International regulation of virtual assets under FATF’s new standards

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>To critically examine two significant developments for the regulation and supervision of virtual assets and virtual assets services providers: the amendment of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation No 15 in October 2018 and the adoption of an Interpretative Note in June 2019. We argue that new FATF standards constitute an appropriate response to money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with virtual assets, but that they must be followed by firm, consistent and effective implementation at the national level.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>This paper draws on reports, legislation, legal scholarship and other open source data in order to examine the new FATF standards on virtual assets.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The amendment of the FATF Recommendation No 15 in October 2018 and the adoption of an Interpretative Note in June 2019 have been necessary and opportune to forge a global approach to mitigate money laundering risks associated with crypto-assets. The new FATF standards on crypto-asset activities need to be implemented firmly, effectively and consistency to reduce the risk of jurisdiction-shopping by money launderers and terrorism financiers.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>This is one of the first studies examining two important and recent FATF initiatives, the amendment of the FATF Recommendation No 15 in October 2018 and the adoption of an Interpretative Note in June 2019.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Financial intelligence (monitoring) of the transactions with virtual assets: new legislation and best practices of foreign countries

“…According to the FATF standards, the scope of monitoring or supervision of virtual assets is limited to AML/CFT purposes. It does not extend to safeguarding financial stability in general or consumer/investor protection in particular (Pavlidis, 2020). It should be emphasized that the legislation governing the implementation/conduct of financial monitoring is one of the biggest problems in the legalization of virtual assets.…”

Cryptocurrency as a Digital Property in Indonesian Law Perspective

“…As a result, individual investors are required to report their cryptocurrency expenditures and profits on their annual tax returns, regardless of where they purchase digital coins. Similarly, FATF (The Financial Action Task Force) considers virtual assets to be property, proceeds, funds, or other valuable assets; this is intended to implement anti-money laundering/prevention of terrorism financing (AML/PPT) measures (Pavlidis, 2020). The Supreme People's Court of Shanghai has released a document stating that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are subject to proprietary laws and regulations.…”

The Formal, Financial and Fraught Route to Global Digital Identity Governance

“…We elaborate these arguments over three further sections drawing on primary documents, including guidance and reports of the FATF, 3 as well as secondary documents from Campbell-Verduyn, 2018a;Naheem, 2019;Pavlidis, 2020. blockchain industry news sites. The following section analyzes how the FATF shapes the exercise of protocological control in regards to governance of blockchains generally and digital identity governance specifically.…”