforce, comprising the FCA, the Bank of England (BoE) and HM
Treasury, to assess the policy and regulatory implications of cryptoassets, and the underlying technology (distributed
ledger technology (DLT)) in financial services.
The taskforce has established a framework for categorising cryptoassets, which the FCA has subsequently used as
starting point for producing guidance on the extent to which different types of cryptoasset fall within the regulatory
perimeter set by FSMA and the RAO.
QUESTION 7
Initial Coin Offering
At this time, this term has not been defined by UK legislation. An ICO may or may not fall within the FCA's regulatory
perimeter depending on the nature of the tokens (the terms used by the FCA to denote different types of cryptoassets)
issued, and the legal and regulatory position of each ICO proposition must be assessed on a case by case basis.

Security tokens
Security tokens are currently defined by the FCA as any token, which constitutes a “specified investment” (i.e. an
investment regulated in the UK). Therefore, if a token has the same or similar characteristics to a “share” or “debenture” it
would likely be deemed to be a specified investment and, as such, any regulated activity in relation to that token (e.g.
arranging for persons to acquire the security token) will be regulated in the UK. The FCA has noted that even if a token
which looks like a share is not a transferable security (for instance, it has restrictions on transferability), it may still be
capable of being a “specified investment” for UK purposes and therefore regulated.
Initial Exchange Offering
At this time, this term has not been defined by UK legislation.
Stable Coins
As stated above in section 4, the UK government is currently considering the establishment of a new regulated stable token
category which would apply to tokens that seek to stabilise their value volatility by reference to other assets as well as other
payment tokens and tokenised central bank money.
A stablecoin structured in a way that means it constitutes electronic money - issuing or providing wallet services in relation
to such a stablecoin - would be likely to trigger the application of both the PSRs and EMRs.
8 QUESTION

There is no regulatory regime that deals uniquely with cryptocurrency trading platforms. Instead, the current laws and
regulations apply. In addition to the regulations and legislation already noted elsewhere in this UK guide, there are certain
sales regulations which should be considered relating to the sale of cryptocurrencies in the UK. These principally fall into
the following three areas:
UK prospectus requirements
FSMA, in conjunction with the EU Prospectus Regulation, imposes requirements for an approved prospectus to have been
made available to the public before: a) transferable securities are offered to the public in the UK; or b) a request is made for
transferable securities to be admitted to a regulated market situated or operating in the UK, unless an exemption applies.
Guidance from the FCA provides that cryptocurrencies that are security tokens (i.e., only those cryptocurrencies that
amount to a specified investment under the RAO other than electronic money) may be transferable securities.
Cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ether, for example) and cryptocurrencies with substantially similar
features to such cryptocurrencies are likely to be regarded as exchange tokens, rather than security tokens. Therefore, the
UK prospectus requirements should not generally apply to the sales of such cryptocurrencies but care should be taken in
each case.
UK restriction on financial promotions
FSMA also contains a restriction on 'financial promotions', which apply separately and in addition to the UK prospectus
requirements. In short a person who is not appropriately authorised must not, in the course of business, communicate an
invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity in a way that is capable of having an effect in the UK unless the
communication is approved by an appropriately authorised person or an exemption applies.
Sales of cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ether) and cryptocurrencies with substantially similar features to
these cryptocurrencies should not generally breach the UK restrictions on financial promotions. However, we would advise
that an analysis of the sale in question should be performed in each case as related offerings, such as funds providing
exposure to unregulated cryptocurrencies, may well breach the restrictions, although certain exemptions may be relevant.
General advertising, online/ distance selling and consumer protection legislation
In addition to the UK financial regulatory framework, there is various general advertising, online/distance selling and
consumer protection legislation that is potentially applicable to sales of cryptocurrencies or the offering of services related
to cryptocurrencies (such as exchange or wallet services) in or from the UK.
67
UK
Certain of these provide consumers with significant statutory rights and remedies against supplies of goods, services and
digital content and impose restrictions on the kinds of contractual terms that can be enforced against consumers. The
application of such legislation may also depend on whether or not the business being conducted is subject to UK financial
regulation.
The FCA imposed a ban on the marketing, distribution and sale to retail clients of derivatives and exchange traded notes
(ETNs) referencing certain types of cryptoassets with effect from 6 January 2021. The ban applies to products referencing
unregulated transferable cryptoassets. It does not relate to security tokens (that is, those that qualify as specified
investments), which fall inside the FCA's regulatory remit. So, derivatives referencing security tokens are not within scope
of the ban.
For the purposes of this ban, "marketing" includes but is not limited to communicating and approving financial promotions.
Distribution or sale includes dealing in relation to cryptoasset derivatives and cryptoasset exchange traded notes.
QUESTION 9
UK AML requirements are principally contained in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds
(Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (“MLRs”).
The MLRs implement the Fourth EU Money Laundering Directive in the UK and impose various requirements on
businesses that are within their scope, including: the requirement to perform a firm-level AML risk assessment;
organisational requirements relating to AML (including systems and controls and record-keeping requirements); customer
due diligence obligations when establishing a business relationship with a customer or when transacting above a certain
threshold; and ongoing monitoring obligations. The MLRs only apply to those businesses that have been identified as the
most vulnerable to the risk of being used for money laundering or terrorist financing.
On 10 January 2020, the MLRs were amended to incorporate the Fifth EU Money Laundering Directive (“MLD5”) into UK
law. This change brought Cryptoasset Exchange Providers (“CEPs”) and Custodian Wallet Providers (“CWPs”) within the
scope of the MLRs. As such, the MLRs impact upon any person conducting cryptoasset business of a kind that is captured
by the new definitions of CEP or CWP in the UK (including, for example, existing UK authorised financial services firms that
carry on relevant cryptoasset business).
For the purposes of the MLRs, “CEPs”, “CWPs” are defined as follows:
CEP: “a firm or sole practitioner who by way of business provides one or more of the following services, including where the
firm or sole practitioner does so as creator or issuer of any of the cryptoassets involved, when providing such services:
A exchanging, or arranging or making arrangements with a view to the exchange of, cryptoassets for money or
money for cryptoassets,
B exchanging, or arranging or making arrangements with a view to the exchange of, one cryptoasset for another, or
C operating a machine which utilises automated processes to exchange cryptoassets for money or money for
cryptoassets.”
CWP: “a firm or sole practitioner who by way of business provides services to safeguard, or to safeguard and administer:
A cryptoassets on behalf of its customers, or
B private cryptographic keys on behalf of its customers in order to hold, store and transfer cryptoassets, when
providing such services.”
A person may be a CEP or CWP irrespective of whether they are otherwise regulated in the UK if they carry on cryptoasset
business of a kind that is captured by the above definitions. As such, the new requirements relating to cryptoasset business
in the MLRs apply to both regulated and unregulated cryptoasset businesses in the UK. Notably, the definition of a CEP
goes beyond the requirements of MLD5, capturing crypto-to-crypto exchanges (in addition to crypto-to-fiat exchanges).
The CEP definition may also capture market participants that would not ordinarily be regarded as 'exchanges'. For
example, cryptoasset brokers that buy and sell cryptoassets for their customers or for their own account are likely to be
captured by the definition, in addition to exchanges that facilitate interactions between buyers and sellers of cryptoassets.
Issuers of cryptoassets may also be captured in certain circumstances.
Typically, providers of non-custodial cryptoasset wallet software will not be captured by the CWP definition.
CEPs and CWPs are required to register with the FCA before carrying on relevant cryptoasset business in the UK. The FCA
clarified that existing UK authorised persons (including existing UK banks, investment firms, electronic money institutions

and payment services businesses) undertaking relevant cryptoasset business must apply for registration. Registration
must be completed via the FCA's online system, Connect, and applicants must provide a significant amount of information
relating to their business and all staff who hold relevant functions to allow the FCA to assess whether or not the applicant is
fit and proper. An applicant for registration must provide various information, including: a programme of operations; a
business plan; a description of the applicant's structural organisation; a detailed guide to the applicant's IT systems and
controls; and details of relevant individuals, beneficial owners and close links.
In addition to the ordinary AML requirements that apply generally to businesses within the scope of the MLRs (including
CEPs and CWPs), there is a specific additional requirement that a business whose relevant cryptoasset activity does not
fall within the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme must inform its
customers of this fact before entering into a relevant business relationship or transaction. There are also specific reporting
requirements that apply to CEPs and CWPs.
In the UK a private sector body, the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, published sector-specific guidance relating to
cryptoasset businesses. This guidance clarified the scope of the MLRs in relation to cryptoassets, discussed the money
laundering and terrorist financing risks pertinent to the sector, assessed these risks and provided guidance on how CEPs
and CWPs might interpret the AML requirements under the MLRs (e.g., customer due diligence, transaction analysis,
record keeping and sanctions screening) as would be appropriate to the cryptoasset sector.
The FCA is the anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisor of certain UK cryptoasset
businesses under MLRs.
The MLRs allow for a risk-based approach to AML and CTF. Among other things, this degree of flexibility is intended to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the systems and controls cryptoasset businesses put in place. Senior
management of cryptoasset businesses have the flexibility to develop and manage their business to minimise and mitigate
the money laundering and terrorist financing risks in a tailored way. This means they can focus their business' resources
where they are most effective and where the risk is highest.
The UK government's AML and CTF policy is to keep the MLRs high level and support them with industry guidance.
The regime for cryptoasset businesses under the MLRs came into force on 10 January 2020. The FCA has expected
cryptoasset businesses to comply with regime since this date, whether or not they are yet FCA registered under the MLRs.
Amendments to the MLRs made to reflect the UK's withdrawal from the EU came into force at the end of the Brexit transition
period at 11pm on 31 December 2020. However, by virtue of an FCA standstill direction, firms have until 31 March 2022 to
comply with these changes.
The PSRs regulate activities with regards to funds, which are defined as "banknotes and coins, scriptural money and
electronic money". This means that services relating to cryptoassets themselves, such as the operation of a cryptoasset
account or transmission of cryptoassets are not within the scope of the PSRs (unless the cryptoasset in question meets the
definition of “e-money”).
However, a payment service that relates to funds and uses cryptoassets to facilitate the service will be in scope. The
regulated payment service is the payment service provided to specific clients (for example, clients at each end of a money
remittance service). The dealings between PSPs to deliver the end payment arising from that service (which might involve
the use of cryptoassets) is not regulated.
Generally, the MLRs apply to businesses identified as most vulnerable to the risk of being used for money laundering and
terrorist financing purposes. Businesses within scope are referred to in the MLRs as "relevant persons". (Relevant persons
include "cryptoasset exchange providers" and "custodian wallet providers"). Cryptoasset exchange providers and
custodian wallet providers are only relevant persons if they are acting in the course of business carried on in the UK.
10 QUESTION

Not at this time. As noted above, the UK Government is currently consulting on stable tokens as a means of payment. If the
Government's proposals are adopted, the FCA will consult on rules applying these proposals. It would mean stable tokens
used for payment and services would in the future become regulated giving consumers protections under the rules.
HM Treasury is consulting on proposals to expand the perimeter of the financial promotion regime to bring the promotion of
certain types of unregulated cryptoassets within its scope. It is also consulting on proposals to tighten up the approval
process for financial promotions, proposing in one option that the approval of financial promotions should be regulated
under the RAO as a regulated activity.
69
UK
11 QUESTION
There is no blockchain-specific legislation or regulatory rules addressing blockchain technologies in the UK. As noted
above, certain activities using blockchain technology may still be regulated but this will depend on the specific activity and
the nature of the underlying technology itself.
This means that to determine whether an institution is carrying on a regulated activity relating to a cryptoasset that requires
it to be authorised under FSMA, the same considerations apply as for any other activity.
12 QUESTION
In the interests of improving legal certainty in this regard, the UK Jurisdiction Task force of the UK government's LawTech
Delivery Panel (“UKJT”) consulted on what it perceived to be the principal issues of legal uncertainty about the status of
cryptoassets (including cryptocurrencies) and smart contracts under English private law. These included questions
focused on:
whether and how cryptoassets can be characterised as personal property;
whether cryptoassets are amenable to concepts such as possession and bailment;
whether and how security interests may be granted over cryptoassets; and
how cryptoassets should be treated for the purposes of UK insolvency law.
In a legal statement, the UKJT concluded that cryptoassets have all the legal characteristics of property and should, as a
matter of English legal principle, be treated as property. The statement also concluded that the intangibility of cryptoassets
should not disqualify them from being property. Since the publication of the legal statement (which in itself is not legally
binding) it has been adopted by the High Court, which held in one case, AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 2556
(Comm), that cryptoassets were a form of property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction.
As to licensing requirements, whether or not a person requires authorisation to perform their activities in relation to
cryptocurrencies in the UK will depend on whether they are conducting “regulated activities” as defined by FSMA, or
payment services/e-money activities that require authorisation under the PSRs or the EMRs. The registration requirement
for cryptoasset businesses under the MLRs must also be kept in mind. As noted above, a person's activities in relation to
cryptocurrencies may still be subject to UK financial regulation even where the underlying cryptocurrency involved is not a
specified investment. A classic example of this is establishing, operating, marketing or managing a fund that offers
exposure to unregulated cryptocurrencies by way of business - this kind of activity may well trigger licensing requirements
in the UK. For the time being, cryptocurrencies are also unlikely to be permissible for inclusion in fund products (for
example, exchangetraded funds) that require approval from the FCA: it has been made clear that the FCA will not authorise
or approve the listing of a transferable security or a fund that references exchange tokens unless it has confidence in the
integrity of the underlying market and that other regulatory criteria for funds authorisation are met.
Currently, there are no bespoke UK tax rules applicable to cryptocurrencies. Therefore, existing tax principles and rules
apply generally (although some uncertainty remains as to their application).
The UK tax authority HMRC considers that cryptoassets are cryptographically secured digital representations of value or
contractual rights that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically (i.e., the definition adopted by the Taskforce).
HMRC has identified three types of cryptoassets - exchange tokens, utility tokens and security tokens. However, HMRC
will look at the facts of each case and apply the relevant tax provisions according to what has actually taken place. The
classification of crypto assets is not necessarily determinative of their tax treatment, which will depend on the nature and
use of the cryptoasset in question.

USA
LAW FIRM Brown Rudnick LLP
AUTHORS BrownRudnick's “Digital Commerce Practice”
CONTACT brownrudnick.com/contact-us +1 617 856 8586
1 QUESTION
I At the Federal Level
In the United States, no federal statute or comprehensive body of regulation has been enacted which governs
cryptocurrencies or transactions in cryptocurrencies.1 This is, perhaps, not surprising, given that a cryptocurrency, in itself,
does not have inherent attributes that determine its legal nature. In the broadest possible sense, cryptocurrencies
constitute a form of “property” and, viewed in that light, they are subject to the state (not federal) laws that govern property
rights in the U.S.
Nevertheless, because the creators of cryptocurrencies often grant them specific legal attributes, it is by reference to those
attributes that cryptocurrencies have been regulated by U.S. federal law. Some of the federal legal regimes that have been
applied to cryptocurrencies, or transactions in cryptocurrencies, include:
a Securities Laws. A cryptocurrency that represents a security is governed by the same laws and regulations
applicable to securities in general. That is the case, for example, of a bond, note or share of common stock issued in
the form of a cryptocurrency.
In addition, because cryptocurrencies have been widely used as instruments to raise capital, it is not surprising that
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that administers the federal securities laws in the U.S.
(the “SEC”), developed an early interest in them. The process of finding that transactions in cryptocurrencies are
subject to the federal securities laws was made possible by the fact that the definition of “security” in such laws
includes, not only instruments traditionally considered as such (like shares of common or preferred stock or bonds),
but also transactions entered into as a result of one party having led the other to the agreement by creating in the latter
expectations of profit similar to those that typically accompany an investment in a security. These transactions,
referred to in the federal securities statutes as “investment contracts” constitute “securities” in their own right,
irrespective of the nature of the subject matter involved.2
This being the case, it is not surprising that entrepreneurs that have sold so-called digital “tokens” (a form of
cryptocurrency) as a means to raise capital for the further development of projects that may one day provide the
platform in which the token could have a practical use have been found to have violated the provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), which, subject to certain exemptions, require registration
with the SEC of any offering or sale of securities.
Similarly, market intermediaries that facilitate or otherwise become involved in putting together sellers and buyers of
cryptocurrencies, as well as the electronic venues where such buyers and sellers interact with each other, have been
1 As used in this document, “cryptocurrency” refers to an encrypted digital record created and susceptible to being transferred pursuant to protocols that
use distributed ledger technology.
2 The 1946 Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, held that “an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a
contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the
promoter or a third party.” This definition gave rise to the so-called Howey Test according to which a finding that a transaction constitutes an investment
contract requires proof of (i) an investment of money, (ii) in a common enterprise, (iii) where investors are led to expect profits, (iv) from the efforts of
others. Over the years courts and regulators have found that an investment contract may exist in the sale of assets as varied as orange groves (the
asset involved in Howey), real estate, whiskey warehouse receipts, claims under life insurance policies, etc.
71
USA
found to have violated the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), that
requires registration with the SEC of securities brokers and the operators of securities exchanges.3
The SEC announced how it intended to approach transactions in cryptocurrencies on July 25, 2017, when it
published what became known as The DAO Report. In the Report, the SEC indicated that:
“The Commission is aware that virtual organizations and associated individuals and entities increasingly are
using distributed ledger technology to offer and sell instruments such as DAO Tokens to raise capital. These
offers and sales have been referred to, among other things, as “Initial Coin Offerings” or “Token Sales.”
Accordingly, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to issue this Report in order to
stress that the U.S. federal securities law may apply to various activities, including distributed ledger
technology, depending on the particular facts and circumstances, without regard to the form of the organization
or technology used to effectuate a particular offer or sale. In this Report, the Commission considers
the particular facts and circumstances of the offer and sale of DAO Tokens to demonstrate the application of
existing U.S. federal securities laws to this new paradigm.”
Additional informal guidance on the application of the federal securities laws to transactions in cryptocurrencies came
in the form of:
Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic), a speech delivered by the Director of the Division of
Corporation Finance on June 14, 2018, at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto; and
The Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading, the November 16, 2018, collective guidance of
the staffs of the SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets and Investment Management
regarding the application of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and other relevant statutes to issuers of and traders
in and trading venues for cryptocurrencies.
In 2019, the staff of the SEC provided more granular guidance regarding their approach to the examination of
cryptocurrencies under the Securities Act by publishing the Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital
Assets.4
Additional information regarding how the SEC applies to cryptocurrencies the federal statutes it administers may be
found on the site of the SEC's Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology (“FinHub”), the SEC’s office
specialized in the application of the securities laws to innovative technologies.
b Commodities and Derivatives Regulations. Commodities and derivatives are regulated in the U.S. under the
federal Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”), a statute that has been applied to transactions in cryptocurrencies
found not to involve securities, and to venues where derivatives on cryptocurrencies are traded.5 The Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the federal agency that administers the CEA, primarily regulates commodity
derivatives contracts, the venues where such contracts are traded and the participants in such markets. The CFTC
has limited regulatory authority regarding commodity cash markets; however, that limited authority does extend to
anti-fraud and antimanipulation activities in such6cash markets.
The CFTC considers Bitcoin, and other virtual currencies,7 as commodities for the purposes of the CEA.8 Given the
broad definition of “commodity” in the CEA, it is to be expected that, in appropriate circumstances, the CFTC will
assert that transactions in other types of cryptocurrencies that do not constitute securities also come within its
jurisdiction.
Additional guidance materials published by the CFTC in connection with its oversight of activities involving virtual
currencies may be found in The CFTC’s Role in Monitoring Virtual Currencies.
c Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. The main federal statute dealing with anti-money laundering is the Currency
and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (the “Bank Secrecy Act” or “BSA”). In 2013, the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury (“FinCen”), published an interpretive Guidance
(the “2013 Guidance”) clarifying how regulations issued under the Bank Secrecy Act to combat money laundering
apply to transactions involving the acceptance or transmission of cryptocurrencies that meet the definition of “virtual
3 Representative enforcement actions instituted by the SEC include, for example, Airfox and EtherDelta.
4 The SEC uses the term “digital asset” to refer to what in this document is called “cryptocurrency.” Footnote 2 of the Framework referred to in the text
indicates that “[t]he term ‘digital asset,’ as used in this framework, refers to an asset that is issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain
technology, including, but not limited to, so-called ‘virtual currencies,’ ‘coins,’ and ‘tokens.’”
5 See, e.g., In re: Bitfinex.
6 See, e.g., enforcement action against Coinbase.
7 According to the CFTC, a “virtual currency” is “a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store
of value.” See, A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies.
8 Under the CEA, the term “commodity” includes anything, except onions and motion picture box office receipts, in which futures can be traded.

currencies.” The 2013 Guidance was substantially expanded in 2019 to cover the Application of FinCen’s
Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual Currencies.
d Banking regulations. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) is an independent bureau of the
Department of the Treasury that charters, regulates and supervises national banks, federal savings associations and
federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. Regarding transactions involving cryptocurrencies by the financial
entities under its supervision the OCC has issued three interpretive letters:
Interpretive letter 1170, issued on July 22, 2020, concluded that “providing cryptocurrency custody services,
including holding the unique cryptographic keys associated with cryptocurrency, is a modern form of [. . .] traditional
bank activities.”
Interpretive letter 1172, issued September 21, 2020, concluded that “national banks may receive deposits from
stablecoin issuers, including deposits that constitute reserves for a stablecoin associated with hosted wallets.” 9
Interpretive letter 1174, issued on January 4, 2021, announced that “a bank may validate, store, and record
payments transactions by serving as a node on an [independent node verification network (“INVN”). Likewise, a bank
may use INVNs and related stablecoins to carry out other permissible payment activities.”
e Criminal enforcement. Guidance regarding how the U.S. Department of Justice approaches the criminal
enforcement of federal statutes as they apply to cryptocurrencies may be found in the Cryptocurrency Enforcement
Framework, a two-part report of the Attorney General’s Cyber Digital Task Force published in February 2018 and
October 2020. This report indicates that “this technology already plays a role in many of the most significant criminal
and national threats our nation faces.” Based on such premise, the DOJ has indicated that it plans to regulate criminal
activity by applying existing laws to new technologies.
f From a tax perspective, in 2014 the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) published Notice 2014-21 announcing that,
for federal income tax purposes, “virtual currencies” would be treated as property, not as currencies. Regarding the
definition of “virtual currency” for purposes of the notice, the IRS explained:
“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is aware that 'virtual currency' may be used to pay for goods or services, or
held for investment. Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange,
a unit of account, and/or a store of value. In some environments, it operates like 'real' currency -- i.e., the coin
and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and
is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance -- but it does not have
legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is
referred to as “convertible” virtual currency. Bitcoin is one example of a convertible virtual currency. Bitcoin can
be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other
real or virtual currencies. For a more comprehensive description of convertible virtual currencies to date, see
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Guidance on the Application of FinCEN's Regulations to
Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies (FIN-2013-G001, March 18, 2013).”
On October 9, 2019, the IRS announced the issuance of Revenue Ruling 2019-24 (providing guidance regarding the
tax treatment of cryptocurrency “hard forks” and “air drops”) and made available on its website a page with answers to
Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions. Both the ruling and the FAQs introduced a distinction
between “virtual currency” and “cryptocurrency” by defining the latter as “Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency
that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a
blockchain.”
Since 2019 their FAQs page has been updated several times.
II At State Level
The regulation of cryptocurrencies at the state level mainly follows the pattern summarized above for the federal level to the
extent that, in most instances, it entails the application to cryptocurrencies, or transactions in cryptocurrencies, of legal
regimes developed prior to the advent of distributed ledger technology. Any attempt to canvass the scope of the states'
regulation of cryptocurrencies would vastly exceed the scope of this document. Nevertheless, two states deserve special
mention: New York, which through its Department of Financial Services adopted in 2015 a licensing regulatory regime for
virtual currency businesses that has been perceived by industry participants as unduly burdensome, and Wyoming, which
has sought to become the most crypto-friendly state in the country.
In many instances, specific state regulation of cryptocurrency activities is limited to so-called money services businesses
(please refer to the answer to Question 9 below). A few states have also enacted legislation regarding the applications of
their own securities laws to cryptocurrencies.
9 The staff of the SEC’s FinHub reacted to this OCC Interpretive Letter by issuing their own statement indicating that, in their view, a stablecoin may be a
security under federal securities law.
73
USA
QUESTION 2
The regulation of providers of services relating to cryptocurrencies depends on the attributes of the cryptocurrency with
respect to which the services are provided. For example, if a cryptocurrency is a security under federal securities laws,
someone who intermediates purchases and sales involving that particular cryptocurrency needs to be registered under the
Exchange Act as a broker or operate under an exemption from such registration requirements. Equivalent state-law
requirements may apply and the local laws of the place where the marketing activities take place need to be complied with.
Similarly, someone engaged in what FinCen's anti-money laundering regulations refer to as “money services business”
with respect to a cryptocurrency that is a virtual currency needs to register with FinCen and check the corresponding
regulations of the different states in which it intends to operate in order to ascertain if additional local registration or
licensing is required. See the response to Question 9 for further details.
QUESTION 3
Because cryptocurrencies are subject to federal regulation only to the extent that they are used or disposed of in activities
or transactions that are otherwise regulated, there is, conceivably, a broad range of cryptocurrency-related services not
presently regulated. For example, the services of a software programmer that creates cryptocurrency to be used by a
customer in the customer's business, custodial services not accompanied by transmission services, and services provided
in connection with loans that do not fall within any regulatory scheme (such as loans that are not governed by securities or
consumer protection legislation), are not regulated.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
At the federal level, the SEC is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the federal securities laws, the CFTC
administers and enforces the CEA, and the Treasury Department administers the Bank Secrecy Act and the anti-money
laundering and terrorism financing regulations thereunder. Each of these agencies conducts investigations and may
impose different levels of monetary and other penalties of an administrative, disciplinary, or civil nature. When criminal
enforcement is sought, cases are referred to the U.S. Department of Justice which handles criminal prosecutions through
its network of U.S. Attorney Generals throughout the country.
QUESTION 5
Please refer to Part I of the answer to Question 1 above.

6 QUESTION
Although different federal agencies use the terms “virtual currency,” “digital asset,” and “cryptocurrency,” none of these
definitions has been adopted by Congress and they all reflect the understanding of the relevant federal agency in
connection with the application to cryptocurrencies of the statutes under its administration.
In the securities law area, one of the most notable judicial decisions involving cryptocurrencies was handed down in March,
2020, by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telegram
Group Inc. and TON Issuer Inc., which enjoined the defendants from delivering to their purchasers 2.9 billion Gram
tokens sold in early 2018 to 175 sophisticated investors and high net-worth individuals.
In Telegram, the defendants sold Gram tokens in transactions that admittedly constituted “investment contracts” under the
Howey Test;10 they claimed to have complied with the Securities Act by following Regulation D,11and filed with the SEC the
requisite notice. When they sought to deliver the Gram tokens sold to their purchasers, the SEC sued to enjoin them from
proceeding with the delivery, arguing that such delivery would amount to the sale of a security without registration because
it was part of a single scheme constituting a public offering in which the initial purchasers were acting as underwriters. As
such, the SEC argued and the court found, that Regulation D was not available because it only exempts transactions that
do not constitute a public offering.
7 QUESTION
As explained above,12 the SEC takes the position that most fundraising activities involving cryptocurrencies are securities
offerings that must be either registered under the Securities Act or pursued in compliance with an exemption from such
registration requirements. From the perspective of the federal securities laws, none of the terms used in the question has
any meaningful connotation. Instead, U.S. practitioners distinguish among different types of securities offerings by
reference to the manner in which they comply with the Securities Act. For example:
a “registered offering” refers to a public offering of securities that have been registered with the SEC under the
Securities Act. On May 3, 2021, INX Limited closed the first public offering of a cryptocurrency registered with the
SEC under the Securities Act (the security involved was a token that entitled its holders to a share of certain cash
flows from the issuer's operating activities);
9
a Regulation A offering is a “mini-public offering” of securities in which, depending on the circumstances, no more
than $75 million can be raised. This type of offering requires prior filing with, and approval by, the SEC of marketing
materials and other information;
a Regulation CF offering is a form of public offering in which an issuer can sell no more than $5 million in securities
in any 12-month period and certain restrictions regarding the amount that individual investors can purchase may
apply;
a Regulation D offering is a private offering of securities that requires filing of a notice with the SEC and is subject to
limitations regarding the type of investors that may purchase in the offering and compliance with certain other
requirements;
a Rule 144A offering is an offering typically made with the involvement of an investment bank that purchases in bulk
from the issuer and resells to institutional investors each of which is generally expected to have at least $100 million in
investments; and
a Regulation S offering is an offering of securities that takes place outside the United States.
10 See footnote 2 above.

11 See answer to Question 7 below.
12 See answer to Question 1 above.
75
USA
QUESTION 8
To the extent that any of the cryptocurrencies being traded constitute securities under federal securities laws, trading
platforms are subject to registration with the SEC under the Exchange Act. This registration subjects the platform to
extensive record-keeping, reporting, compliance, and other requirements. In addition, if any type of trade in
cryptocurrencies offered by the platform constitutes a futures contract, an option, a swap or any other form of derivative,
registration with the CFTC is required. In all cases, compliance with Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering
regulations is required.
QUESTION 9
The BSA requires financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. For
this purpose, the BSA requires financial institutions to keep certain records, file transaction reports, and to report
13
suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal 14activities. The 2013 Guidance
differentiates three categories of persons engaged in activities involving virtual currencies: “users,” “administrators,” and
“exchangers:”
“Users” are defined as persons who obtain virtual currencies to purchase goods or services.
“Exchangers” are persons engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or
other virtual currency.
“Administrators” are persons engaged in (as a business) issuing or putting into circulation a virtual currency and
who have the authority to withdraw such virtual currency from circulation.
While users are not considered money services businesses (“MSBs”), administrators and exchangers are, and thus, are
subject to FinCen's registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations. Specifically, any exchanger or administrator
that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is
a “money transmitter” (as defined in FinCen's regulations).
Most states have their own local regulation of money transmitters or MSBs. The Nationwide Multistate Licensing System &
Registry operates an internet site that provides information regarding each state's requirements.
QUESTION 10
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act approved by the Senate on August 10, 2021, includes a provision that would, if
the bill becomes law, require “any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service
effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person” to provide reports to the IRS with information regarding
the gross proceeds from sales of, and the seller's adjusted basis in, any digital assets transferred during the period covered
by the report. For these purposes, the bill proposes to define “digital asset” as “any digital representation of value which is
recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or similar technology.”
13 See paragraph “c” of Part I of the response to Question 1 above.

14 The 2013 Guidance explains the term “virtual currency” as follows:
“FinCEN’s regulations define currency (also referred to as “real” currency) as “the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that
[i] is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” In
contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the
attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses “convertible”
virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.”

11 QUESTION
No law, resolution or official guideline has been enacted in the United States which regulates blockchain.
12 QUESTION
As the Summer of 2021 comes to an end, the legal community in the U.S. has received with great interest the
pronouncements of Gary Gensler, the Chairman of the SEC whose academic interest and expertise in blockchain
technology has been the focus of attention since his nomination by the Biden administration last February. Speaking
before the Aspen Security Forum on August 3, 2021, Chairman Gensler made several important points regarding
cryptocurrency offerings, cryptocurrency markets and stable coins. In his view:
“Right now, we just don't have enough investor protection in crypto. Frankly, at this time, it's more like the Wild
West.
“I believe we have a crypto market now where many tokens may be unregistered securities, without required
disclosures or market oversight.
This leaves prices open to manipulation. This leaves investors vulnerable.
Over the years, the SEC has brought dozens of actions in this area, prioritizing token-related cases involving fraud
or other significant harm to investors. We haven't yet lost a case.” (Footnote omitted)
“The world of crypto finance now has platforms where people can trade tokens and other venues where people can
lend tokens. I believe these platforms not only can implicate the securities laws; some platforms also can implicate
the commodities laws and the banking laws.
[. . .]
The American public is buying, selling, and lending crypto on these trading, lending, and DeFi platforms, and there
are significant gaps in investor protection.
Make no mistake: To the extent that there are securities on these trading platforms, under our laws they have to
register with the Commission unless they meet an exemption.”
“Next, I'd like to turn to stable value coins, which are crypto tokens pegged or linked to the value of fiat currencies.
Many of you have heard about Facebook's efforts to stand up a stablecoin called Diem (formerly known as Libra).
Due to the global reach of Facebook's platform, this has gotten a lot of attention from central bankers and
regulators. This is not only due to general policies and concerns with crypto, but also due to Diem's potential impact
on monetary policy, banking policy, and financial stability.
Maybe less well known to this audience, though, is that we already have an existing stablecoin market worth $113
billion, including four large stablecoins — some of which have been around for seven years.
These stablecoins are embedded in crypto trading and lending platforms.
[. . .]
Thus, the use of stablecoins on these platforms may facilitate those seeking to sidestep a host of public policy goals
connected to our traditional banking and financial system: anti-money laundering, tax compliance, sanctions, and
the like. This affects our national security, too.
Further, these stablecoins also may be securities and investment companies. To the extent they are, we will apply
the full investor protections of the Investment Company Act and the other federal securities laws to these products.”
Chairman Gensler concluded his remarks with the following words:
“Right now, large parts of the field of crypto are sitting astride of — not operating within — regulatory frameworks
that protect investors and consumers, guard against illicit activity, ensure for financial stability, and yes, protect
national security.
77
USA
Standing astride isn't a sustainable place to be. For those who want to encourage innovations in crypto, I'd like to
note that financial innovations throughout history don't long thrive outside of our public policy frameworks.
At the heart of finance is trust. And at the heart of trust in markets is investor protection. If this field is going to
continue, or reach any of its potential to be a catalyst for change, we better bring it into public policy frameworks.”
In light of the foregoing, even more vigorous enforcement activities from the SEC should be expected.

VIETNAM
LAW FIRM Indochine Counsel indochinecounsel.com
AUTHORS THAI GIA HAN, Junior Associate and STEVEN JACOB, Foreign Associate
CONTACT duc.dang@indochinecounsel.com +84 28 3823 9640
1 QUESTION
There are two types of virtual currency commonly known in Vietnam, in-game units which are used for making purchases in
digital environments such as video games or contests, and cryptocurrencies. A third type is currently undergoing a pilot
program and is a cash based digital payment which allows for non-banked individuals to deposit hard currency in their
digital wallets. This chapter will limit its discussion to cryptocurrencies which made their market debut in Vietnam around
2017.
Vietnam currently does not have any law or regulation particularly governing cryptocurrencies. Guidelines for this section
are scattered in several legal instruments, such as the Prime Minister's directives (e.g., Directive 101) and official letters /
official dispatches of the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV), i.e. the central bank (e.g., Official Letter 5747 2 ), and also can be
implied from certain prevailing legal regulations (e.g., the regulations on non-cash payments, etc.).
2 QUESTION
In general, the laws of Vietnam do not recognize cryptocurrencies as legal means of payment. And in fact, the Government
has taken steps to prohibit its use in Vietnam. The central bank, the SBV, is the state organ responsible for governing the
trade in currencies and payments and as such, any regulations governing cryptocurrency's use, and all services related to
its exchange, purchase or sale would fall under the SBV's purview. As it is, the SBV has declared that “cryptocurrencies in
general, and Bitcoin and/or Litecoin in particular, are not legal means of payment in accordance with the laws of Vietnam.
The issuance, provision and use of cryptocurrencies in general, and Bitcoin and/or Litecoin in particular (illegal means of
payment) as currencies or means of payment are prohibited conduct(s).”.
Despite this prohibition, Vietnam has been consistently ranked as one of the most active countries in cryptocurrency
ownership. Possession of cryptocurrency is not prohibited, only its use as a means of payment within Vietnam. Therefore,
investment in cryptocurrency is not prohibited. However, there are no regulations protecting investors in cryptocurrency or
governing investment in the sector. The state has actually warned investors about potential risks when injecting money into
cryptocurrencies.
1 Directive No. 10/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister dated 11 April 2018 on enhancing the management of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies-related
activities.
2 Official Letter No. 5747/NHNN-PC of the State Bank of Vietnam dated 21 July 2017.
79
VIETNAM
QUESTION 3
Apart from being expressly prohibited from being used as a means of payment, the laws of Vietnam are currently silent on
involving crypto in other fields. The Prime Minister has just announced as part of his five-year digital government strategy
that he has assigned the SBV to study cryptocurrency with an eye to the possibility of adopting regulations for its use, but
this recommendation was a single line item in a rather long document. For now, cryptocurrency is almost completely
unregulated in Vietnam.
QUESTION 4
do they have?
As the regulator, the SBV performs the state management of banking and foreign currencies exchange activities. In
addition, the SBV plays the role of a central bank issuing money, banking for credit institutions, and providing monetary
services for the Government.
QUESTION 5
The Government and state agencies do not recognize cryptocurrency as a legal means of payment, and its issuance,
provision or use in Vietnam is subject to administrative penalties. If such issuance, provision or use causes damage
exceeding 100 million VND (approx. USD4,338) then the individual responsible will also be liable to criminal penalties.
However, the possession of cryptocurrency and its use by citizens beyond the borders of Vietnam are not prohibited. The
SBV has repeatedly issued regulations preventing banks or credit institutions in Vietnam from allowing their facilities to be
used in the purchase of cryptocurrency as the Government has viewed cryptocurrency as a likely means to conduct
fraudulent or illegal transactions. As already mentioned, investment in the sector through mining farms or legal purchase
and holding of cryptocurrency do not seem to be illegal, only unregulated and unprotected.
QUESTION 6
In 2014, the SBV defined Bitcoin as “a kind of digital currency (virtual currency) which is neither issued by the government
nor a financial institution but is created and operated based on the systems of computer connected to peer-to-peer internet
network”. This definition was stated in a press release and not an official regulation and there has been no further
statements regarding how the SBV or the Government might define cryptocurrency.

7 QUESTION
In 2020, the National Assembly, as the Vietnam's legislative body, has adopted a new investment law. In that law, it sets out
a list of sectors that are prohibited for investment and a list of sectors that are subject to conditions. Sectors not on either list
are open to investment without conditions. While certain financial and credit related sectors are on the list of sectors subject
to conditions, and cryptocurrency could be inferred to be included in some of those, cryptocurrency is on neither the list of
sectors prohibited for investment nor those subject to conditions. In practice, no licensing authorities in Vietnam would
issue an investment registration certificate to someone seeking to invest in cryptocurrency. This is the case despite the fact
that investment in cryptocurrency is not technically illegal. For now, there are no formal mechanisms for investing in
cryptocurrency recognized by the State.
8 QUESTION

Cryptocurrencies are not considered as either a legal form of payment in Vietnam, nor are they classified as a type of
property.3 As such, the establishment and/or operation of a trading platform or a crypto exchange for an asset which is not
legally recognized, has yet to be permitted in the country.
9 QUESTION
The SBV has been directed to instruct credit institutions and organizations providing intermediary payment services: (i) not
to implement transactions related to cryptocurrencies, and (ii) enhance the examination and timely report of suspicious
transactions related to cryptocurrencies. The SBV is also to cooperate with the Ministry of Public Security to detect and
handle violations related to cryptocurrencies. Other Ministries (e.g., Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Security,
Ministry of Justice, etc.) are also required to take corresponding actions in furtherance of monitoring transactions. This
caution was recently extended further to include ATMs and bank card payment locations in relation to their use in payments
for cryptocurrencies as they are deemed by the State to involve a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.
10 QUESTION

As mentioned earlier, in June this year, the Prime Minister issued his five-year strategy for digital government which
includes a line item encouraging the SBV to study cryptocurrency on the blockchain and make recommendations
regarding its possible adoption. We have also seen other reports regarding SBV committees formed to study
cryptocurrency in the past two years, however, we have seen no evidence that these committees are actually conducting
any activities nor issuing any reports to the public.
3 Under Article 105 of Law No. 91/2015/QH-13 dated 24 November 2015, the Civil Code, “property” is defined to comprises objects, money, valuable
papers and property right. Property includes immovable property and movable property. Immovable property and movable property may be existing
property or off-plan property.
81
VIETNAM
QUESTION 11
There are no particular regulations on blockchain. However, the Government seems to favour and encourage the
application of blockchain technology. In a report presented to the Government in March 2020, the Ministry of Justice was
researching and planning to complete the legal corridor in relation to applying and promoting products and services which
are developed on blockchain-based platforms. The Prime Minister is also considering the implementation of a regulatory
sandbox for certain FinTech including blockchains.
QUESTION 12
Aside from the potential administrative and criminal penalties for the issuance, provision, or use of cryptocurrencies, the
Government is perhaps motivated in its prohibition of the technology by early fraudulent enterprises that abused the trust of
the Vietnamese people. Vietnam was an early adopter of the technology and several cryptocurrencies proved to be scams.
This prompted the initial prohibition of the technology and the Government has yet to see a reason to reverse this decision.
Perhaps the new five-year strategy may be a sign that the Prime Minister is now willing to consider cryptocurrency as a
potentially legitimate technology for future adoption. For now, however, it remains a largely offshore means for parking
investments by Vietnamese citizens.

OUR AUTHORS
Gonzalo Oliva-Beltrán Juan A. Vallejo Elisabeth S. Wyrembek, LL.M. Amit Kiran
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
+54 11 4814 1746

+57 1 345 3663 +49 (0) 711 22744 59 +91 99016 70055
goliva@bodlegal.com
juan.vallejo@nietolegal.com ew@haver-mailaender.de amit@poovayya.net
1309 Córdoba Avenue, 3rd floor, o ce A.
Calle 72 No. 5-83, Piso 2 Lenzhalde 83-85 121 Dickenson Road,
C1055AAD, City of Buenos Aire
Bogotá 70192 Stuttgart Bangalore 560 042, Karnataka
ARGENTINA COLOMBIA GERMANY INDIA
Ira A. Eddymurthy Giacomo Gori Giacomo Gori Dr. Njaramba Gichuki

+62 21 5212038 +254 202 212794

+39 02-866096 +39 02-866096
iraeddymurthy@ssek.com njaramba@njarambagichuki.com
ggori@cocuzzaeassociati.it ggori@cocuzzaeassociati.it
14th Floor, Mayapada Tower Jl. Jend. 1View Park Towers, 16th Floor Utalii
Via San Giovanni Sul Muro 18 Via San Giovanni Sul Muro 18
Sudirman Kav. 28 Lane/Uhuru Highway,CBD
Jakarta, 12920 20121 Milano 20121 Milano 1. O. Box 3695 00200 Nairobi
ITALY ITALY KENYA
INDONESIA
Remo Mairhofer Ricardo Rios Ferrer Victor Bouman Yegor Kravchenko

+423 340 11 20 (52 55) 5980 03 50 +31 (0)20 624 68110 +7(499)608 06 01
remo.mairhofer@m-advokatur.li ricardo@riosferrer.com.mx bouman@wieringa.nl kravchenko@wslaw.ru
Landstrasse 99 Av. Insurgentes Sur 1605 piso 12 Ijdok 17, 1013 MM Amsterdam O ce 303, «The Yard» Business Centre, at
Schaan, FL-9494 Ciudad de México NETHERLAND No.11,bld.1, 1st Magistralnyi tupik
LIECHTENSTEIN Moscow, 123290
MEXICO
RUSSIA
Rafael Truan Blanco Hansi Abayaratne Tim Davison Digital Commercial Practice
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
(+34) 91 310 66 60 +9411 2695782 +44.20.7851.6143 +1 .212.209.4848

rafaeltb@tc-abogados.com savantha@desaram.com tdavison@brownrudnick.com ckrivoy@brownrudnick.com
Paseo de la Castellana, 47 Alexandra Place 8 Cli ord Street , London W1S 2LQ 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036
116, 9ª Planta, 28046 MADRID Colombo, 7 UK USA
SPAIN SRI LANKA
Thai Gia Han Steven Jacob

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
+84 28 3823 9640 +84 28 3823 9640

thuy.le@indochinecounsel.com sdjacob30@gmail.com
Unit 305, 3rd Floor, Centec Tower Unit 305, 3rd Floor, Centec Tower
72 -74 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai, District 3 72 -74 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai, District 3
Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City
VIETNAM VIETNAM
83
Follow on
The Law Firm Network

The Comparative Guide On Cryptocurrency Legislations Guidelines 2022 The Law Firm Network 2 EDITION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Comparative Guide On Cryptocurrency Legislations Guidelines 2022 The Law Firm Network 2 EDITION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON

Executive Director: Rafael Truan Blanco

04 GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN

05 GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN

09 JUAN A. VALLEJO & JUAN SEBASTIAN GAVIRIA GARLATTI

13 ELISABETH S. WYREMBEK, LL.M.

22 IRA A. EDDYMURTHY, SYAHDAN Z. AZIZ, JONATHAN M. STREIFER, CALLISTA PUTRI MAYARI

35 DR. NJARAMBA GICHUKI

41 RICARDO RIOS FERRER

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 2

53 RAFAEL TRUAN BLANCO & CAMELIA HAMZA

71 BROWNRUDNICK'S “DIGITAL COMMERCE PRACTICE"

79 THAI GIA HAN & STEVEN JACOB

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 4

LAW FIRM Barreiro. Oliva. De Luca. Jaca. Nicastro

AUTHORS GONZALO OLIVA BELTRÁN, Partner

CONTACT goliva@bodlegal.com +5411 4814 1746

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 6

Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a speciﬁc regulatory regime in your

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 8

LAW FIRM NIETO ABOGADOS

AUTHORS JUAN A. VALLEJO & JUAN SEBASTIAN GAVIRIA GARLATTI

CONTACT juan.vallejo@nietolegal.com +57 1 345 3663

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 10

Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a speciﬁc regulatory regime in your

Is there any bill in process in your jurisdiction regarding cryptocurrency?

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 12

LAW FIRM HAVER & MAILÄNDER RECHTSANWÄLTE

AUTHORS ELISABETH S. WYREMBEK, LL.M. Associate

CONTACT ew@haver-mailaender.de +49 (0) 711-227 44-59

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 14

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 16

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 18

LAW FIRM Poovayya & Co

AUTHORS AMIT KIRAN, Partner

CONTACT amit@poovayya.net +91 99016 70055

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 20

Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a speciﬁc regulatory regime in your

LAW FIRM SSEK Legal Consultants

CONTACT iraeddymurthy@ssek.com +62 21 521 2038

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 22

Crypto Asset Physical Trader

For completeness, please refer to our response to question 8 below.

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 24

Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a speciﬁc regulatory regime in your

Is there any bill in process in your jurisdiction regarding cryptocurrency?

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 28

LAW FIRM Cocuzza & Associati Law Firm

AUTHORS GIACOMO GORI, of Counsel

CONTACT ggori@cocuzzaeassociati.it +39 02 866096

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 30

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 32

Are cryptocurrencies trading platforms subject to a speciﬁc regulatory regime in your

Is there any bill in process in your jurisdiction regarding cryptocurrency?

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 34

LAW FIRM Wanyaga and Njaramba Advocates

AUTHORS DR. NJARAMBA GICHUKI, Partner

CONTACT njaramba@njarambagichuki.com +254 202 212794

THE COMPARATIVE GUIDE ON CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGISLATIONS & GUIDELINES 36

LAW FIRM Mairhofer Advokatur

AUTHORS REMO MAIRHOFER, Partner

CONTACT remo.mairhofer@m-advokatur.li +423 340 11 20