FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Estelle Rigal-Alexandre, Marie Frisch and Mohamed Bouzenada, Soulier Bunch
result in a circumvention of licensing or compliance obligations. In particular, firms must address a number of specific concerns, including: • the identification of responsible parties and alloca- tion of liability; • compliance with AML/CFT obligations; • operational and counterparty risks associated with decentralised protocols; and • the ability to ensure adequate control, governance and risk management over the services provided. 5.2 DeFi Structures French law does not recognise legal status for decen- tralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) as such. In practice, DeFi projects are typically structured through traditional legal entities, most commonly commercial companies which may be used to support develop- ment, governance or interface activities, even where the underlying protocol is intended to operate in a decentralised manner. The use of such legal wrappers is generally driven by practical considerations, including liability manage- ment, contractual relationships and interactions with service providers (eg, hosting, development or front- end interfaces), rather than by any specific regulatory requirement applicable to DeFi. 5.3 Liability There is currently no established French case law or specific enforcement practice directly addressing liability in DeFi.
In November 2024, Printemps, a major French depart- ment store, announced that it would begin accepting payments in crypto-assets (including Bitcoin, Ethere- um, EURI and USDC) through a partnership with Binance Pay and French fintech Lyzi. The system ena- bles customers to pay by scanning a QR code, illus- trating growing interest in integrating crypto-assets into retail environments. Under the Monetary and Financial Code, payment in e-money is subject to specific legal limitations: • EUR3,000 when the payer is fiscally domiciled in France and acts in a professional capacity; and • EUR10,000 in other cases (ie, private individuals or non-residents). However, the use of crypto-assets for the payment of real estate transactions appears to be excluded (unless converted into euros), based on established case law on the nullity of clauses stipulating payment in foreign currency in mortgage loan agreements. 6.2 Stablecoins 6.2.1 Fiat Currency and Algorithmic Stablecoins Stablecoins are subject to the comprehensive MiCA framework, depending on whether they qualify as ARTs or EMTs ( 2.2 Crypto-Asset Regulatory Frame- works ). MiCA does not create a separate legal cate- gory for algorithmic stablecoins. However, algorithmic mechanisms used to stabilise the value of a crypto- asset are not exempt from the regulatory require- ments applicable to ARTs, provided the token’s value is linked to assets. Consequently, algorithmic stablecoins may fall within the ART regime if they meet the relevant criteria. Issu- ers must notably establish and maintain a reserve of assets that is legally and operationally segregated from their own assets, which must be sufficient to cover the risks associated with the referenced assets as well as the liquidity needs associated with redemp-
6. Payments and Stablecoins 6.1 Payments
Under French law, the euro is the sole legal tender. Consequently, crypto-assets cannot be imposed as a means of payment but may be voluntarily accept- ed as a means of payment by merchants, subject to contractual freedom. While still relatively marginal in practice, such payment methods are gradually gaining traction in France.
tion rights granted to holders. 6.2.2 Stablecoin Regulation
Under MiCA, fiat-backed stablecoins are expressly regulated through a bespoke framework applicable to EMTs, which may only be issued by authorised
261 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook