Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026
Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor James Burnie gunnercooke llp
Global Practice Guides
Blockchain & Crypto-Assets
Contributing Editor James Burnie gunnercooke llp
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by James Burnie, gunnercooke llp p.6
EL SALVADOR Law and Practice p.194 Contributed by Torres Legal Trends and Developments p.214 Contributed by Torres Legal FINLAND Law and Practice p.221 Contributed by Nordic Law Trends and Developments p.238 Contributed by Nordic Law
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice p.10
Contributed by Piper Alderman Trends and Developments p.26 Contributed by Piper Alderman
AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.35
Contributed by CERHA HEMPEL Trends and Developments p.52 Contributed by CERHA HEMPEL
FRANCE Law and Practice p.245 Contributed by Soulier Bunch Trends and Developments p.263 Contributed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.59 Contributed by DLA Piper UK LLP (Brussels)
Trends and Developments p.76 Contributed by Aeacus Lawyers
GERMANY Trends and Developments p.267 Contributed by gunnercooke GmbH
BERMUDA Law and Practice p.83 Contributed by BeesMont Law Limited
GIBRALTAR Law and Practice p.274 Contributed by Hassans
BRAZIL Law and Practice p.103 Contributed by Faria, Cendão & Maia Advogados (FCM Law)
HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice p.287 Contributed by Cooley Trends and Developments p.304 Contributed by Cooley INDONESIA Law and Practice p.311 Contributed by SSEK Law Firm Trends and Developments p.322 Contributed by SSEK Law Firm
Trends and Developments p.119 Contributed by Fialdini Advogados BULGARIA Law and Practice p.126 Contributed by VC Law Trends and Developments p.142 Contributed by VC Law
BVI Law and Practice p.149 Contributed by Appleby
ISRAEL Trends and Developments p.327 Contributed by Zioni Pillersdorf Phillip Advocates
CANADA Law and Practice p.162 Contributed by Cloudhaus Law
ITALY Law and Practice p.333 Contributed by Studio Patti Trends and Developments p.352 Contributed by Patti Legal
CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.172 Contributed by Appleby
Trends and Developments p.188 Contributed by Travers Thorp Alberga
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
JAPAN Law and Practice p.360 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune KENYA Law and Practice p.375 Contributed by Keega & Company Advocates
ROMANIA Law and Practice p.527 Contributed by Lexters Trends and Developments p.544 Contributed by Lexters SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.552 Contributed by Drew & Napier LLC SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.569 Contributed by Lee & Ko Trends and Developments p.586 Contributed by Cha & Kwon Law Offices SPAIN Law and Practice p.592 Contributed by López-Ibor Abogados SWEDEN Law and Practice p.609 Contributed by Gernandt & Danielsson
LATIN AMERICA-WIDE Trends and Developments p.393 Contributed by Nodeman LITHUANIA Law and Practice p.397 Contributed by APB “Leagus”
NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice p.409 Contributed by Lane Neave
NIGERIA Law and Practice p.429 Contributed by EandC Legal Trends and Developments p.449 Contributed by EandC Legal PANAMA Law and Practice p.455 Contributed by Pacifica Legal Trends and Developments p.472 Contributed by Pacifica Legal POLAND Law and Practice p.480 Contributed by Wołoszański & Partners Trends and Developments p.498 Contributed by Wołoszański & Partners PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.505 Contributed by Cuatrecasas Trends and Developments p.521 Contributed by Cuatrecasas
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.626 Contributed by Pestalozzi
TAIWAN Law and Practice p.637 Contributed by Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law Trends and Developments p.647 Contributed by Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law
TURKEY Law and Practice p.652 Contributed by TANSEL Trends and Developments p.671 Contributed by TANSEL UAE Law and Practice p.676 Contributed by NeosLegal Trends and Developments p.692 Contributed by NeosLegal
4 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
UK Law and Practice p.699 Contributed by gunnercooke llp Trends and Developments p.710 Contributed by gunnercooke llp
USA Law and Practice p.715 Contributed by Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Trends and Developments p.733 Contributed by A&O Shearman USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.738 Contributed by Ashbury Legal USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments p.743 Contributed by Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments p.750 Contributed by A&O Shearman USA – TEXAS Trends and Developments p.754 Contributed by Gray Reed
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Burnie, gunnercooke llp gunnercooke llp has the largest blockchain and crypto-asset practice of any law firm in the United Kingdom, and is the first major UK law firm to offi- cially accept payment in crypto-assets. gunnercooke has 12 offices internationally, with USA and Germany being particular hubs within the firm for crypto-asset and blockchain expertise. gunnercooke has over 350 legal professionals and 300 partners, and the ability
to assist with all major offshore crypto-friendly juris- dictions through its broader network. The legal team is complemented by a consulting practice as well as a legal technology arm. gunnercooke has broad ca- pability to advise on all aspects of blockchain, crypto and Web3, and is involved with various regulators in helping shape and develop their approach to the sec- tor.
Contributing Editor
James Burnie advises a wide range of firms on financial services
regulation and fintech. He advises financial institutions on all aspects of EU and UK financial regulation. This includes advisory, project and transactional work in connection with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation, the FCA Handbook and PRA Rulebook (including conduct of business obligations and financial promotions), the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and regulatory perimeter questions. James regularly lectures on fintech, and is co-author of both the RegTech book and the PayTech books, whose authorship is crowd-sourced through a voting process.
gunnercooke llp 1 Cornhill London EC3V 3ND UK Tel: +44 3330 143 401 Email: James.Burnie@gunnercooke.com Web: www.gunnercooke.com
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Burnie, gunnercooke llp
Blockchain: The Underlying Technology The law and regulation of blockchain is complexity borne of simplicity. At its heart, a blockchain is simply a new way of storing data in a way that is more secure, immutable and always accessible. That data can be whatever you want it to be – for example, with bitcoin, the data essentially simply referred to the existence of a crypto-asset. The issues here for jurisdictions have been twofold. • How does the immutability of data interact with data protection legislation? This has been a core issue in the EU, where blockchain conflicts with the concepts of the right to forget. • How to reconcile the fact that users treat bitcoin as if it is property whereas in fact it is data, leading to confusion of how to apply concepts like “theft”, which assume physical property, to the data that is bitcoin? The UK Law Commission has done some work on this, recognising digital assets as being potentially property, however it is unclear how that will operate in practice. On top of this, a different technology, smart contracts, allow for functionality to be automated. This has resulted in new industries, such as DeFI, and raised serious questions regarding whether developers are liable for code that they release but can no longer control. Different jurisdictions have taken very different approaches here, for example the developer of Tor- nado Cash was prosecuted by the US Department of Treasury for code he no longer controlled. By contrast, in the UK, case law suggests that developers may not always be responsible, for example if the model is so decentralised there is no effective control ( Tulip Trad- ing Ltd v Van der Laan & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83). Crypto-Assets The most contentious aspect of blockchain for reg- ulators has been crypto-assets. As the nature of a crypto-asset, in very broad terms, is determined by the characteristics that users of a blockchain decide to give to information on the blockchain, a crypto- asset can effectively have any feature which its users decide to attribute to it.
Broadly speaking, the starting point taken by regu- lators has been firstly to distinguish between those crypto-assets which have the indicia of being a secu- rity and other crypto-assets. At a high level, the USA in this respect has traditionally been one of the more aggressive jurisdictions in terms of determining that crypto-assets are a security, under the notorious How- ey Test, which generally resulted in any crypto-assets designed to increase in value being considered secu- rities – and inadvertently spawned the meme token industry, a token designed to be intrinsically value- less. The EU and the UK have taken a more restrictive approach, with defined definitions of what is consid- ered a security (or “financial instrument”), and any- thing not on that list being considered not a security. Even in this respect, it is worth noting that there are subtle nuances in this approach, with the concept of the collective investment scheme having a more all- encompassing definition than its EU equivalent, the collective investment undertaking. Other jurisdictions have generally landed along the spectrum, depending on their traditional influences – and so, for example, Singapore has tended to align with (whilst not being quite the same as) the approach adopted by the UK. For crypto-assets which are not securities, the posi- tion has been changing globally, and in this respect the global position can broadly be split into those jurisdictions where crypto-assets are sold from and those where crypto-assets are sold into. The selling jurisdictions (offshore) For certain jurisdictions, sometimes referred to as “off- shore”, crypto-assets represent a potential new busi- ness line that brings wealth into the jurisdiction. These jurisdictions include Switzerland, Cayman, BVI and Panama. The focus of these jurisdictions has gener- ally been on facilitating business set-ups, and indeed a network of services providers have been devel- oped which can, for example, assist with providing local directors to help with issues such as substance requirements. A common feature of these jurisdictions is that the local population does not tend to constitute a large market of potential buyers of crypto-assets, and so firms that set up tend to need to sell cross- border into other jurisdictions in order to run a viable business.
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Burnie, gunnercooke llp
The buying jurisdictions (onshore) This brings us to the buying jurisdictions – these tend to be those with large populations that might buy crypto-assets, and typically include jurisdictions with large populations such as the EU, UK and the USA, as well as jurisdictions which are traditional financial hubs, such as the UAE, Hong Kong and Singapore. Regulators in these jurisdictions tend to place greater emphasis on consumer protection – as if there is an issue with a crypto-asset, their populations tend to be the ones that absorb the loss. It is also noteworthy that the regulators deployed to govern such activity tend to be securities regulators, and as such approaches are often heavily influenced by securities regulation. Whilst this may make sense in certain contexts, where the reasons for buying a crypto-asset is as an invest- ment, it can cause difficulty in other contexts – and so for example virtual currencies created alongside video games can have an awkward relationship with local requirements. A notable trend here is that NFTs tend to be less regulated, or not regulated at all, in a large range of jurisdictions, because they are generally considered to be intrinsically less “like a security” than fungible crypto-assets. When selling into buying jurisdictions, firms can see the situation in terms of effectively being “pay to play” – in that there is a cost attached to complying with local laws, and so firms need to weigh that against the potential revenues received in accessing these juris- dictions. A consequential factor is the extent to which firms have taken a risk-based approach to matters such as reverse solicitation. In this respect, it is worth noting that generally reverse solicitation is not accept- ed by most jurisdictions – however the USA and UK have traditionally been the most aggressive jurisdic- tions in terms of seeking to enforce local requirements on companies outside of the jurisdiction. An evolving world It is worth noting that the above is only a current snap- shot of the regulation of crypto-assets. We are seeing various jurisdictions increasingly take an aggressive approach towards regulating crypto-assets, both in terms of jurisdictions bringing in regulation to regulate crypto-assets, for example in Africa where there is a general shift towards regulation, led by jurisdictions
such as Mauritius and Botswana, as well as in terms of jurisdictions becoming more stringent towards regula- tion, such as is the case in Singapore, UAE and Hong Kong. A common theme we are seeing as the regulatory grip tightens is a requirement to have a local subsidiary in order to service local populations. The effect of this has been twofold: firstly, it undermines the attractiveness of the selling jurisdictions if in any event firms will need to set up onshore. Secondly, it increases operational costs as obligations such as capital requirements and having sufficient local substance (for example in terms of senior compliance) increases costs, meaning that firms may not have sufficient resources to operate in a large range of markets. The overall effect of this yet to be determined, as if the cost of operating in a jurisdiction outweighs the benefit, then firms may cease servicing that market – which will have the detrimental effect of reducing cus- tomer choice. As such, being too aggressive in terms of regulation can actually harm a jurisdiction’s position as it could be left behind more progressive jurisdic- tions. An interesting development here has been that of sandboxes – originally pioneered by the FCA in the UK – as a means for regulators to better understand the products being sold in their jurisdiction to try to find the right balance of regulatory approach. This approach has now been adopted by a range of regu- lators internationally. The need for cohesion Whilst regulators have taken different approaches to dealing with crypto-assets, the cost of this for the industry has been a lack of cohesion. This can be seen for example in the context of stablecoins, where different jurisdictions have taken very differ- ent approaches as to what constitutes a stablecoin in their jurisdiction, and how they should be regulated, for example in terms of backing reserve assets. For example, backing reserve assets for UK-based sta- blecoins must be held in low risk secure and liquid assets such as short-term bank deposits, and cannot include electronic money. By contrast, in the EU an electronic money institution licence is a requirement to issue a stablecoin.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: James Burnie, gunnercooke llp
The result of this lack of cohesion creates regula- tion arbitrage opportunities, as firms can structure to address those markets with the lowest barriers to entry – however not always to the benefit to con- sumer. It can also harm cross-border businesses, such as those providing cross-border stablecoin payments, by adding friction to processes, which drives up costs and undermines utility. We are seeing regulators take steps, through organisations such as FATF and IOSCO, to create a more uniform interna- tional approach, however this is not easy to achieve as there can be geopolitical tensions that challenge such efforts. For example, the recent proliferation of US denominated stablecoins is generally to the ben- efit of USA (as bringing money into US institutions), whereas other jurisdictions such as Korea and the EU will generally be less enthusiastic about developments that could encourage money moving outside of their jurisdictions.
Currently, therefore, the only real certainty is com- plexity, given the evolving patchwork of regulatory approaches we are seeing, making it intrinsically dif- ficult for firms to correctly position themselves. This guide seeks to alleviate some of the pain for firms in this respect, by giving a high-level overview of the dif- ferent approaches we are seeing in major jurisdictions.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA
Australia
Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb Piper Alderman
Sydney
Tasmania
Contents 1. Overview of Blockchain and Crypto-Assets p.12 1.1 Blockchain p.12 1.2 Crypto-Assets p.14 2. Regulation p.16 2.1 Regulators and International Alignment p.16 2.2 Crypto-Asset Regulatory Frameworks p.17 2.3 Regulated Firms and Legal Wrappers p.18 2.4 Token Issuance p.19 2.5 Market Abuse p.19 2.6 Non-Compliance p.19 3. Licensing and Set-Up Requirements p.20
3.1 Licensing Requirements p.20 3.2 Set-Up Requirements p.21 3.3 Change of Control p.21 3.4 Passporting p.22 4. Cross-Border Services p.22 4.1 Marketing p.22 4.2 White Labelling p.22 5. Decentralised Finance p.23 5.1 Ability to Use DeFi p.23 5.2 DeFi Structures p.23 5.3 Liability p.23 6. Payments and Stablecoins p.23
6.1 Payments p.23 6.2 Stablecoins p.23 7. Tokenisation and Real-World Assets p.25 7.1 Treatment p.25
10 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman has a fintech practice recognised internationally for its depth of regulatory expertise, commercial capability and leadership in emerging technology. The firm’s team advises across the full spectrum of financial services regulation and com- pliance, complex commercial arrangements, lending and securities matters and regulatory investigations and disputes. Piper Alderman is widely acknowl- edged in the market as one of Australia’s leading
firms for fintech, regtech and digital asset innovation. Its lawyers advise both established financial institu- tions and high-growth fintechs on the full suite of regulatory issues, including AFS and ACL licensing, AML/CTF and sanctions obligations, consumer cred- it, payments compliance, digital assets and artificial intelligence. The firm would like to thank Tahlia Kelly for her con- tribution.
Authors
Steven Pettigrove of Piper Alderman advises on financial services and fintech, with a particular focus on digital assets regulation and disputes. He has over 16 years of experience as a litigation and regulatory
Katrina Sharman of Piper Alderman is a special counsel with over 20 years’ post-admission experience across Australia and the United States, advising on digital assets, fintech and emerging technologies. She combines
specialist. His practice covers commercial contracts, corporate law, financial services and cryptocurrency regulation, regulatory investigations and enforcement, disputes, AML/CTF and sanctions issues. Steven has advised on multi-jurisdictional regulatory investigations and proceedings before the UK, Hong Kong and Australian Courts. Steven is ranked Band 2 for Fintech Legal by Chambers. He is also the co-author of the leading textbook, Law of Code: Blockchain and the Law in Australia. Steven is qualified in Australia, Hong Kong and England & Wales.
private practice foundations with senior in-house leadership, having served as general counsel and chief compliance officer at high-growth fintech and crypto businesses. Katrina advises on digital asset products, financial services licensing, AML/CTF, consumer protection and global compliance strategy, with a focus on crypto advisory. She spent almost six years at Coinbase, leading product lifecycle counselling for consumer and payments products. Katrina is admitted in Australia and California, is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (ACAMS) and holds an LLM from Harvard Law School.
Luke Higgins of Piper Alderman specialises in working with start-ups and corporates on a range of regulatory, compliance, tax and general commercial matters, with a particular focus on blockchain and
William Deeb of Piper Alderman holds a Bachelor’s degree in both Law (Honours) and Science. He specialises in advising start-ups, scale-ups and established corporates on a wide range of regulatory,
digital assets. He has advised on a variety of complex tax, regulatory and commercial transactional and advisory matters in relation to the digital asset space. His combination of legal skills and an aptitude for mathematics and finance gives him a unique toolkit to deliver exceptional service to clients. With a growing reputation in the fintech and digital asset space, he is increasingly sought after for his commercial and forward-thinking approach.
compliance, licensing and commercial matters, with a strong focus on blockchain and digital assets. William brings deep, practical expertise in blockchain regulation, having supported clients across complex advisory and transactional matters in the digital asset and financial services sectors. William has also served in executive roles within a blockchain start-up, giving him hands-on technical insight that enhances the team’s capability and allows him to approach issues with a grounded understanding of product, risk and technology.
11 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman Level 23 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Tel: +61 02 9253 9999 Email: piperalderman@piperalderman.com.au Web: www.piperalderman.com.au
1. Overview of Blockchain and Crypto- Assets 1.1 Blockchain 1.1.1 Evolution of Uses of Blockchain Developments Australia’s blockchain market has shifted from activ- ity largely focused on start-ups and exchange-based ecosystems to a framework that seeks to integrate blockchain products and services into traditional financial market infrastructure. This evolution has been driven by significant developments in the treat- ment of digital assets and by increasing alignment among government, regulators and industry on the value of digital finance and tokenisation. In particular, the last 12 months saw the passage of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Frame- work) Act 2026 (Cth) (DAF Act), which introduced a tailored framework for digital asset platforms and cus- tody providers and aligns blockchain-based activities more closely with existing financial services law. The result is a growing convergence between blockchain systems and traditional finance. Australian Use Cases Current use cases in the Australian market are con- centrated in areas such as stablecoin payment rails, tokenisation and decentralised finance (DeFi): • Stablecoin payments make up a growing pro- portion of the blockchain transaction volume in Australia, primarily targeting rapid cross-border transactions;
• Project Acacia, a joint initiative between the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre, which seeks to explore how digital money can support wholesale financial markets through tokenised assets and digital settlement models; it involves more than 20 real-world use cases testing assets such as bonds and carbon credits, using settle- ment instruments like stablecoins, bank deposit tokens and a pilot wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC). The final report for Project Aca- cia was released in May 2026 and outlined the key benefits and challenges tokenisation presents for the Australian market; and • Australia has a vibrant developer ecosystem and has incubated or contributed to the establishment and development of many well-known DeFi pro- jects, including trading, bridge, staking and gaming applications. Near-Term Outlook The near future sees a growing industry focus on custody infrastructure and platform design as firms prepare to operate within Australia’s new regulatory perimeter. The next 12 months will be driven by regu- latory implementation and operational scaling, with many digital asset businesses assessing whether they require an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) or a variation and lodging applications to rely on the Australian Securities and Investments Com- mission (ASIC) transitional no-action relief for certain unlicensed digital asset services where an application is submitted by 30 June 2026. The new regulatory framework will require a significant uplift in govern- ance, licensing and custody arrangements, while
12 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
1.1.3 Regulation of Blockchain Technology Approach of the Australian Government and Regulatory Bodies Australia adopts a facilitative but risk-focused approach to blockchain-related industries, seeking to encourage innovation while maintaining strong safe- guards for consumer protection and market integrity. Government policy, led by the Treasury and ASIC, aims to position Australia as a leader in the global digital asset ecosystem. This objective is reflected in Treasury’s policy statements on developing a digital asset industry and ASIC’s strategic focus on mitigat- ing financial, conduct and illicit finance risks. This balance is reflected in recent reforms, including the passage of the DAF Act, which applies tailored financial services regulation to digital asset businesses and the AML/CTF Act reforms designed to strengthen the detection and disruption of financial crime. In practice, this has resulted in a distinction between blockchain infrastructure applications and higher risk, client facing services. Both the DAF Act and AML/ CTF Act provide relief for infrastructure or back end blockchain use, whereas consumer facing or value- transfer activities attract more prescriptive oversight and enforcement. There is no general prohibition on blockchain applications; rather, regulation targets specific activities and services. Australia adopts a technology-neutral approach, whereby existing legal frameworks govern the under- lying activity. If a blockchain-enabled solution involves a financial product or service (such as custody, settle- ment or trading), entities must comply with applicable licensing, conduct and disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Similarly, AML/CTF obligations arise where activities constitute designated services under the AML/CTF Act. The use of distributed ledger technology does not displace regulatory accountability. Firms remain responsible for compliance and must maintain appro- priate governance, oversight and risk management. Data Privacy Data privacy is primarily governed by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and the Australian Privacy Principles, which apply equally to blockchain-based
recently implemented reforms to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act) will further increase compliance obligations for digital asset service providers. Intellectual Property Australia’s IP framework is generally technology-neu- tral, allowing existing regimes to apply to computer software and underlying code and patent protection may be available for technical innovations in block- chain systems where the patentability criteria are sat- isfied. However, there are currently no bespoke leg- islative provisions specifically directed at blockchain technology. 1.1.2 Regulatory Sandbox There is no specific regulatory sandbox for block- chain-based projects in Australia, albeit the Austral- ian government launched consultations to reform the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox (ERS) to more effec- tively promote fintech innovation. The ERS permits a business to test certain innovative financial services or credit activities without needing to obtain an AFSL or an Australian credit licence (or vary an existing licence) for up to two years. However, before participating, businesses must satisfy eligibil- ity requirements, including demonstrating that the service is innovative and that it delivers a net public benefit and remain subject to ongoing conduct and reporting obligations while operating in the sandbox. The consultation paper recognises that the current sandbox design: • has seen limited participation; • faces strict entry requirements; • lacks a clear path to full licensing; and • imposes significant restrictions on the range of services eligible for testing. As a result, the Government is considering reforms, including expanding the scope of eligible activities and improving the transition from sandbox testing to full authorisation, while maintaining the core objec- tive of allowing innovative businesses to test services before obtaining a licence.
13 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
products and services. Australia does not currently recognise a discrete “right to be forgotten”; instead, obligations focus on taking reasonable steps to pro- tect personal information and to destroy or de-iden- tify it when no longer required, alongside providing mechanisms for correction. These requirements can create tension with blockchain’s immutability. As a result organisations typically need to take care when assessing their design, particularly regarding the storage and management of personal information, to ensure compliance with Privacy Act obligations. 1.1.4 Smart Contracts Whether a smart contract is legally enforceable in Australia continues to depend on the form of the par- ticular arrangement. There remains no bespoke legal framework governing the enforceability of smart con- tracts; instead, each contract is assessed by refer- ence to the traditional elements of contract formation to determine whether it is binding. Specifically, there must be an intention to create legal relations, consid- eration, offer and acceptance. General unfair contract terms provisions, such as duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct, can render a smart contract void, notwithstanding its self-executing digital nature. Smart contracts that adopt a “the code is the con- tract” model raise particular concerns. In these cases, the operative terms exist solely as machine-readable code. This raises practical difficulties in establishing a counterparty’s identity and capacity to enter into the contract. Australian courts have yet to address a smart contract dispute and there remains limited judicial guidance on whether they will adopt reasoning akin to the United States Court of Appeals decision in Van Loon v OFAC , where a smart contract can be ownerless and may be entered into unilaterally and is operator-less. 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies The Digital Economy Council of Australia (DECA) is a representative organisation for participants in the blockchain and cryptocurrency sector. DECA repre- sents blockchain businesses and market participants more broadly and administers the Australian Digital Currency Industry Code of Conduct, which operates as an audited, self regulatory framework. Under this framework, Australian digital asset exchanges that
obtain certification can demonstrate adherence to defined best practice standards in the operation of their businesses. These standards address, among other items: • legal compliance; • the reputation, fitness and propriety of owners and operators; • AML/CTF safeguards and reporting; and • consumer protection measures, including transpar- ent pricing, dispute resolution processes and data security. 1.2 Crypto-Assets 1.2.1 Property Considerations Judicial Consideration Australian courts have increasingly treated crypto- assets as a form of property at common law. In Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 690, the Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed that bitcoin satisfies the recognised indicia of property. Subsequent criminal and insolvency proceedings have proceeded on the same basis, treating crypto-assets as capable of pro- prietary classification. While this position is increasingly accepted, it remains subject to further appellate consideration. The High Court of Australia has granted special leave to con- sider whether Bitcoin constitutes “property” under Australian law following the decision of Poulton v Con- rad [2025] TASFC 7. That appeal raises fundamental questions as to whether crypto-assets are best char- acterised as property, mere information or as a form of control-based entitlement. The outcome is expected to clarify how traditional property concepts (including possession and choses in action) apply to decentral- ised digital assets. In practice, enforcement of proprietary rights in cryp- to-assets differs from that of tangible property. Con- trol of crypto-assets, typically through private keys or custodial arrangements, is central to both possession and recoverability. Courts have adapted existing pro- cedural mechanisms accordingly, including permit- ting substituted service via digital means in fraud and recovery actions (see Siegers v Nest Services Ltd & Ors [2026] VCC 15). However, the underlying analysis
14 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
1.2.2 Access to Banking There are no explicit restrictions on the banking part- ners that digital asset businesses may use for general banking and payment services, nor formal prohibitions on access to those services (subject to standard risk based AML/CTF assessments by financial institu- tions); however, industry participants in Australia have reported ongoing de banking challenges. Financial institutions have, in some cases, restricted or with- drawn services from crypto businesses despite strong growth in user adoption, creating a structural disad- vantage for local exchanges. Looking ahead, the DAF Act will introduce Digital Asset Platform and Tokenised Custody Platform licensing authorisations from 8 April 2027. It is hoped that the resulting increase in regulatory clarity will assist in strengthening relationships within the banking sector. 1.2.3 ESG/Sustainable Finance The Australian government has not enacted any spe- cific laws or regulations addressing the environmental impacts of blockchain technology, including proof-of- work systems. However, a number of companies are continuing to explore the use of blockchain in environ- mental applications, such as biodiversity credit initia- tives, to support the achievement of environmental objectives. If a digital asset business falls within Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act, it will be subject to mandatory climate related financial disclosure requirements. 1.2.4 Tax Significant tax uncertainties remain in Australia, including, but not limited to: • capital versus revenue account characterisations for individual investors/traders; • the applicability of Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) to pro- jects that allocate tokens to their employees (akin to an employee share scheme); • the legal and tax implications of a business operat- ing through a Decentralised Autonomous Organisa- tion (DAO); • whether certain on-chain interactions (eg, staking) constitute taxable events; • the tax implications of a blockchain hard fork;
remains grounded in orthodox equitable and propri- etary remedies. Scope of Possession The DAF Act has sought to clarify the perimeters of “possession” for the purposes of financial services licensing. It defines possession by reference to fac- tual control: a person possesses a digital token if they can transfer it, exclude others from transferring it and demonstrate that capability. This approach deliber- ately contrasts with the definition of “possession” in the remainder of the Corporations Act, replacing tra- ditional legal concepts of possession with a control- based test aligned with blockchain systems, linking possession to the practical ability to control the token Transfer of ownership of crypto-assets is primarily determined by the operation of the relevant block- chain protocol. Transfers are effected through trans- actions authorised by private keys and recorded on the distributed ledger. As a result, control of the rel- evant private key is typically a key indicator of factual control over the asset. rather than to formal legal ownership. Transfer and Collateral Arrangements There is currently no specific legislative framework in Australia addressing the use of crypto-assets in col- lateral arrangements. There are a number of areas of legal uncertainty in Australia regarding the use of digital assets as collateral or security. These include: • whether crypto-assets constitute “property”; • how ownership and control of crypto-assets should be identified and evidenced; • the taxation consequences of using crypto-assets as collateral; and • the extent to which the Personal Property Securi- ties Act 2009 (Cth) applies to security arrange- ments involving crypto-assets. To date, there has been limited case law or regulatory guidance addressing these issues directly. However, given the judicial recognition of bitcoin as a form of property, crypto-assets are likely capable of form- ing the subject matter of a valid security or collateral arrangement, although the practical application of existing security law frameworks remains uncertain.
15 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
• the applicability of indirect taxes (eg, Goods and Services Tax (GST)) in the context of decentralised and anonymous transactions; • what crypto-asset dealings may or may not consti- tute a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) disposal or event; • the application of potential CGT exemptions, including the personal use asset exemption; • the calculation of CGT asset cost bases; • the taxation implications of crypto-asset exchange failures and creditor claims denominated in crypto- assets; and • what constitutes sufficient records in the eyes of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (eg, decentral- ised ledger records). Additionally, there remains some controversy in Aus- tralia over whether an interest in bitcoin (and pos- sibly other cryptocurrencies) is considered property for Australian common law purposes. Most recently, the Commissioner of Taxation on 7 May 2026 filed to intervene in a civil proceeding in Australia’s highest court (the High Court of Australia), Poulton v Conrad H1/2026. The Commissioner is seeking to intervene to contend that an interest in Bitcoin is property for the purposes of Australian common law and thereby taxable by the Commissioner under Australia’s capital gains taxation regime or as an item of trading stock. 1.2.5 Insolvency There are no specific resolution or insolvency regimes tailored to blockchain-based businesses in Austral- ia. However, several businesses have been subject to conventional insolvency proceedings. For exam- ple, the Australian arm of FTX entered administra- tion in 2022 and subsequently went into liquidation, with creditors expected to be repaid in full. Another exchange, Digital Surge (which was affected by the collapse of FTX), also entered administration in late 2022, but was successfully restructured through a deed of company arrangement (DOCA), allowing it to exit administration and resume operations. 1.2.6 Industry and Trade Bodies As in 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies regarding blockchain industry bodies, DECA is the primary rep- resentative organisation for participants in the cryp- to-asset sector. DECA performs an advocacy and industry coordination role, including engaging with
government and regulators on the development of Australia’s digital asset framework. It also adminis- ters the Australian Digital Currency Industry Code of Conduct, a voluntary, audited self regulatory scheme. 2. Regulation 2.1 Regulators and International Alignment The principal regulators relevant to blockchain and crypto-asset businesses in Australia are the ASIC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the ATO, as outlined below. • ASIC regulates crypto-asset activities where a token or arrangement falls within the definition of a “financial product” or where a business provides a financial service under the Corporations Act, including enforcement against misleading and deceptive conduct. ASIC’s remit is extended by delegated authority from the Australian Competi- tion and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in relation to conduct involving misleading and deceptive conduct in the marketing or sale of crypto-assets that are not “financial products”. ASIC has adopted a more assertive supervisory posture, identifying crypto-assets as an enforcement priority following market instability, with a focus on investor protec- tion and application of existing financial services laws. • AUSTRAC regulates blockchain and crypto busi- nesses that provide “designated services” with a geographical link to Australia, focusing on AML/ CTF reporting, supervision and financial crime detection. AUSTRAC’s approach is risk-based and aligned with financial crime mitigation, requir- ing reporting entities to implement AML/CTF programmes tailored to the nature of the services provided. • The ATO regulates tax treatment, including capital gains tax, trading stock characterisation and fringe benefits tax issues and has adopted a cautious approach, favouring guidance over legislative reform, following the Board of Taxation review pub- lished in 2025. Australia has also taken steps to align its AML/CTF framework with international standards. Recent
16 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
reforms include the adoption of the virtual asset ser- vice provider (VASP) concept, a shift toward regulating “virtual assets”, the introduction of the travel rule and the extension of international value transfer service obligations. These amendments reflect a move toward greater alignment with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) expectations and global risk based supervisory models. In relation to the International Organisation of Securi- ties Commissions (IOSCO), Australia’s approach has been to align substantively with the principles under- pinning IOSCO’s 2023 policy recommendations. Specifically, applying the Australian financial services regime to crypto-asset activities, particularly with respect to licensing, disclosure, consumer protection and the custody of client assets. 2.2 Crypto-Asset Regulatory Frameworks Australia has not adopted a formal classification sys- tem for crypto-assets. Instead, whether a crypto-asset or crypto-related service is regulated under Australian financial services law turns on an assessment of its legal characteristics. Regulators’ Approach to Classification Regulators take a case-by-case approach focusing on whether a particular crypto-asset or activity falls within existing legal concepts. The central question is whether the asset constitutes a “financial product” under the Corporations Act, which broadly captures facilities through which a person makes a financial investment, manages financial risk or makes non– cash payments. Certain things, such as securities, derivatives and interests in a managed investment scheme, are specifically deemed financial products. ASIC has indicated that this assessment depends on the rights and features of the specific token or arrangement and that many crypto-asset activities may fall within the financial product regime. Where a crypto-asset does not satisfy that definition, it may be treated as a form of property or goods, with regulatory consequences determined accordingly. DAF Act Classification The reforms under the DAF Act adopt an activity- based approach to classification, focusing on the
function performed rather than the inherent char- acteristics of a crypto-asset. This means regulatory outcomes are determined by how a product or ser- vice operates in practice, particularly where custody, trading or tokenisation activities are involved. How- ever, token-by-token analysis remains critical, as the classification of individual tokens continues to inform whether additional licensing obligations apply. At the centre of the framework are two new regulated financial products: digital asset platforms (DAPs) and tokenised custody platforms (TCPs). These concepts extend the Australian financial services licensing (AFSL) regime to capture custodial and tokenisation activities involving digital assets. A DAP broadly cov- ers arrangements in which an operator holds or con- trols digital assets on behalf of clients, whereas a TCP applies to structures in which real-world assets are tokenised and held for the benefit of token holders. These categories operate as a regulatory “wrapper”, requiring licensing regardless of whether the underly- ing assets are themselves financial products. Regulatory Frameworks Crypto-assets are primarily regulated through the following legal frameworks rather than a bespoke regime. In particular: • the Corporations Act, which incorporates the DAF Act and applies where crypto-assets or related activities involve financial products or financial services; • the AML/CTF Act applies to businesses providing “designated services”, including certain crypto- asset exchanges and, increasingly, broader virtual asset activities; and • general consumer protection laws, including the Australian Consumer Law, apply to all crypto-asset businesses regardless of token classification. Regulated Activities The following crypto-asset activities, amongst others, are regulated in Australia (but legal advice is required depending on structure and function): • financial services involving crypto-assets, includ- ing issuing, dealing, advising or operating a facility involving crypto-assets that are financial products;
17 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Pettigrove, Katrina Sharman, Luke Higgins and William Deeb, Piper Alderman
• custody and platform services, where an operator holds or controls crypto-assets on behalf of clients; • exchange and transfer services, including fiat- to-crypto exchanges and broader “virtual asset service provider” (VASP) activities; and • payment–related services, including stablecoin issuance or arrangements. There are no blanket prohibitions on crypto-asset activities in Australia. However, activities may be effectively restricted where: • a business operates without required licences or registrations (eg, AFSL or AUSTRAC registration); • conduct involves misleading or deceptive repre- sentations, fraud or market misconduct; or • products expose retail investors to risks without satisfying disclosure and licensing obligations. Retail Versus Wholesale Customers Australia imposes a distinction between retail and wholesale customers: • where a crypto-asset is a financial product, retail client protections apply (eg, disclosure obligations, best interests duty, design and distribution obliga- tions); • wholesale client tests under the Corporations Act determine whether a client is treated as retail or wholesale. Regulatory Transitions Australia is undergoing a significant regulatory tran- sition. Key developments have been outlined below. • Reforms under the AML/CTF Act came into force on 31 March 2026, with a series of targeted transi- tional measures to ease implementation for existing reporting entities. • ASIC’s no action position, a transitional measure under which ASIC will not take enforcement action for certain unlicensed digital asset services where a business lodges an AFSL (or variation) application by 30 June 2026, complies with specified condi- tions while that application is assessed. • The commencement of the DAF Act on 8 April 2027. This will introduce: (a) licensing for DAPs and TCPs;
(b) tailored custody, disclosure and operational standards; and (c) integration of crypto-asset intermediaries into the AFSL framework. • Consultations on draft payments legislation mod- ernisation are underway, with the aim to bring in a broader range of Payment Service Providers (PSP) within the AFSL framework, enhanced prudential oversight powers for the Australia Prudential Regu- lation Authority (APRA) in respect of major stored value facility (SVF) providers and the introduction of a broad rule making power to support the imple- mentation of a mandatory, revised “ePayments Code”. These reforms are intended to close regulatory gaps, improve consumer protection and align Australia more closely with international standards, while maintaining its technology neutral regulatory approach. 2.3 Regulated Firms and Legal Wrappers The use of a legal wrapper, such as a fund, can materi- ally change the analysis in 2.2 Crypto-Asset Regula- tory Frameworks. While direct investment in crypto-assets may fall outside the financial product regime (depending on the asset’s characteristics), investment via a pooled vehicle (such as a fund that carries out purchases of crypto-assets) typically will constitute an interest in a managed investment scheme (MIS) or another financial product. ASIC’s updated Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225) confirms that digital asset arrange- ments involving pooled investment and reliance on a promoter are commonly characterised as facilities for making a financial investment or MIS interests. As a result, the investor’s interest becomes the regu- lated financial product, bringing the arrangement with- in the Corporations Act. The responsible entity must hold an AFSL and comply with licensing, governance and operational obligations. Custody requirements are governed primarily by Regulatory Guide 133, which sets minimum standards for asset holding, including crypto-assets that are financial products. Funds must also meet disclosure and conduct obligations, includ- ing issuing a:
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook