The regulation of crypto-assets is accelerating at an unprecedented pace on a global scale. With the MiCA regulation in Europe, American initiatives regarding stablecoins, and new frameworks being established across Asia and in Latin America, governments are seeking to reconcile innovation, market security, and investor protection.
For businesses, these developments open up opportunities for growth but also impose increasingly complex compliance requirements. In this shifting landscape, industry players must anticipate the impact of these new rules on their business models and international strategies.
The Lexing® network members provide a snapshot of the current state of play worldwide.
The following countries have contributed to this issue: Argentina, Brazil, China, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, USA (East), USA (West).
FREDERIC FORSTER
VP of Lexing® network and Head of Telecommunications and Digital Communications at Lexing
Until March 2024, Argentina lacked specific regulations over cryptocurrencies. According to the Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina, this were classified as intangible assets with patrimonial value, but not as legal tender or securities. However, what followed next marked a significant regulatory shift: the Argentine Securities Commission (CNV) issued Resolution No. 994/2024 (GR 994), which for the first time introduced a mandatory registration regime for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). This framework was later expanded and reinforced by Resolution No. 1058/2025 (GR 1058), which not only clarified the scope of VASP activities but also imposed stricter requirements.
Law 25.246: VASPs as obliged individuals
The true regulatory transformation began in 2024 with the reform of Law 25.246, which introduced clear definitions and a specific regulatory framework for VASPs under the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AML Authority). This reform significantly expanded the responsibilities of VASPs in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The rule defined virtual assets as digitally transferable representations of value, which aren’t considered legal tender and VASPs as obliged individuals with the AML Authority.
The CNV’s First Step Toward Oversight: RG 994 and the VASP Registry
At the beginning of 2024, through GR 994 of the CNV, a mandatory registry was established for all virtual asset service providers carrying out activities in the country. With this registry, the CNV seeks to monitor and oversee such activities, setting clear criteria to determine whether these providers are indeed required to register. The regulated activities include:
- (i) exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies;
- (ii) exchange between virtual assets;
- (iii) transfer of virtual assets;
- (iv) custody and/or administration of virtual assets; and/or
- (v) financial services related to virtual asset offerings.
The Maturation of Argentina’s VASP Regulation: GR 1025 and GR 1058
In October 2024, the CNV published a draft regulation submitted for public consultation through General Resolution 1025 (“GR 1025”), aimed at promoting transparency and consumer protection, areas that had previously been neglected in the sector.
In March 2025, through GR 1058, the CNV consolidated and expanded GR 1025, officially establishing the regulatory regime for VASPs. A major innovation introduced by GR 1058 was the imposition of strict cybersecurity requirements, mandating robust systems, audits, and incident reporting obligations to protect users and ensure the integrity of operations.
RG 1058 classifies VASPs into five categories:
- Category 1: Exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies.
- Category 2: Exchange between different virtual assets.
- Category 3: Transfer of virtual assets.
- Category 4: Custody and/or administration of virtual assets.
- Category 5: Financial services related to virtual asset offerings.
In addition, VASPs must comply with the following requirements:
- Local Presence: Foreign-incorporated VASPs must comply with the Argentine Companies Act by either registering with the Public Registry of Commerce under section 123, or establishing a local branch, office, or other permanent representation in accordance with section 118.
- Minimum Net Worth: Upon registration, VASPs must have evidence of compliance with the minimum net worth corresponding to their category. Where multiple categories apply, the highest threshold must be met:
- Categories 1, 2, and 4: USD 150,000;
- Category 3: USD 75,000;
- Category 5: USD 35,000.
- Cybersecurity Policies: VASPs are required to adopt IT and cybersecurity policies, including internal procedures for the management of cyber risks. These must be documented in manuals and subjected to annual independent audits.
- Fund Segregation: VASPs must ensure a strict separation between client funds and proprietary funds, maintaining clear identification and record-keeping.
- Delegation to Third Parties: Custody and/or administration of client assets may be delegated, provided that such services are performed through open wallets. Delegated activities must be governed by agreements that ensure access to all necessary information for regulatory compliance. Delegation to a foreign VASP is only permitted if that entity is subject to supervision by its home authority.
- Systematic Reporting: VASPs must submit periodic reports to CNV, on both a monthly and annual basis, covering wallet details, client base, transaction volumes, and the most traded or custodied virtual assets.
- Advertising Restrictions: VASPs are prohibited from promoting or advertising activities related to the capital markets, and vice versa. Furthermore, they cannot intermediate or offer virtual assets that qualify as securities unless duly authorized.
- Offering of Virtual Assets: Only virtual assets that have been in existence for more than 90 days may be offered, unless the shorter existence is expressly disclosed along with the associated risks of volatility.
- Transparency Obligations: VASPs must maintain and disclose a transparent fee structure applicable to services provided to retail clients.
- Website Blocking: The CNV is empowered to request judicial authorities to block websites operated by entities engaging in VASP activities without proper registration.
PABLO A. PALAZZI
&
JORGE I. MAYORA
&
VICTORIA S. CASTRO
Introduction
“From then on [the release of the article Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (1) by Satoshi Nakamoto], blockchain technology began to garner increasing attention. What began as a way to indelibly record the creation moment of a digital document evolved to the point of now being regarded as a general-purpose technology, with the potential to influence various sectors of the economy” (2).
Brazilian judge Renata Baião (3) highlights this expansion in the use of blockchain, noting that its utility can be “intensely experimented with for the most diverse applications”, clearly surpassing the restricted field of cryptocurrencies.
Nevertheless, cryptocurrencies – which emerged with the proposal of building a decentralized financial system independent from traditional institutions – have not remained entirely immune to state regulations. As knowledge about blockchain expanded and its use spread, whether through Bitcoin, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), or smart contracts, it became inevitable to construct a legal framework capable of regulating its use.
Regulation
Judge Renata Baião outlines the Brazilian regulatory process up to the enactment of the first law addressing the matter in a systematic way. In 2019, the Federal Revenue Service issued Normative Instruction (4) 1,888, establishing the mandatory reporting of information on transactions involving crypto assets to the Special Secretariat of the Federal Revenue of Brazil, with an eminently tax-related purpose.
Subsequently, the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) issued Guidance Opinion (5) 40, which provided definitions and classifications of crypto assets, guiding market participants on the legal categorization of different operations, as well as on the risks and benefits of each category.
The most significant regulatory milestone occurred in 2022 with the enactment of Ordinary Law (6) 14,478, which established general guidelines for the provision of services related to virtual assets. Two of its provisions deserve special mention:
- Article 3 defines a virtual asset as “a digital representation of value that can be traded or transferred electronically and used for making payments or for investment purposes,” expressly excluding sovereign currencies, loyalty program points, and assets represented in Brazilian reais or other government-issued currencies;
- Article 4, in turn, provides that the provision of such services must comply with parameters to be set by the federal public administration body or entity designated by an act of the Executive Branch.
The judge concludes that “although the regulation of crypto assets in Brazil has not expressly addressed the validity of the transactions carried out, it is possible to understand that the existing regulation recognizes this new category of assets,” thereby granting them, albeit indirectly, a degree of legal legitimacy.
Criminal law
Parallel to the regulatory aspect, the 2022 regulatory framework brought significant changes to Brazilian criminal legislation, incorporating the subject of virtual assets into criminal law.
The first change took place in the Penal Code (7), which now includes Article 171-A — a provision criminalizing fraud committed using virtual assets, securities, or financial assets. The criminal type describes the conduct of “organizing, managing, offering, or distributing wallets or intermediating operations involving virtual assets, securities, or any financial assets with the intent of obtaining unlawful advantage, to the detriment of others, by inducing or keeping someone in error, through artifice, trickery, or any other fraudulent means.”
The second update was the equivalence, for criminal purposes, of legal entities providing intermediation, trading, or custody services for virtual assets to financial institutions. This equivalence allows for the application to these entities of the penalties provided for crimes against the national financial system (8) – the so-called “white-collar crimes” – such as fraudulent management, misappropriation of assets, manipulation of accounting records, and dissemination of false information.
Finally, the third relevant change was the inclusion of provisions in Law No. 9,613/1998 (Anti-Money Laundering Law (9)). Among the amendments, notable is the provision for an increase of one-third to two-thirds of the penalty for the crime of concealment of assets, rights, and values when committed repeatedly, by means of a criminal organization, or with virtual assets. Furthermore, virtual asset service providers were added to the list of “persons subject to the anti-money laundering control mechanism,” thus being required to implement compliance policies, maintain updated client records, monitor suspicious transactions, and register with the competent regulatory body.
These criminal law amendments reflect the legislator’s recognition of the need to adapt the legal system to a novel technological reality in the country, reinforcing mechanisms for the prevention and repression of offenses committed using virtual assets.
*****
(1) NAKAMOTO, Satoshi. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
(2) BAIÃO, Renata Barros Souto Maior. Blockchain como fonte de prova. 146 f. 2023. Doctoral Thesis. Master’s Dissertation, Center for Studies in Economic and Social Law. São Paulo
(3) Renata Barros Souto Maior Baião, judge of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, is a national reference in topics such as blockchain, digital evidence, and crypto asset regulation in judicial proceedings
(4) FEDERAL REVENUE SERVICE. Normative Instruction No. 1,888, May 3, 2019 https://www.normasbrasil.com.br/norma/instrucao-normativa-1888-2019_377332.html
(5) BRAZILIAN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. Guidance Opinion CVM 40 cit. https://conteudo.cvm.gov.br/legislacao/pareceresorientacao/pare040.html
(6) BRAZIL. Virtual Assets Law. Law No. 14,478, December 21, 2022. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2022/Lei/L14478.htm
(7) BRAZIL. Penal Code. Decree-Law No. 2,848, December 7, 1940. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decretolei/Del2848compilado.htm
(8) BRAZIL. Law on Crimes against the National Financial System. Law No. 7,492, June 16, 1986.
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7492.htm
(9) BRAZIL. Anti-Money Laundering Law. Law No. 9,613, March 3, 1998. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9613compilado.htm
FLAVIA M. MURAD SCHAAL
&
PEDRO ITALIANO LEAL
China has introduced regulations targeting comprehensive prohibition of crypto-currency and such prohibition is essentially justified by the considerations such as maintaining financial stability, anti-money laundering and safeguarding monetary policy sovereignty.
The comprehensive prohibition of cryptocurrency in China is put in place by a series of regulatory texts successively issued by regulatory bodies and state agencies as follows:
The 2013 & 2017 Notices
2013 Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks which was jointly Issued by the PBOC (the central bank), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), and other bodies defines Bitcoin not as a currency but a “virtual commodity.” It prohibited financial institutions and payment companies from engaging in any Bitcoin-related business activities, including pricing, trading, or underwriting insurance products related to Bitcoin.
2017 Notice on Preventing Token Issuance Financing Risks which was jointly issued by the PBOC and other governmental agencies prohibited Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) which are deemed as an unauthorized and illegal form of public financing. The domestic cryptocurrency trading platforms are also ordered to be closed.
The 2021 Notice
The 2021 Notice on Further Preventing and Disposing of the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation Issued by the PBOC, the Central Cyberspace Administration, and the Supreme People’s Court provides the following:
- Legal Status of Virtual Currency: Virtual currencies, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are not legal tender.
- Illegal Financial Activity: It characterizes a number of activities involving crypto-currency as “illegal financial activities,”
- Obligation of Financial Institutions: The notice reinforces the prohibition on all financial institutions and non-bank payment institutions (e.g., Alipay, WeChat Pay) from providing any service, directly or indirectly, for virtual currency transactions.
Prohibition on mining
The virtual currency “mining” industry was also outlawed by a state policy directive issued in 2021 by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and other departments which aims to wipe out virtual currency mining from the “Industrial Structure Adjustment Guidance Catalogue” thanks to its incompatibility with national industrial policy due to its excessive energy consumption and potential to jeopardize China’s ecological goals.
JUN YANG
Greek Law 5193/2025 (1), published in the Government Gazette on April 11, 2025, establishes a comprehensive national framework for the regulation of crypto-assets, aligning Greece with the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) (2). This law designates supervisory responsibilities, sets licensing requirements, and introduces sanctions to ensure transparency, consumer protection, and market integrity in the crypto-asset sector.
For public supervision, the law allocates responsibilities based on the type of crypto-asset:
- the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) is designated as the competent authority for offers, admissions to trading, and advertising of crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), provided the issuer or offeror has its registered seat in Greece or the advertising takes place in Greece (3);
- for ARTs, supervision is divided: the HCMC oversees issuers and offerors that are not credit institutions, payment institutions, or electronic money institutions, while the Bank of Greece (BoG) supervises such entities when they fall within the financial sector. In these cases, the BoG’s powers extend to specific provisions of MiCA Title III, including governance, prudential, and reserve requirements, while the HCMC remains responsible for the approval of white papers and other disclosure obligations (4).
The law further empowers both authorities with strong supervisory and enforcement mechanisms. They may suspend or prohibit offers, admissions, services, or advertising, order the cessation of unlicensed activity, and impose administrative measures such as licence revocation, fines, and management bans (5). Professional provision of crypto-asset services without authorisation constitutes a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment (6). Individuals and entities subject to decisions of the HCMC and BoG retain the right to judicial review, while sanctions must be published online for at least five years in compliance with data protection law (7).
Finally, the framework introduces additional compliance measures. Proposed acquisitions of qualifying holdings in Crypto-asset Service Providers (CASPs) are assessed without reference to market “needs”, while banking legislation is amended to include ART issuance and crypto-asset services among the permitted activities of credit institutions (8). Whistleblower protection is extended to crypto-asset markets (9). The HCMC and BoG are also required to adopt and implement guidelines and recommendations issued by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) under MiCA, ensuring Greece’s alignment with evolving EU supervisory practice (10).
*****
(1) Gov. Gaz. Α’ 56/11.04.2025
(3) Art. 98 of Law 5193/2025
(4) Art. 99 of Law 5193/2025
(5) Art. 104 of Law 5193/2025
(6) Art. 107 of Law 5193/2025
(7) Art. 109–110 of Law 5193/2025
(8) Arts. 112–113 of Law 5193/2025
(9) Art. 114 of Law 5193/2025
(10) Art. 115 of Law 5193/2025
GEORGE BALLAS
&
NIKOLAOS PAPADOPOULOS
Introduction
Hong Kong is known as the Fragrant Harbour of the world, because of its natural harbour and the scent of the famous bauhinia flower. Hong Kong is also shaping up to be a Web3 Harbour, with the development of a clear regulatory framework under a positive government policy.
Virtual assets is the term used to describe crypto assets in Hong Kong laws and regulation.
The last two years in particular have seen a number of proactive regulatory developments to enable a range of virtual asset activities to be conducted under licensed supervision, and to provide clarity on other industry issues. The approach has been nimble and pragmatic. There is no sweeping comprehensive law such as MiCA in the EU. Instead, laws and regulations have been introduced to focus on specific individual activities as the virtual asset market evolves.
Regulatory frameworks
Several Hong Kong regulatory bodies have established frameworks and roadmaps to guide the development of virtual asset regulations in Hong Kong:
- Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”): The SFC has published the ASPIRe regulatory roadmap to guide the development of virtual asset regulations in relation to securities and securitisation Insert text here. (1)
- Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”): The FSTB also issued the LEAP Policy Statement 2.0, under which the FSTB, together with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”), will introduce regulations for virtual asset activities relating to banking and other financial services. (2)
- The positive acronyms – ASPIRe and LEAP – are a clear signal to the market of the progressive approach of the Hong Kong government and regulators.
A common theme across these frameworks is the principle of ‘same activity, same risks, same regulation’. This means the regulators will compare virtual asset activities with traditional finance activities, assess the relative risks and tailor the regulations accordingly. Virtual asset regulations introduced should then closely mirror, with appropriate modifications, those that apply to the traditional finance counterparts. If the activity and the risk are the same, then there will only be minimal modifications merely because virtual assets are involved.
Current regulations
At present, regulations are in place for the following virtual asset activities:
- virtual asset trading platforms, which includes virtual asset exchanges;
- management of investment portfolios that invest 10% or more of its gross asset value in virtual assets;
- intermediaries dealing in or advising on virtual assets; and
- issuance or offering of stablecoins.
The main virtual asset regulatory and licensing regimes are established under the:
- Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap 571);
- Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap 615); and
- Stablecoins Ordinance (Cap 656).
Entities engaging in these regulated activities are required to obtain licenses under the relevant regulatory regimes. In certain cases, entities may also be subject to more than one licensing regimes. An example of this would be a virtual asset trading platform that operates the trading of security and non-security virtual assets.
The road ahead
The most recent regulatory development is the enactment of the Stablecoins Ordinance which came into effect on 1 August 2025. This was the latest introduction of regulations in relation to virtual activities in Hong Kong.
Looking ahead, Hong Kong regulators are turning their focus on areas such as dealing in virtual assets (including OTC dealing), virtual asset custodians and real-world asset tokenisation. The regulators will also look to refine existing virtual asset regulations as the market matures, and new innovations are introduced.
Hong Kong provides a certain regulatory framework, with a clear roadmap for future evolution, and engaged regulators operating under supportive policies.
*****
(1) SFC “A-S-P-I-Re” Roadmap published on 19 February 2025. Available at: https://www.sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/ER/ASPIRe/ASPIRe-roadmap-for-Hong-Kongs-virtual-asset-market-Eng.pdf
(2) Policy Statement 2.0 on the Development of Digital Assets in Hong Kong by FSTB published on 26 June 2025. Available at: https://gia.info.gov.hk/general/202506/26/P2025062600269_500089_1_1750909574183.pdf
PÁDRAIG WALSH
&
JACK LEE
India’s regulatory approach to cryptocurrencies has shifted over the last decade, evolving from prohibition to partial regulation. Currently, there is only a nebulous framework of taxation and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance that applies to cryptocurrencies, which are defined in Indian law as “Virtual Digital Assets” (VDAs). Notably, cryptocurrencies do not constitute legal tender in India.
RBI’s Initial Restrictive Stance
The Indian central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), had in 2018 issued a circular (the “RBI Circular”) (1), directing all banks and financial institutions under its regulation to refrain from:
- dealing in or providing services to individuals or businesses engaged in virtual currencies; and
- continuing any existing relationships with such entities.
This circular effectively cut cryptocurrency exchanges off from the banking system, severely disrupting their operations and making trading practically impossible. RBI justified the step on grounds of consumer protection, market integrity, and concerns about illicit use.
However, in 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the RBI Circular in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2) (the “Crypto Judgement”), observing that “Till date, RBI has not come out with a stand that any of the entities regulated by it… has suffered any loss or adverse effect directly or indirectly, on account of the interface that the VC exchanges had with any of them.”
Subsequent Regulatory Developments
Following the Crypto Judgement, the RBI instructed banks and regulated entities not to rely on the quashed RBI Circular by its notification dated May 31, 2021 (3) Banks and regulated entities were advised to continue customer due diligence in line with Know Your Customer (KYC), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) and other applicable regulations when dealing with cryptocurrency entities.
Tax Regime for VDAs
A significant development in cryptocurrency regulation came with the introduction of a comprehensive tax regime for VDAs through the Finance Act, 2022 (the “Finance Act”). The key provisions of the Finance Act include:
- Taxation on Income from VDAs: The Finance Act inserted Section 115BBH in the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposing a thirty percent (30%) tax on income from the transfer of VDAs. This is on par with the taxation rates applicable to gambling.
- TDS on VDA Transaction: The Finance Act also mandated a one percent (1%) deduction of tax at source (TDS) on the transfer of VDAs, through Section 194S. This provision applies to transactions exceeding certain monetary thresholds.
- No Setting Off or Carrying Forward Losses: Setting off or carrying forward of losses in cryptocurrency trading were also disallowed, unlike in the case of trading in securities.
The implementation of this tax regime signalled the government’s policy position to treat cryptocurrency trading similarly to gambling.
Anti Money Laundering Framework
In March 2023, the Ministry of Finance, vide a notification (4), brought entities and service providers engaging in VDAs (“VDASPs”) under the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The key compliance requirements include:
- Registration with FIU-IND: Entities were required to register with the Financial Intelligence Unit-India (“FIU-IND”) as reporting entities, and to report suspicious transactions.
- KYC and Due Diligence: Entities are required to implement robust Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures and conduct enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers, in accordance with the PMLA.
- Record Keeping: Entities must also maintain comprehensive records of all transactions and customer identities for a certain specified period.
By early 2024, twenty eight (28) VDASPs had completed registration with the FIU-IND. Enforcement of these requirements was demonstrated in December 2023, when FIU-IND issued show-cause notices to nine (9) offshore VDASPs for operating without compliance under the PMLA, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was requested to block access to their platforms.
Conclusion
While a comprehensive law dedicated to cryptocurrencies is still awaited, the existing measures provide a structure that arguably legitimises the sector and subjects it to strict oversight. As global approaches to cryptocurrency regulation continue to evolve, India’s framework too is likely to mature, with a more tailored regulatory framework expected in the future. For now, despite the lack of clear regulation on cryptocurrency, the Indian government’s policy position treating cryptocurrency as a speculative asset class, is clear.
*****
(1) RBI’s Circular RBI/2017-18/154, dated April 6, 2018
(2) 2020 SCC Online SC 275
(3) RBI Notification No. RBI/2021-22/45, dated May 31, 2021
(4) Notification No. S.O. 1072(E), dated March 7, 2023
SIDDHARTHA GEORGE
&
HARINI SUDERSAN
&
SATYAJIT R NAIR
Introduction
The proliferation of crypto assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoins has challenged traditional legal systems, prompting states to rethink their regulatory frameworks. In Mexico, this phenomenon has been partially addressed through the Fintech Law, published in the Official Gazette on March 9, 2018. This statute represents the first formal attempt to regulate operations involving virtual assets in the country.
Legal Framework: The Fintech Law and the Bank of Mexico
Article 30 of the Fintech Law allows Financial Technology Institutions (FTIs) to operate with virtual assets, subject to prior authorization from the Bank of Mexico (Banxico). However, Banxico’s official statement dated March 8, 2019, restricts the use of crypto assets by regulated entities, citing volatility and anonymity as systemic risks (1). We consider important to state that FTIs are not covered by any kind of deposit insurance in Mexico.
This position has been criticized by scholars who argue that “overly conservative regulation may stifle financial innovation” (2). As a result, many platforms operate outside the traditional financial system, creating legal uncertainty for users and investors.
Oversight and Anti-Money Laundering Measures
The National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) is responsible for supervising FTIs under the Credit Institutions Law and the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Illicit Resources. Platforms must implement Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols and report suspicious transactions in compliance with standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Tax Considerations
The Tax Administration Service (SAT) has stated that profits from crypto asset transactions are subject to Income Tax (ISR) (3). However, there is no uniform accounting classification or clear rules for deducting losses, which creates legal uncertainty in tax matters (4). Also, for tax purposes in Mexico, cryptocurrency purchase and sale transactions are treated as barter or exchange of goods.
Conclusion
Mexico has taken important steps toward regulating crypto assets, but the current legal framework remains limited. The lack of a precise legal definition, Banxico’s restrictive stance, and fiscal ambiguity.
*****
(1) Bank of Mexico. (2019). Statement on Virtual Assets. Retrieved from https://www.banxico.org.mx
(2) González de la Vega, M. (2020). “Crypto Assets and Financial Regulation in Mexico: Between Innovation and Risk.” Mexican Journal of Financial Law, 12(1), 105–120.
(3) SAT. (2021). Guide on Tax Obligations for Virtual Asset Transactions. Mexico City: Tax Administration Service.
(4) Ramírez Tovar, L. (2022). “Tax Treatment of Crypto Assets in Mexico: A Critical Analysis.” Digital Taxation and Legal Studies, 8(2), 45–67.
ENRIQUE OCHOA DE GONZÁLEZ ARGUELLES
&
RUBÉN SOTELO PANIAGUA
&
OMAR ALEJANDRI RODRÍGUEZ
Portugal has long enjoyed a reputation as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, attracting investors, entrepreneurs, and service providers. Historically, one key component of its attractiveness was the personal income tax exemption on long-term capital gains derived from the sale of crypto assets.
The country’s regulatory stance on crypto assets has shifted significantly. What began as a light-touch approach focused mainly on anti-money laundering obligations (under the AML-5 Directive framework) is now transitioning into full alignment with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, MiCA).
MiCA’s implementation at the domestic level has been held up until now.
Current Legal Landscape
Portugal does not yet have an overarching legal framework or a singular definition of blockchain-based assets. Instead, the classification of crypto assets depends on their specific characteristics, the associated transactions or their use. In certain cases, this classification may trigger their treatment as financial instruments, thereby subjecting them to existing financial services or securities regulation. Such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis.
In practice, the regulatory patchwork applicable to crypto assets in Portugal may include:
- The Portuguese Securities Code (as amended) (1);
- The Anti-Money Laundering and Prevention of Terrorism Financing Law (Law 83/2017, as amended);
- The Decree-Law no. 91/2018 of 12 November concerning the Payment Services and E-money Act;
- The DLT Pilot Regime (Regulation (EU) 2022/858, transposed by Decree-Law 66/2023);
- The Data Protection Law (2);
- The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) (3);
- Relevant consumer protection laws.
Recent Legislative Developments
On 28 August 2025, the Portuguese Government approved two draft laws marking the first formal steps toward MiCA implementation:
- MiCA Framework Law, establishing the framework for MiCA’s application in Portugal. It defines the competent national authorities, supervisory and sanctioning powers, user protection mechanisms, and a transitional regime for entities already active in the Portuguese market.
- Crypto-Asset Traceability Law, transposing Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, which sets out requirements on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto assets. This measure strengthens anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) safeguards by enhancing payment traceability.
Once these draft laws are approved by Parliament and the national competent authority is designated, Portugal will be able to process MiCA authorisation files and transition from a system of tolerance to a formal licensing regime.
For incumbent VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Providers regulated under AML Law), the priority is to use the transitional period (until July 2026) to align governance, compliance, and disclosure practices with MiCA standards. For new entrants, the strategic choice will be to wait for the full legislative framework.
The Competitive Advantage in Taxation
Tax remains one of Portugal’s most attractive features for crypto investors. Individuals enjoy a full exemption on capital gains from crypto assets held for more than 12 months (other requirements may apply). Short-term gains are taxed at a flat rate of 28%.
Companies operating in the sector are subject to the general Corporate Income Tax (CIT) regime, which does not provide ad hoc exemptions for income connected to crypto assets (CIT taxpayers are generally liable to CIT on profits assessed under accounting rules in line with International Financial Reporting Standards). CIT is levied at standard rates (20% and 16% up to profits of EUR 50.000), with lower rates available in certain regions of the country. Start-ups, which compose the largest portion players of the sector, may also benefit from targeted tax incentives, including preferential treatment of stock options.
It is settled case law that VAT does not apply to Bitcoin transactions when used as a means of payment, although crypto assets are not recognised as legal tender.
Outlook
Portugal is moving from a fragmented regulatory landscape to a harmonised European framework, striking a balance between market integrity, investor protection, and innovation. Coupled with a favourable tax regime and a strong start-up ecosystem, the country remains one of the most attractive destinations in Europe for crypto and blockchain ventures.
*****
(1) Decree-Law no. 486/99 of 13 November.
(2) Regulation (UE) no. 679/2016 of 27 April, also known as “GDPR” and Law no. 58/2019 of 8 August.
(3) Regulation (UE) no. 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 14 December 2022.
JOÃO G. GIL FIGUEIRA
MiCA Regulation. The European Union has taken a pioneering role by adopting Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), creating a uniform supervisory framework. Romania, following European Union directives, is now moving toward a comprehensive regulatory framework that aligns with international standards.
Romania is transposing MiCA through a draft Emergency Ordinance (May 2025), establishing a tripartite supervisory system:
- ASF (Financial Supervisory Authority): Licenses and oversees non-banking CASPs;
- BNR (National Bank of Romania): Supervises credit institutions and token issuers (ARTs/EMTs);
- ADR (Agency for Digitalization of Romania): Monitors IT infrastructure and cybersecurity compliance.
Transitional framework and grandfathering. MiCA establishes a sophisticated transitional framework designed to facilitate the orderly migration of existing crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) from national regulatory regimes to the unified European supervisory structure. This transitional mechanism, commonly referred to as “grandfathering,” represents a critical bridge between the fragmented pre-MiCA landscape and the harmonized regulatory environment envisioned by the European Union. Under Article 143(3) of MiCA, existing CASPs benefit from a limited period of regulatory continuity, permitting continued operations until July 1, 2026, contingent upon compliance with applicable national legislation as of December 30, 2024. This provision recognizes the practical challenges faced by established market participants while maintaining regulatory oversight during the transition period. However, Member States retain discretionary authority to adjust these transitional periods based on their specific national regulatory environments and market conditions.
The grandfathering provisions serve as a temporary regulatory shield, allowing CASPs to maintain business continuity while preparing for full MiCA compliance. Yet, this transitional protection comes with significant operational constraints. Most notably, CASPs operating under grandfathering arrangements cannot access the MiCA passporting regime, which constitutes one of the regulation’s most significant innovations for market integration. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published comprehensive guidance clarifying that grandfathering periods vary substantially across Member States, with some jurisdictions offering protection periods extending up to 18 months. This heterogeneous approach creates a complex compliance landscape where the urgency of MiCA authorization applications depends heavily on jurisdictional considerations.
Passporting system. MiCA introduces a revolutionary passporting system that mirrors established frameworks under financial services directives such as MiFID II. Once a CASP obtains full MiCA authorization from a competent authority in one Member State, it gains the legal right to provide services across the entire European Union without requiring separate national licenses. This single authorization system represents a fundamental shift toward market integration and regulatory efficiency.
The distinction between grandfathering rights and passporting privileges is legally and commercially critical. Grandfathering provides temporary operational continuity under national law but does not confer cross-border service rights. Only upon obtaining complete MiCA authorization does a CASP unlock the full potential of EU-wide market access through the passporting mechanism.
Other Romanian initiatives. Besides MiCA, the Law no. 129/2019 on Preventing and Combating Money Laundering is central. It extends anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) obligations to crypto exchanges, digital wallet providers, and other entities dealing with virtual and fiat currency swaps. According to this law, entities are required to conduct customer due diligence (KYC), maintain records, and report suspicious transactions. The Emergency Ordinance No. 111/2020 amends Law 129/2019, strengthening obligations around registration or authorization of digital wallet providers and platforms that exchange between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies. It also clarifies definitions and penalties for non-compliance.
For individuals, crypto transactions are taxed. For businesses, the profit is taxed with 10%, according to the Law no. 30/2019, but accounting classification of crypto-assets remains unclear. Many companies use licensed platforms in Romania, such as Binance, because the national platforms (Tradesilvania, Tokero) are not licensed. On the innovation side, Romania has launched a state-owned NFT trading platform through the National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics (ICI), marking a pioneering institutional initiative in blockchain adoption. The National Office for Prevention and Combating Money Laundering (ONPCSB) proposed a legislative reform that is aligned with EU Regulations 2023/1113 (Transfer of Funds) and 2023/1114 (MiCA). Its objectives include strengthening AML/CFT measures, harmonizing national legislation with EU standards, and fostering a secure environment for crypto users and investors.
Key challenges include: (1) ensuring GDPR compliance with blockchain’s immutable nature, especially regarding the rights of rectification and erasure; (2) balancing AML/KYC obligations with proportional data collection; (3) harmonizing tax, accounting, and reporting frameworks for corporate crypto activities – activities such as staking, yield services, tokenization, or decentralized finance (DeFi) are less clearly regulated or fall into grey areas. It’s often not obvious whether an activity is subject to financial regulation or only AML laws and (4) ensuring the consumers are protected from fraud or misuse. At the same time, Romania has the opportunity to convert these constraints into strategic advantages: clarifying the accounting and tax treatment of crypto-assets, adapting AML/KYC requirements to GDPR principles and promoting innovation through public-private partnerships, exemplified by the ICI NFT project. Cryptocurrency regulation in Romania is no longer a matter of choice but a necessity. With the implementation of MiCA, Romania is poised to offer a safe, transparent, and competitive environment for investors, while fostering innovation in blockchain technologies.
Conclusion. Currently, it can be said that Romania is in a transitional moment for crypto regulation: the legal framework is becoming more robust, largely driven by European-level regulations. The combination of a growing market, legal clarity, and robust supervision positions Romania as a potential hub for regulated crypto activity in Europe, but for now, for businesses and users alike, diligence, compliance, and anticipation of upcoming rules will be essential to operate safely and legally in Romania’s evolving crypto environment.
*****
https://www.investopedia.com/cryptocurrency-regulations-around-the-world-5202122
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/RO/legal-content/summary/european-crypto-assets-regulation-mica.html
https://www.juridice.ro/785846/reglementarea-criptoactivelor-in-romania.html
https://freemanlaw.com/cryptocurrency/romania/
https://blaj-law.ro/en/services/cryptocurrency/
RAUL-FELIX HODOȘ
Singapore has long been recognised as one of Asia’s top financial centres, attracting global banks, investors, and start-ups with its pro-business environment and strong reputation for stability and trust, effectively balancing financial stability with innovation.
Key Legislation
The Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act) is the key legislation regulating the provision of payment services in Singapore, including digital payment token (DPT) services.
A DPT is a digital representation of value that is not denominated or pegged to any currency, functions as a medium of exchange accepted by the public, and can be transferred, stored, or traded electronically. (1) Bitcoin and Ether are common examples of DPTs.
Licensing Framework
Under the PS Act, a person that provides any of the following services must obtain a licence from the Monetary Authority of Singapore for the provision of DPT services: (2)
- dealing in DPTs;
- facilitating the exchange of DPTs;
- accepting DPTs from one DPT account for transmission to another DPT account;
- arranging for the transmission of DPTs from one DPT account to another DPT account;
- brokering the buying or selling of any DPT;
- safeguarding, or carrying out a customer’s instruction relating to, a DPT, where the service provider has control over the DPT;
- safeguarding a DPT instrument, where the service provider has control over one or more DPTs associated with the DPT instrument; or
- carrying out a customer’s instruction relating to one or more DPTs associated with a DPT instrument, where the service provider has control over the DPT instrument.
Other Regulatory Requirements
A DPT service provider must also comply with several ongoing requirements, including:
- maintaining the required base capital and security deposit;
- developing and implementing robust anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing policies;
- segregating and safeguarding customer funds;
- implementing technology risk management measures;
- complying with fit and proper requirements; and
- adhering to business conduct requirements, including customer disclosures and complaints handling processes.
*****
(1) PS Act, Sec. 2(1)
(2) PS Act, First Schedule
WINNIE CHANG
South Africa has built one of the most detailed regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrency on the continent. With innovative fintech players leading the way, more people are turning to cryptocurrency for payments, investments, and cross-border transfers. But with growth comes questions: Is cryptocurrency legal in South Africa? How is it regulated? What laws apply to business and investors? The answer is that crypto is legal, but it does not operate in a free-for-all space. South Africa has introduced clear rules to protect consumers, prevent money laundering, and bring the cryptocurrency industry closer to mainstream finance. It is essential to understand cryptocurrency regulations in South Africa, whether you’re an individual investor, a fintech startup, or an established financial institution.
Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)
The FSCA (1) is the primary regulator in the crypto space. In October 2022, it declared that crypto assets are financial products under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS). This means:
- Exchanges, wallet providers, brokers, and other platforms must register as Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs).
- Unlicensed providers risk fines or being shut down.
- Consumers gain better protection, as providers must follow conduct and disclosure rules.
- In 2021, the IFWG position paper (2) was one of the most comprehensive frameworks from South African regulators on crypto assets. Notably, it explained in detail the roadmap for how regulators like FSCA and others would approach crypto assets in South Africa. The paper was the foundation for today’s licensing framework and the broader push for responsible innovation in the fintech space.
South African Reserve Bank (SARB)
The SARB (3) focuses on financial stability and exchange control. While it doesn’t directly license crypto platforms, it plays a big role in shaping policy. In 2025, the Pretoria High Court (4) ruled that crypto is not subject to exchange control regulations, meaning you can send crypto abroad without approval. However, SARB has appealed this ruling, so the law may change again. This highlights how crypto sits at the edge of traditional monetary policy, making it crucial for businesses to keep up with developments.
South African Revenue Services (SARS)
- SARS (5) treats crypto as an intangible asset for tax purposes. This means:
- Frequent traders may be taxed on profits as income.
- Long-term investors may face Capital Gains Tax (CGT).
- Everyone must declare crypto transactions on their tax return.
- Recently, SARS enhanced compliance in South Africa’s (6) cryptocurrency regulation on crypto traders through the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). This framework, aligned with international standards set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), requires crypto exchanges, brokers, and wallet providers to collect detailed transaction data and report it annually to SARS. CARF scope is extensive, covering not only traditional cryptocurrencies but also stable coins and certain NFTs. In fact, it introduces additional tax-specific due diligence. Providers must ensure their systems can handle both regulatory and tax reporting obligations, as non-compliance can result in penalties. With SARS gaining access to granular transaction-level data, under-declaration or omissions are increasingly risky. Taxpayers are encouraged to utilise the Voluntary Disclosure Programme (VDP) to address any past non-compliance before enforcement actions are taken.
Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC)
The FIC (7) enforces anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing rules. Under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA), crypto platforms are now viewed as accountable institutions. They must perform Know Your Customer (KYC) checks to verify client identities, secondly report suspicious or unusual transactions, and lastly comply with the Travel Rule, which requires customer details to accompany large cross-border transfers. This ensures crypto doesn’t become a blind spot for financial crime.
Why this Matters for Fintech and Investors
For fintech players, compliance with these regulators is essential to building trust, attracting customers, and staying ahead in a competitive industry. For investors, knowing that authorities like the FSCA, SARB, SARS, and FIC are involved means you can trade and invest with more confidence.
What you can learn from the cryptocurrency regulation in South Africa
Cryptocurrency regulation in South Africa is not about banning crypto; it is about shaping it into a safe, transparent, and trusted part of the financial system.
- Use licensed service providers.
- Declare your gains to SARS.
- Keep an eye on SARB’s exchange control updates;
- stay updated with the latest compliance regulations and practical solutions (8).
*****
(1) https://www.fsca.co.za/Pages/Default.aspx
(2) https://www.michalsons.com/blog/crypto-regulations-in-south-africa/56081
(3) https://www.resbank.co.za/en/home
(4) https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2025/481.html
(6) https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-crypto/sars-tightens-its-grip-on-crypto-traders/
(8) https://www.michalsons.com/event/webinar-cryptocurrency-regulation-around-the-world
JOHN GILES
southafrica@lexing.network
The crypto-asset market has entered a new stage. With the entry into force of the European Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA), Spain now has a solid legal framework that provides security while opening the door to new business opportunities.
A regulated and safe framework. Until now, the Spanish framework relied on three pillars: registration with the Bank of Spain for exchange and custody of crypto-assets (Law 10/2010), CNMV Circular 1/2022 on crypto-asset advertising, and the Securities Market Law for tokens considered financial instruments. With MiCA, this framework is streamlined: crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) must obtain authorization from the CNMV, and will also be able to passport their services throughout the EU.
The role of the CNMV. The CNMV has taken on a central role:
- Authorizes and supervises new service providers.
- Requires monthly reporting of operations, including those carried out on blockchain.
- Oversees advertising and maintains lists of “financial scams”.
- Meanwhile, the Bank of Spain oversees the issuance and supervision of stablecoins (EMTs) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs).
The MiCA timeline in Spain. Spain has shortened the transitional period to 12 months: until 30 December 2025, entities already registered with the Bank of Spain or providing crypto services before that date may continue operating. From 2026 onwards, only those with MiCA authorization may legally operate. In addition, the EBA has clarified that platforms safeguarding or transferring stablecoins may also need a payment institution or e-money license as from March 2026.
Sandbox: supervised innovation. Since 2020, Spain has had a financial sandbox managed by the CNMV, Bank of Spain and Treasury. This environment allows companies and startups to test innovative blockchain and crypto projects under regulatory supervision, reducing legal risks and gaining credibility with investors and strategic partners.
Tokenization validated: real examples in Spain. Beyond cryptocurrencies, Spain already hosts legally validated tokenization projects:
- Beself Brands: first case of tokenization of 100% of the share capital of a non-listed company.
- Reental: leader in real estate tokenization, with over €30 million tokenized assets, flipping projects in Madrid and decentralized secondary markets.
- OpenBrick: preparing tokenized real estate issuances valued at €6 million, with plans to reach €500 million within three years.
- Minos Securities (Prosegur): first tokenized securities agency authorized by the CNMV, enabling issuance and custody of debt, promissory notes and funds on blockchain.
- Bit2Me STX: from the sandbox, it has launched a blockchain-based stock exchange, operating 24/7 without intermediaries.
These examples prove that tokenization is not a futuristic concept, but a reality with legal certainty in Spain, opening new channels of financing, investment and liquidity in sectors such as real estate, venture capital and corporate structures.
MARC GALLARDO
The Swedish Crypto Market. Crypto activity in Sweden is increasingly intermediated through regulated financial products and EU-facing platforms. Finansinspektionen (the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, “FI”) consumer protection stance has focused on retail risks, especially around complex exchange traded crypto certificates, where FI’s analysis shows most Swedish retail traders lost money between 2018 and early 2024. FI has also published plain language warnings, such as “Four reasons not to buy cryptoassets” underscoring the volatility, fraud risk, and the lack of traditional investor safeguards. This consumer-protection lens shapes the supervisory tone for CASPs seeking MiCA authorisation in Sweden (5) (6).
The Riksbank’s e-krona project remains exploratory. The technical pilot concluded in 2023, and current work tracks international CBDC developments, particularly the digital euro, while researching resilience features like offline payments. An e-krona would complement, not replace, cash, and its policy launch remains a political decision (4).
Legal Framework. MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) entered into force in June 2023 and governs crypto in EU member states, therefore applies directly to Sweden. Its stablecoin rules (asset referenced and e-money tokens) began applying on 30 June 2024. The broader rules covering public offerings of most other crypto-assets and CASP authorisations have applied since 30 December 2024 (2).
Sweden adopted a complementary national law (SFS 2024:1159) to fill in domestic details. It explicitly designates Finansinspektionen as the competent authority under MiCA and ties MiCA disclosures and white-paper content to Sweden’s Marketing Act by deeming such information “material” for consumer protection purposes. Practically, misleading marketing around white papers or CASP services can trigger Marketing Act enforcement alongside MiCA remedies (1).
The EU’s funds-transfer and crypto-transfer regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, the “TFR”) imposes “travel rule” obligations aligned with Financial Action Task Force standards. From 30 December 2024, CASPs must collect, transmit, and retain originator and beneficiary information for crypto transfers (regardless of amount), enabling traceability and AML/CFT screening. EBA guidance supports implementation (3).
Who supervises MiCA in Sweden? Finansinspektionen (FI) supervises MiCA in Sweden. It authorises CASPs, reviews notifications of white papers (where required), and conducts ongoing supervision. The government and Parliament confirmed FI’s role through the MiCA complementary law, while FI’s own public guidance notes that MiCA replaces national crypto rules and applies directly. Issuers and service providers should treat FI as their principal Swedish counterpart for MiCA queries and filings (1) (7) (8).
Tokens that qualify as financial instruments (such as certain security tokens) remain under the EU’s existing securities framework (MiFID II and the Prospectus Regulation), with FI responsible for prospectus reviews and market conduct. MiCA does not displace this boundary; it governs crypto-assets that are not financial instruments (9).
Authorisation, timing, and Sweden’s shorter transition. MiCA’s full CASP regime has applied since 30 December 2024. ESMA maintains an interim MiCA register for authorisations and white papers, and has been issuing supervisory briefings and peer-review work to converge Member State practice. Early 2025 data showed a modest but growing flow of MiCA authorisations across the EU (10) (11) (12).
Sweden’s nine month grandfathering period. Member States could shorten the default 18 month transition for pre-MiCA providers. Sweden chose nine months, meaning existing providers could continue operating only until 30 September 2025, subject to applying in time to benefit from transitional coverage. After that, providing in-scope services without a MiCA authorisation risks enforcement. This compressed window makes Sweden one of the stricter EU jurisdictions on transition timing (1).
Issuance, white papers, and marketing. MiCA requires issuers of most non ART or EMT crypto-assets to publish a white paper and, in many cases, notify the competent authority. In Sweden, misleading or incomplete MiCA disclosures can also be tackled under the Marketing Act, as the complementary law flags key MiCA information as material for consumer-law purposes. Issuers and CASPs should align legal and marketing teams to ensure coherence across investor decks, landing pages, and white papers (1).
On the market integrity side, MiCA imposes a crypto specific market abuse regime for in-scope venues and assets. ESMA has been rolling out guidance and consultations on personnel competence, market abuse prevention, and authorisation processes. Firms should expect questions from FI that track these EU level materials (10) (13).
AML and “The Travel Rule”. Sweden long applied AML rules to virtual asset businesses under its national AML framework. MiCA now sits alongside these obligations. The travel rule applies to CASPs since 30 December 2024, meaning customer due diligence, sanctions screening, and originator and beneficiary information must accompany crypto transfers. Swedish firms should also watch FI’s AML reporting and governance expectations and ensure their policies address on and off ramp risks, self-hosted wallet transfers, and cross-border routing (3) (14).
Tax: capital gains, losses, and VAT. For individuals, Sweden treats most crypto disposals as capital income taxed at a flat 30 percent rate. Losses are generally only 70 percent deductible against capital gains, an important asymmetry for active traders. Skatteverket’s guidance and examples, including for NFTs, reflect this approach. Businesses may face corporate tax where crypto is held on balance sheet or earned in commerce (15) (16).
As to VAT, the Court of Justice’s Hedqvist judgment (originating from Sweden) established that exchanging bitcoin for fiat is a VAT exempt financial service under the EU VAT Directive’s “currency” exemption. That precedent still informs VAT treatment in Sweden and across the EU for exchange services (17).
Staking rewards, mining income, and crypto received as remuneration are typically taxable as income (interest or earned income, depending on the activity). Good record keeping and wallet level reconciliation are essential to support Swedish filings (16).
Enforcement and asset-seizure powers. In late 2024, Sweden enacted a new confiscation framework introducing självständigt förverkande (non conviction based confiscation) and updating procedures for tracing, freezing, and enforcing against unlawful assets. Although technology neutral, these tools can capture crypto holdings where assets are not commensurate with legitimate income or are linked to crime. Swedish prosecutors have issued guidance on the new law, and Parliament’s materials explain its purpose and scope. CASPs should expect heightened law enforcement requests and plan for prompt, lawful cooperation (18) (19) (20).
Conclusion. Sweden’s crypto regime is no longer a patchwork. It is MiCA first, FI supervised, and reinforced by the travel rule, consumer law hooks, and asset recovery powers. For serious firms, the prize is an EU passport and a large, harmonised market. For consumers, the message from authorities remains consistent: know the risks, expect scrutiny of marketing claims, and don’t assume past returns will persist. Sweden has taken many steps to make the crypto market safer, clearer, and more institutional (1) (3).
*****
(1) Swedish Government – SFS 2024:1159, MiCA complementary law https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-20241159-med-kompletterande-bestammelser_sfs-2024-1159/
(2) European Commission / EUR-Lex – MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj/eng
(3) European Commission / EUR-Lex – Transfer of Funds Regulation (EU) 2023/1113
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1113/oj/eng
(4) Sveriges Riksbank – E-krona Project
https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/payments–cash/e-krona/
(5) Finansinspektionen – Report: FI Analysis No. 44: Most People Have Lost Money Trading Cryptocertificates
(6) Finansinspektionen – Four reasons not to buy cryptoassets
https://www.fi.se/en/published/news/2024/four-reasons-not-to-buy-cryptoassets/
(7) Finansinspektionen – MiCA information page (Swedish)
https://www.fi.se/sv/betalningar/kryptotillgangar/mica-forordningen/
(8) Swedish Government – Prop. 2024/25:43 (Preparatory works confirming FI as competent authority)
https://regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2024/10/prop.-20242543
(9) Chambers Guide – Blockchain 2025: Sweden
https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/blockchain-2025/sweden
(10) ESMA – MiCA Supervisory Briefing (CASP authorisation)
https://www.esma.europa.eu/document/supervisory-briefing-authorisation-casps-under-mica
(11) ESMA – Interim MiCA Register (Databases and Registers)
https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-and-data/databases-and-registers
(12) ESMA – MiCA Consultation Paper on market abuse and investor protection
(13) ESMA – Consultation on staff knowledge and competence under MiCA
(14) Finansinspektionen – AML/CFT supervision overview
https://www.fi.se/en/bank/money-laundering/
(15) Divly – Sweden Crypto Tax Guide
https://divly.com/en/guides/sweden
(16) TokenTax – Sweden Crypto Tax Overview
https://tokentax.co/blog/crypto-tax-sweden
(17) CJEU – Skatteverket v Hedqvist, C-264/14
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=170305&doclang=en
(18) Swedish Parliament – Confiscation Law 2024 (SFS 2024:782)
(19) Swedish Prosecutor’s Office – Guidance on non-conviction confiscation (Brottsvinster och oförklarade tillgångar)
(20) Swedish Ministry of Justice – Prop. 2023/24:144 (Preparatory works on confiscation law)
KATARINA BOHM HALLKVIST
On July 18, 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) was signed into law, creating the first federal framework for regulating payment stablecoins in the United States (1). This law brings much-needed clarity to an area previously governed by inconsistent state rules and informal industry practices.
Key Provisions
Stablecoins are digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar, designed for faster and cheaper payments (2). The GENIUS Act allows banks and non-bank financial institutions to issue payment stablecoins, but only after federal approval and ongoing supervision (3). Important requirements include:
- Full Reserve Backing: Stablecoins must be 100% backed by liquid assets such as cash or U.S. Treasuries to ensure stability and reduce risk (4).
- Consumer Disclosures: Issuers must clearly explain how stablecoins are backed, redemption rights, and other details to promote transparency (5).
- Ban on Algorithmic Stablecoins: Stablecoins without tangible reserves, which rely on software to maintain value, are prohibited due to their vulnerability (6).
- Federal-State Coordination: The law sets a federal baseline while allowing state-regulated entities to operate nationwide if they meet federal standards (7).
These rules aim to build trust and support broader use of stablecoins.
What It Means for Businesses
The GENIUS Act reduces legal uncertainty around stablecoins, making it easier for businesses to accept crypto payments confidently. Benefits include lower transaction fees, faster settlement, and easier international transfers — especially useful for global and high-volume operations.
However, businesses must also consider new compliance obligations, such as licensing, Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, and tax reporting. Operational issues like wallet management, accounting, and cybersecurity are critical.
While stablecoins are less volatile than other cryptocurrencies, risks remain. Companies should prepare to train employees to identify fraud and understand the technical aspects of crypto payments (8).
Steps for Adoption
- To implement stablecoin payments responsibly, businesses should:
- Conduct legal and regulatory assessments.
- Choose reputable payment processors with compliance features.
- Develop internal policies for transaction handling and recordkeeping.
- Train staff on risks and fraud prevention.
- Stay updated on evolving regulations.
Conclusion
The GENIUS Act marks a major milestone in U.S. digital asset regulation. It offers businesses a clear path to integrating stablecoins into payment systems but requires thoughtful planning and adherence to compliance standards to succeed.
*****
(1) Congress.gov, S.1582 – GENIUS Act, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/how-the-genius-act-impacts-stablecoin-tax-and-accounting-reporting-standards/h Congress (2025-2026): GENIUS Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.
(2) Thomson Reuters, How the GENIUS Act impacts stablecoin tax and accounting reporting standards (June 27, 2025), https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/how-the-genius-act-impacts-stablecoin-tax-and-accounting-reporting-standards/ans for tax and accounting professionals.
(3) Id.
(4) Id.
(5) Id.
(6) Id.
(7) Id.
(8) Samuel O’Brient, The Head of Crypto at Visa Tells Us Why the Payments Giant Isn’t Worried About Stablecoins, Business Insider (July 27, 2025), https://www.businessinsider.com/stablecoins-crypto-visa-emerging-markets-wmt-amzn-retail-consumers-2025-7
JENNIFER A. BECKAGE
Not long ago, most American bank executives were critics of cryptocurrency, echoing the sentiments of Brian Moynihan, President and CEO of Bank of America, who described it as an “untraceable tool for money laundering” (1). Not anymore. The United States has undergone significant changes in its approach to cryptocurrency regulation since President Trump resumed power in January 2025. In a quest to make digital assets a central pillar of the future U.S. financial system, President Trump’s policy emphasizes a deregulatory approach, with private sector-led innovation and restricted federal regulatory control.
Just three days after resuming his presidency in January 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology (“Order”) (2). This Order focuses on fostering innovation and responsible growth of digital assets and blockchain technology in the United States by:
- Establishing a policy of supporting responsible growth and use of digital assets and blockchain technologies.
- Directing a review of previous federal agency guidance, aiming to minimize regulatory burdens and promote private sector innovation.
- Prohibiting federal agencies from establishing, issuing, or promoting a U.S. central bank digital currency (“CBDC”), citing privacy and financial sovereignty as primary concerns.
Months later, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (“GENIUS Act”) (3) was signed into law, creating the first major U.S. federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Key provisions include:
- Stablecoin (4) issuers must be insured depository institutions (banks, credit unions) or licensed non-bank financial entities.
- Issuers must maintain a ratio of 1:1 U.S. dollar or liquid asset reserves, submit to regular audits, and comply with Treasury and Bank Secrecy Act reporting.
- Nonbank issuers must obtain federal approval and submit to supervision; foreign issuers must meet comparable regulatory standards to access U.S. markets.
- Stablecoin issuers are prohibited from paying interest on Stablecoins to distinguish them from traditional deposits.
- The Act does not authorize the Federal Reserve to issue a CBDC.
In parallel, the pending Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (5) aims to further codify the ban against a federal digital currency by barring the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC to the public. This Bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow margin. It is uncertain whether it will have the votes needed in the Senate to become law. Those who are opposed to the pending Act and in favor of CBDCs seek to maintain U.S. leadership in digital currency and enhance financial stability by enabling a swift response to bank runs or other financial crises (6). Arguments against CBDCs and in favor of the pending Act include concerns about privacy and the potential for government surveillance of citizens’ spending (7).
While the GENIUS Act focuses on establishing a federal framework for stablecoins, the pending Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (“CLARITY Act”) addresses the broader market structure for digital assets, including their classification and the roles of different regulatory bodies.
If enacted, the CLARITY Act would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets, clarifying the regulatory oversight roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). The Act purportedly aims to reduce legal uncertainty, stimulate innovation, and promote the adoption of blockchain technologies, while professing to ensure consumer protection and market integrity.
An unanswered question is what will be done about the potential for the growing digital currency market to cause a sharp increase in money laundering and other financial crimes? A President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets (“Working Group”) was established to address these and other issues, to provide clear guidance, and to eliminate government overlap. In a report issued in July 2025, the Working Group made several recommendations, including modernizing the reporting requirements under the Banking Secrecy Act and encouraging Congress to clarify the duties of parties regarding anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorists within a decentralized finance ecosystem. The Working Group also recommended that the SEC and the CFTC utilize their existing authorities to facilitate the trading of digital assets by providing clarity on registration, trading, custody, and record-keeping (8).
*****
(1) Behind Wall Street’s Abrupt Flip on Crypto, Rob Copeland, New York Tines August 13, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/business/wall-street-banks-crypto-stablecoins.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
(2) Executive Order 14178 https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-executive-order-to-establish-united-states-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/
(3) S394 – GENIUS Act of 2025119th Congress (2025-2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/394/text
(4) Stablecoins differ from other cryptocurrencies by design. Unlike typical cryptocurrencies that may experience volatile price swings, stablecoins aim for predictability by linking their value to a stable asset, such as the US dollar. Despite efforts to minimize fluctuations, risks persist, including the possibility of a stablecoin losing its peg and security vulnerabilities like hacking or phishing attacks
(5) Similar legislation has been debated in the past: U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session, Sept. 20, 2022 at the Under the Radar: Alternative Payment Systems and the National Security Impacts of Their Growth Hybrid Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy of the Committee on Financial Services https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg48838/html/CHRG-117hhrg48838.htm
(6) Cryptocurrencies Phase III Examining the effects/implications of CBDCs, AI, and Zero-Knowledge Proofs in the cyber-fraud space along with other current trends and recent case rulings (2024) U.S. Homeland Security https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/2024aepphaselllcombattingillicitactivityutilizingfinancial.pdf
(7) CBDC Spells Doom for Financial Privacy, Nicholas Antony, The CATO Institute, https://www.cato.org/free-society/fall-2024/cbdc-spells-doom-financial-privacy#:~:text=For%20decades%2C%20lawmakers%20and%20unelected,expanded%2C%20in%20the%20digital%20age
(8) Fact Sheet: The President’s Working Group on Digital Asset markets Releases Recommendations to Strengthen American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology The White House July 30, 2025
JANICE F. MULLIGAN