FATF has adopted international standards that would “level the playing field” for virtual asset service providers.
FATF has adopted international standards that would “level the playing field” for virtual asset service providers, including cryptocurrency providers, and traditional financial institutions if implemented across its member countries, including the United States.
The FATF adopted bothat its Plenary meeting on June 21. The two have been published together, with INR 15 included as an Appendix to the VASP Guidance.
The FATF states that it considers the threat of criminal and terrorist misuse of virtual assets to be serious and urgent, and therefore sets forth anthat its member countries will implement the “binding” adopted by this inter-governmental body in the context of virtual asset activities and service providers. Further, the FATF indicates it will monitor implementation of the new requirements by member countries and VASPs and conduct a 12-month review in June 2020.
FATF Recommendation 15, as amended, defines virtual assets and VASPs for consistent application of those terms by member countries and national authorities.
INR 15 clarifies the application of the FATF requirements to virtual assets and VASPs:
Theupdates the FATF’s and explains the application of a risk-based approach to AML/CFT standards for virtual assets. It is intended to complement Recommendation 15 and INR 15 and is focused, following a Recommendation-by-Recommendation approach, primarily on how the full range FATF Recommendations applies to virtual assets, virtual asset activities and VASPs in order to help member countries better design and implement a relevant risk-based AML/CFT regulatory and supervisory framework.
FATF states that “almost all” of the FATF Recommendations are directly relevant to address money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with virtual assets and VASPs and others that are less directly or explicitly linked are still relevant and applicable. As such, VASPs have the same full set of obligations as financial institutions or designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs). The VASP Guidance includes discussions of specific risk indicators, the types of activities that are in scope, licensing considerations, and examples of approaches in several jurisdictions.
In commended the efforts of the FATF to “address the growing misuse of cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets by money launderers, terrorist financiers, and other illicit actors” by setting standards that would “level the playing field” for “virtual asset service providers, including cryptocurrency providers, and traditional financial institutions” across the world. He further commented that the FATF’s initiatives will “enable the emerging FinTech sector to stay one-step ahead of rogue regimes and sympathizers of illicit causes searching for avenues to raise and transfer funds without detection.”before the FATF Plenary Session, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
While the United States and several State regulatory bodies currently have in place an AML/CFT framework for regulating, supervising, and taking enforcement actions, including applications for virtual currency and other digital asset products, Secretary Mnunchin encouraged FATF member countries to take similar actions in their countries and urged them to “work together to ensure that virtual assets are no longer a safe haven for illicit actors to end-run around established AML/CFT safeguards.”
The FATF’s adoption of INR 15 and the release of the VASP Guidance portend potentially significant expansion of the level of regulation over the virtual assets space across the globe, as member countries consider whether and how to apply the FATF Recommendations within their regulatory and supervisory frameworks.
Please refer to KPMG’s recently published Point of View paper,, for additional perspectives on AML compliance obligations in the United States for virtual asset providers. Developed by the Financial Crimes team within KPMG’s Forensics Practice, the paper discusses key AML risks in the cryptocurrency product offering and the need to move beyond traditional AML compliance when implementing program processes and controls.