PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Nuno Lima da Luz and Tomás Gomes da Silva, Cuatrecasas
in criminal procedure contexts and have analysed wal- let access and seizure legality, which indicates judicial willingness to treat crypto-assets as actionable assets rather than as legally “invisible.” For DeFi harm sce- narios, that suggests victims may pursue remedies through general tort, contract, and unjust enrichment doctrines, supplemented by criminal law where fraud or misappropriation exists, but the precise doctrinal pathways will be intensely fact-dependent. On the regulatory side, accountability is likely to be pursued through authorisation perimeter enforcement and market integrity tools rather than through “pro- tocol liability” doctrines. Law No 69/2025 empowers precautionary measures including seizure and freez- ing of crypto-assets, and it sets market abuse and unauthorised service offenses at a “very serious” level, which can be used where identifiable actors are involved. ESMA stakeholder materials also empha- sise the need to monitor DeFi development and clarify MiCA’s application to DeFi operations, which signals an enforcement posture that will evolve as factual pat- terns become clearer. Payments in crypto-assets are not prohibited in Por- tugal, but they are not equivalent to paying in euros, and they do not transform the payer or payee into a regulated payment institution simply because a crypto transfer occurred. Banco de Portugal has clearly stat- ed that crypto-assets are not legal tender in Portugal, no one is obliged to accept them, and crypto-assets do not perform the functions of money in the way legal tender does. Therefore, accepting crypto as consid- eration is generally a private-law and tax question, but not “currency use” in the legal tender sense. Where crypto-based payment products resemble regulated payment services (for example, client fund custody, fiat legs, or issuance of redeemable mon- etary value), Portuguese and EU payments law can be triggered. Portugal’s Regime on Payment Services and Electronic Money (Decree-Law 91/2018) defines payment services broadly, reflecting PSD2 transposi- tion, and it anchors the regulated payments perimeter 6. Payments and Stablecoins 6.1 Payments
around “funds,” payment accounts, and payment exe- cution services. Firms offering crypto-to-fiat payment facilitation, custodial wallets with payment function- ality, or stablecoin-based payment instruments must therefore analyse whether they are providing regulat- ed payment services, issuing e-money, or providing MiCA-regulated crypto services. In practice, hybrid models are where most risk accumulates, especially if consumers experience the product as “money-like” while the firm lacks the corresponding authorisation. 6.2 Stablecoins 6.2.1 Fiat Currency and Algorithmic Stablecoins Portuguese and EU law now draws the most opera- tionally important stablecoin distinctions through MiCA’s categories, especially ARTs and EMTs, rather than through the market’s colloquial labels. The BdP frames ARTs and EMTs as separate MiCA categories governed by Titles III and IV respectively, with distinct issuance conditions and supervisory pathways. This categorisation tends to align with whether a token references one official currency (EMT) or references other value/right combinations (ART), which captures most fiat-backed models. Algorithmic “stablecoins” are more difficult because the label does not itself determine legal classification. If an “algorithmic stablecoin” references an official currency in a way that falls into the EMT definition, it will likely be treated as an EMT with the corresponding issuer restrictions, while a model referencing a basket or other rights could fall into ART logic. If, instead, the token is not meaningfully “referencing” assets or a currency as required by those categories, it may fall into other MiCA crypto-asset categories, but the clas- sification must be explained and supported because EU authorities have standardised templates for classi- fication explanations and legal opinions in white paper contexts. Practically, the stablecoin label is commer- cially meaningful, but the legal effect flows from MiCA category mapping. 6.2.2 Stablecoin Regulation Fiat-backed stablecoins are regulated in Portugal pri- marily through MiCA, not by retrofitting them entirely into the pre-existing payments framework. Banco de Portugal’s MiCA guidance makes clear that ART and EMT issuance is subject to MiCA Titles III and IV
518 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook