Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Fintech 2026 Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor Adrian Ang Allen & Gledhill LLP
Global Practice Guides
Fintech Contributing Editor Adrian Ang Allen & Gledhill
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 Adrian Ang, Allen & Gledhill p.6
EGYPT Law and Practice p.214 Contributed by Zaki Hashem Trends and Developments p.234 Contributed by Zaki Hashem ESTONIA Law and Practice p.240 Contributed by SBSB FinTech Lawyers Trends and Developments p.258 Contributed by SBSB FinTech Lawyers
ARGENTINA Law and Practice p.10 Contributed by GPG Advisory Partners
AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.29
Contributed by CERHA HEMPEL Trends and Developments p.51 Contributed by CERHA HEMPEL
FINLAND Law and Practice p.264 Contributed by Waselius
BAHAMAS Law and Practice p.58 Contributed by Glinton Sweeting O’Brien
FRANCE Law and Practice p.284 Contributed by Clavé Avocat Trends and Developments p.303 Contributed by Soulier Bunch
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.76 Contributed by Simont Braun
BRAZIL Law and Practice p.97 Contributed by Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Trends and Developments p.116 Contributed by Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice
GERMANY Law and Practice p.310 Contributed by LEXR
HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Trends and Developments p.328 Contributed by YYC Legal LLP
CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.121
Contributed by Travers Thorp Alberga Trends and Developments p.140 Contributed by Travers Thorp Alberga
HUNGARY Law and Practice p.335 Contributed by Lakatos, Köves & Partners
CHILE Law and Practice p.145 Contributed by Puga Ortiz
INDIA Law and Practice p.353 Contributed by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co Trends and Developments p.375 Contributed by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co INDONESIA Law and Practice p.380 Contributed by ABNR Counsellors at Law Trends and Developments p.403 Contributed by Hiswara Bunjamin & Tandjung in association with Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
CYPRUS Law and Practice p.167 Contributed by Lawitt Buro Trends and Developments p.190 Contributed by Lawitt Buro
CZECH REPUBLIC Law and Practice p.195 Contributed by BADOKH
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
IRELAND Law and Practice p.413 Contributed by Walkers
PERU Trends and Developments p.612 Contributed by Miranda & Amado
JAPAN Law and Practice p.432 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune Trends and Developments p.453 Contributed by Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu
POLAND Law and Practice p.619 Contributed by Lawarton Lugowski Kapica Spolka Komandytowa
PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.639
KENYA Law and Practice p.458
Contributed by GFDL Advogados Trends and Developments p.661 Contributed by Abreu Advogados ROMANIA Law and Practice p.668 Contributed by VD Law Group Trends and Developments p.692 Contributed by VD Law Group SERBIA Law and Practice p.699 Contributed by Motika i partneri Trends and Developments p.720 Contributed by Motika i partneri SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.725 Contributed by KGP Legal LLC Trends and Developments p.747 Contributed by Allen & Gledhill LLP Contributed by Bae, Kim & Lee LLC Trends and Developments p.773 Contributed by Lee & Ko SWEDEN Law and Practice p.780 Contributed by Magnusson Law SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.753
Contributed by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Trends and Developments p.481 Contributed by MMW Advocates LLP
LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.486 Contributed by Inmann Stelzl & Partner Attorneys at Law Partnership Trends and Developments p.506 Contributed by Inmann Stelzl & Partner Attorneys at Law Partnership
LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice p.511
Contributed by GSK Stockmann Trends and Developments p.529 Contributed by Legal Node MEXICO Law and Practice p.535 Contributed by Áurea Partners Trends and Developments p.556 Contributed by Áurea Partners
NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.563 Contributed by Stibbe
NIGERIA Trends and Developments p.584 Contributed by Vazi Legal
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.798
PANAMA Law and Practice p.590
Contributed by Lenz & Staehelin Trends and Developments p.820 Contributed by MLL Legal
Contributed by Morgan & Morgan Trends and Developments p.606 Contributed by Morgan & Morgan
4 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
TAIWAN Law and Practice p.827 Contributed by Lee & Li Trends and Developments p.845 Contributed by Lee & Li THAILAND Law and Practice p.852 Contributed by Chandler Mori Hamada Trends and Developments p.875 Contributed by Chandler Mori Hamada TURKEY Law and Practice p.881 Contributed by Paksoy Trends and Developments p.899 Contributed by Paksoy UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Law and Practice p.906 Contributed by White & Case LLP Trends and Developments p.930 Contributed by White & Case LLP UNITED KINGDOM Law and Practice p.936 Contributed by gunnercooke llp Trends and Developments p.952 Contributed by gunnercooke llp
USA Law and Practice p.957 Contributed by DLA Piper LLP Trends and Developments p.980 Contributed by McDermott Will & Schulte LLP USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.987 Contributed by Lindgren, Lindgren, Oehm & You LLP
USA – COLORADO Trends and Developments p.994 Contributed by Buchalter LLP USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments p.999 Contributed by Davidson Firm PLLC USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments p.1004 Contributed by Blank Rome LLP
USA – WYOMING Trends and Developments p.1010 Contributed by Law Offices of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., PC
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Adrian Ang, Allen & Gledhill
Allen & Gledhill is an award-winning, full-service law firm providing legal services to a wide range of cli - ents, including corporations and financial institutions in Asia. The firm is consistently ranked as a market leader, having been involved in several challenging, complex and significant deals, many which are the first of its kind. The firm’s reputation for high-quali - ty advice is regularly affirmed by strong rankings in leading publications, and by various awards and ac -
colades. With a growing network of associate firms and offices, it is well-placed to advise clients on their business interests in Singapore and beyond, on mat - ters involving the Asia region. With offices in Singa - pore, Myanmar, Vietnam and China, as well as asso - ciate firms in Malaysia (Rahmat Lim & Partners) and Indonesia (AGI Legal), the Allen & Gledhill network known as A&G Asia has over 650 lawyers, making it one of the largest law firm networks in the region.
Contributing Editor
Adrian Ang is co-head of Allen & Gledhill’s fintech practice and its ESG and public policy practice. Adrian advises clients on regulatory matters affecting the financial services industry including licensing matters,
setting up of payment services, distribution of financial products, outsourcing arrangements and conduct of business requirements. His activities in the fintech sphere include contributing to policy formation and the enactment of fintech-related legislation. Adrian has advised on fintech models such as payment systems, crowdfunding platforms, robo-advisers, e-wallets, initial coin offering structures, security token and cryptocurrency brokerages and exchanges, stablecoin issuances, cryptocurrency derivatives and the sale of non- fungible tokens.
Allen & Gledhill One Marina Boulevard, #28-00 Singapore 018989 Tel: +65 6890 7188 Email: sg.enquiries@agasia.law Web: www.allenandgledhill.com
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Adrian Ang, Allen & Gledhill
Eight Years of FinTech Global Practice Guides 2026 marks the eighth year since Chambers and Part - ners introduced the Global Practice Guide for Fintech, and I am humbled and honoured to continue being the contributing editor. When I was first approached by Chambers in 2024 to succeed Lee Schneider in this post, I thought back to each previous iteration of this guide. I have always been struck by the guide’s abil - ity to incisively capture the flavour of the market each year. This year also marks the tenth anniversary of the beginning of my fintech practice. Over the course of this period, in planning for the potential opportunities and challenges facing the practice, I have found the Chambers Fintech Guides invaluable in providing an overview of the key developments in the fintech world, and in their ability to identify and expound on key global trends. In keeping with this excellent tradition, in this introduction I have set out some key global trends I believe will shape the landscape of fintech this year. Four significant forces In approaching this 2026 edition of the Chambers Fin - tech Guide, we considered that the market had moved from a “move fast and break things” ethos towards a capital-efficient, increasingly regulated ecosystem focused on utility-driven infrastructure. Indeed, while the early years of fintech were marked by the buzzword “disruption”, you seldom hear the word being used now. This is not to say that fintech does not continue to disrupt traditional financial services. It is just that such disruption occurs under the backdrop of a far more mature regulatory environment. Four dominant forces appear to be shaping (and reshaping) the landscape this year: convergence, agentic AI, the regulatory legiti - misation of digital assets, and shifts in fraud liability. This introduction outlines the key global trends shap - ing the law and practice of fintech in 2026, setting the stage for the detailed country-specific chapters that follow. The year of convergence If the previous decade was defined by the “disruption” associated with agile start-ups moving fast and break - ing things as they “unbundled” banks and offered their take on financial services, 2026 would seem to be the year of continued “convergence”. For example, successful fintechs may consider it worth the cost to
pursue a “re-bundling” strategy, evolving into super apps or obtaining full banking licences to secure sta - ble deposits. In the vertical of embedded finance, predominantly non-financial platforms (e-commerce, mobility) are embedding lending and insurance products. For example, policies can be sold seamlessly at the point of sale (eg, travel insurance with a flight, extended warranty with a device). By one measure, this verti - cal is projected to exceed USD7 trillion in transaction value by 2026. The boundaries between traditional financial institu - tions, decentralised finance (“DeFi”), and technol - ogy giants appear as if they are being dissolved and replaced by a unified financial fabric interwoven with technology. For example, in the realm of cross-border payments, there is an ongoing initiative to connect domestic instant payment systems, starting with India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. This allows for sub-60-second cross-border trans - fers at near-zero cost, challenging the correspondent banking model. On a related note, as of November 2025 mBridge has processed over USD55 billion in trade payments between China, the UAE and Thailand using central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Convergence is not limited to business models and technology. In conjunction with such convergence, the regulatory gap is closing. “Same risk, same regula - tion” is the prevailing doctrine. We would expect fin - techs engaging in lending or deposit-taking-like activ - ity, to face bank-like capital requirements. We would also expect regulators to be looking at whether the “front-ends” of DeFi protocols (ie, the persons pro - moting and offering such DeFi protocols) ought to be regulated, at the very least on the basis that operat - ing the “front-end” for certain services constitutes a regulated activity. On a related note, we would expect a further focus on the management and oversight of technology risks. We would note that in conjunction with the greater reliance on large technology companies, financial institutions are imposing stricter contractual terms on vendors, such as a mandatory “right to audit”, data residency guarantees, and participation in “threat-
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Adrian Ang, Allen & Gledhill
led penetration testing” exercises. For example, the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) entered into force in the EU in January 2025, and aims to ensure that financial entities can withstand, respond to, and recover from information and communication technol - ogy (ICT) disruptions, such as cyber-attacks or system failures. While the management of ICT risks is not nec - essarily something new (eg, for several years Singa - pore’s regulator has required financial institutions to adhere to, where relevant, Guidelines on Technology Risk Management and the Notice on Cyber Hygiene), we would expect regulators’ increased focus on the management and oversight of technology risks to cre - ate a demand for solutions that map critical functions, conduct threat-led penetration testing, and manage third-party risk concentration. Agentic AI The evolution of the fintech market over the past 12 months has been defined by the rapid industrialisa - tion of AI. 2024 and 2025 focused on large language models (LLMs) that could generate text or code, and thereby served as tools assisting human workers. 2026 would appear to be the year of widespread adoption of agentic AI. Unlike passive chatbots, these agents possess the ability to perceive their environ - ment, form intent and act. Unlike traditional robotic process automation, which follows rigid rules, AI agents can handle exceptions, interpret unstructured data, and orchestrate actions across disparate sys - tems. Agentic AI systems can therefore be thought of as systems that are capable of reasoning, planning and executing multi-step financial workflows without human intervention. Naturally, we can expect financial institutions to deploy agentic systems to automate or enhance complex, multi-step workflows. We would also expect fintech businesses to capital - ise on agentic AI to introduce various types of busi - nesses. For example, “agentic commerce” can allow consumer-authorised bots to negotiate prices, renew subscriptions and execute payments, creating a new layer of “machine-to-machine” economic activity. In the realm of “agentic finance”, while legacy robo-advisers offered static exchange-traded fund (ETF) allocations on the basis of predetermined risk tolerances, agen - tic AI can be used to actively manage a user’s entire
balance sheet (eg, moving excess cash to high-yield accounts) in real time. Agents authorised by consum - ers can negotiate purchases, book travel and execute payments. In the back office, AI agents can execute customer due diligence and know-your-customer pro - cesses, analyse transactions as part of transaction monitoring alerts, and draft any required activity reports (eg, on suspicious activity) for human review. Lenders can utilise “agentic underwriting”, analysing alternative data points (telco data, rental payments, open banking data) to score “thin-file” borrowers, and even leverage real-time access to accounting software via APIs to offer dynamic credit lines based on actual cash flow rather than static credit scores. This technological leap creates some legal uncer - tainty. One issue impacting the market in 2026 is the attribution of liability for autonomous actions. If an AI agent executes a trade that results in significant loss, or denies a loan application based on opaque criteria, the question of attribution (ie, whether the act is that of the developer, the deployer or the user) becomes critical. In 2026, we see the crystallisation of liability frameworks that may, among other things, attribute responsibility to the deployer of the high-risk system, treat high-risk AI agents as an extension of their prin - cipal, and necessitate robust “human-in-the-loop” oversight mechanisms. A secondary issue is that of explainability. The “black box” nature of these models poses risks if a deci - sion is required to be justified. It may be the case that regulators may increasingly require financial institu - tions to provide specific reasons for certain actions, even when decisions are made by complex neural networks. Consistent with the idea of AI agents being an exten - sion of their principal (whose actions must be explain - able), the implications are, among other things, the necessity of “proof of authority” guardrails. A new “AI assurance” industry has emerged to audit these agents, ensuring they operate within defined risk parameters and do not hallucinate or exhibit bias in credit scoring or claims processing.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Adrian Ang, Allen & Gledhill
Regulatory legitimisation of digital assets The enactment of the Guiding and Establishing Nation - al Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the “GENIUS Act”) in July 2025 was a watershed moment for the global crypto-ecosystem. By establishing a federal regulatory framework that mandates 1:1 reserve back - ing with high-quality liquid assets, the US is effectively on the path towards the legitimisation of stablecoins as a settlement instrument. This has catalysed the rise of PayFi, a new vertical where stablecoins are used for programmable B2B payments, real-time payroll, and cross-border trade settlement, bypassing legacy rails like SWIFT for intra-day liquidity management. In the European Union, the full application of the Mar - kets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) has created a comprehensive regulatory regime for digital assets. MiCA distinguishes between asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), with the issuers of significant ARTs and EMTs facing stricter supervision. We would expect 2026 to be the year where “single- currency stablecoins” backed by reserve assets contin - ue on their path towards becoming a significant medi - um of exchange in the digital economy, significantly eroding the market share of algorithmic alternatives. On a related note, we would expect real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation to continue to gain traction in 2026. The market for tokenised assets, which can span anything from government treasuries and money market funds to private credit, is projected to grow exponentially, with estimates suggesting a trajectory toward trillions in value by 2030. By one estimate, the market for tokenised US treasuries already exceeds USD10 billion, possibly driven by institutional demand for on-chain collateral. Major asset managers have launched tokenised funds on public blockchains, allowing investors to earn yield on-chain while using these tokens as collateral in DeFi protocols. This con - vergence allows for 24/7 liquidity management and atomic settlement, eliminating the T+1 or T+2 delays of traditional securities markets. However, the chal - lenge remains secondary market liquidity. In 2026, we would expect to observe the continued development of “unified ledgers” and interoperability protocols attempting to connect siloed liquidity pools across different blockchains and traditional bank ledgers.
Liability shifts in the global fight against fraud The payments sector in 2026 is defined by the tension between the demand for instantaneity and the impera - tive of security. Real-time payment systems are ubiq - uitous, but they have opened new vectors for fraud. For example, deepfakes (voice and video) are now a primary vector for social engineering, bypassing voice biometric security. “Fraud-as-a-service” platforms allow low-skilled criminals to launch sophisticated AI-driven attacks at scale. It is no surprise that regulators globally have been look - ing at how to safeguard consumers from the rise of fraud. For example, the United Kingdom requires in- scope payment service providers to reimburse victims of authorised push payment fraud within five days, with the cost split 50:50 between the sending and receiving institutions. In Singapore, the coming into force of the E-Payments User Protection Guidelines and the Guide - lines on Shared Responsibility Framework sets out a waterfall method for apportioning such losses. Under MiCA, crypto-asset service providers are liable for the loss of crypto-assets due to hacks or malfunctions. In the United States, the Protecting Consumers From Payment Scams Act proposes amending the Elec - tronic Fund Transfer Act to treat fraudulently induced electronic fund transfers in the same manner as unau - thorised fund transfers, and sharing liability between sending and receiving financial institutions. We would naturally expect the introduction of such regimes to lead to increased friction in payments, but a reduction in losses to scams. Globally, we would also expect other regulators to follow suit, pushing for a “shared responsibility” model that eventually includes telecommunications companies and social media platforms in the liability chain. Conclusion In summary, we expect the trends of convergence, agentic AI, regulatory legitimisation of digital assets, and shifts in fraud liability to continue to dominate the fintech scene. For 2026, the Fintech Global Prac - tice Guide continues to cover a wide variety of areas, including new additions on anti-money laundering rules, reverse solicitation, the regulatory treatment of staking, lending and cryptocurrency derivatives, and responsibility for losses. I am sure the Fintech Global Practice Guide for 2026 will be a useful resource for all practitioners and participants in the field.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA
Brazil
Paraguay
Chile
Uruguay
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward GPG Advisory Partners
Contents 1. Fintech Market p.13 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market p.13 2. Fintech Business Models and Regulation in General p.14 2.1 Predominant Business Models p.14 2.2 Regulatory Regime p.15 2.3 Compensation Models p.16 2.4 Variations Between the Regulation of Fintech and Legacy Players p.16 2.5 Regulatory Sandbox p.17 2.6 Jurisdiction of Regulators p.17 2.7 No-Action Letters p.17 2.8 Outsourcing of Regulated Functions p.17 2.9 Gatekeeper Liability p.18 2.10 Significant Enforcement Actions p.18
2.11 Implications of Additional, Non-Financial Services Regulations p.18 2.12 Review of Industry Participants by Parties Other Than Regulators p.19 2.13 Conjunction of Unregulated and Regulated Products and Services p.19 2.14 Impact of AML and Sanctions Rules p.19 2.15 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Standards p.19 2.16 Reverse Solicitation p.20 3. Robo-Advisers p.20 3.1 Requirement for Different Business Models p.20 3.2 Legacy Players’ Implementation of Solutions Introduced by Robo-Advisers p.20 3.3 Issues Relating to Best Execution of Customer Trades p.20 4. Online Lenders p.20 4.1 Differences in the Business or Regulation of Fiat Currency Loans Provided to Different Entities p.20 4.2 Underwriting Processes p.21 4.3 Sources of Funds for Fiat Currency Loans p.21 4.4 Syndication of Fiat Currency Loans p.21 5. Payment Processors p.21 5.1 Payment Processors’ Use of Payment Rails p.21
5.2 Regulation of Cross-Border Payments and Remittances p.22 6. Marketplaces, Exchanges and Trading Platforms p.22 6.1 Permissible Trading Platforms p.22 6.2 Regulation of Different Asset Classes p.22 6.3 Impact of the Emergence of Cryptocurrency Exchanges p.22 6.4 Listing Standards p.23 6.5 Order Handling Rules p.23 6.6 Rise of Peer-to-Peer Trading Platforms p.24
10 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA CONTENTS
6.7 Rules of Payment for Order Flow p.24 6.8 Market Integrity Principles p.24 7. High-Frequency and Algorithmic Trading p.24 7.1 Creation and Usage Regulations p.24 7.2 Requirement To Be Licensed or Registered as a Market Maker When Functioning in a Principal Capacity p.24
7.3 Regulatory Distinction Between Funds and Dealers p.24 7.4 Regulation of Programmers and Programming p.24 8. Insurtech p.25 8.1 Underwriting Processes p.25 8.2 Treatment of Different Types of Insurance p.25 9. Regtech p.25 9.1 Regulation of Regtech Providers p.25 9.2 Contractual Terms to Ensure Performance and Accuracy p.25 10. Blockchain p.25 10.1 Use of Blockchain in the Financial Services Industry p.25 10.2 Local Regulators’ Approach to Blockchain p.25 10.3 Classification of Blockchain Assets p.26 10.4 Regulation of “Issuers” of Blockchain Assets p.26 10.5 Regulation of Blockchain Asset Trading Platforms p.26 10.6 Staking p.26
10.7 Crypto-Related Lending p.26 10.8 Cryptocurrency Derivatives p.26 10.9 Decentralised Finance (DeFi) p.26 10.10 Regulation of Funds p.26 10.11 Virtual Currencies p.26 10.12 NFTs p.27 10.13 Stablecoins p.27 11. Open Banking p.27 11.1 Regulation of Open Banking p.27 11.2 Concerns Raised by Open Banking p.27 12. Fraud p.27 12.1 Elements of Fraud p.27
12.2 Areas of Regulatory Focus p.27 12.3 Responsibility for Losses p.28
11 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
GPG Advisory Partners provides legal and tax coun - sel to local and international corporate, institutional and individual clients across a wide range of matters, including corporate law, M&A, regulatory and anti - trust, international tax, private wealth, real estate and fintech. GPG delivers customised solutions that ad - dress the unique challenges and opportunities faced by each of its clients. The fintech and new technolo - gies department at GPG comprises three partners and three associates. Headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the department serves clients that operate
throughout the Latin American region. Recognised as a leader in all fintech matters, the firm specialises in areas such as digital payments, online lending, cryp - to services, blockchain technology, digital transfor - mation, regtech, IT services and fintech-related M&A transactions. Its innovative approach and commit - ment to providing holistic advice have earned GPG a strong reputation as a market leader, counselling some of the most significant players in the industry, including the Argentine Fintech Chamber.
Authors
Santiago J. Mora is a partner at GPG Advisory Partners with over 25 years of legal experience in regulatory matters, fintech and emerging technologies. Santiago is one of the leading experts in fintech regulations.
Milagros Caneda began her career at the Ministry of Social Development of Argentina in 2016; after working at Marval, O’ Farrell & Mairal, she joined GPG Advisory Partners. Milagros holds a law degree from the
He is the director of fintech law programmes at San Andrés University, Torcuato Di Tella University and the University of Buenos Aires. He has published various articles on fintech matters since 2007 and co-edited six volumes of the book “Fintech: Legal Aspects”. In addition to a law degree from Blas Pascal University, Santiago has a master’s degree in Law and Economics from Torcuato Di Tella University.
University of Buenos Aires (Magna Cum Laude) and an Adv LLM in International and European Business Law from KU Leuven University (Belgium).
May Steward began her career at San Andrés University in 2018; after
working at Allende & Brea, she joined GPG Advisory Partners. May holds a law degree from San Andrés University (Summa Cum Laude), and has worked as editor-in-chief of the legal journal of the University of San Andrés.
Nicolas Garfunkel is a partner at GPG Advisory Partners who specialises in fintech, international tax and M&A, among other areas. He began his career at JPMorgan Private Bank in its New York and Geneva offices,
where he specialised in the design and implementation of tax planning structures and vehicles for ultra high net worth individuals. Nicolas holds a law degree from the University of Belgrano and an Adv LLM in International Tax Law from the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.
12 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
GPG Advisory Partners Av. Córdoba 315, 1st floor C1054AAC CABA Argentina Tel: +54 11 4313 6644/6655 Fax: +54 11 4313 6644/6655 Email: info@gpgadvisorypartners.com Web: www.gpgadvisorypartners.com
1. Fintech Market 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market
mutual funds ( Fondos Comunes de Inversión or FCIs) reached ARS5.6 trillion. Considered jointly, both rep - resent 6.3% of total peso-denominated private-sector deposits. One of the main regulatory developments in the pay - ments sector took place towards the end of 2025 with the presentation of the labour reform bill promoted by the government. This bill enables virtual accounts to be used for the payment of salaries, ending the exclusivity previously held by bank accounts for this purpose. The bill was expected to be discussed in February 2026. Regarding credit, according to the latest report from the Argentine Fintech Chamber, as of March 2025 Argentina had reached 5.2 million fintech credit hold - ers. Additionally, of the 34.6 million credits granted in the country as of March 2025, 16.5% were issued by fintech companies. By comparison, in December 2024 a total of 33 million credits had been granted, of which 15.2% were issued by fintech companies. On the cryptocurrency front, according to information from the Argentine Fintech Chamber, Argentina ranks among the top five countries worldwide in terms of crypto application users, with more than 2.5 million monthly active users, and is the highest-ranked Span - ish-speaking country in the list. In addition, Argentina is the second-largest market in the region by trans - action volume, with more than USD93.9 billion trans - acted on blockchain over the past year.
Argentina’s fintech market continued growing during the past year. According to the latest surveys, with 939 companies, Argentina ranks among the three largest fintech ecosystems in Latin America, alongside Brazil and Mexico. In terms of payments, according to the latest “Monthly Retail Payments Report” issued by the Argentine Cen - tral Bank ( Banco Central de la República Argentina or BCRA), as of November 2025 a total of 205 “pay - ment service providers offering payment accounts” ( Proveedores de Servicios de Pago que Ofrecen Cuentas de Pago or PSPCPs) had been incorporated into the registry administered by that authority. This represents a 20.6% increase compared to the 170 PSPCPs registered in November 2024. Likewise, in November 2025, 666.3 million immedi - ate “push” transfers were recorded, totalling ARS70.1 trillion, representing year-on-year increases of 20.3% in volume and 18.2% in real terms in value. 73% of these transfers originated from and/or were destined to a CVU (payment accounts provided by a PSPCP). With respect to payment accounts and funds invest - ed through PSPCPs, in October 2025, out of a total of 61.7 million payment accounts, 14.6 million of these recorded positive balances, totalling ARS0.6 trillion, while balances invested in money market
13 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
This segment entered into a new implementation phase with the enactment of the National Securities Exchange Commission ( Comisión Nacional de Valores or CNV) Resolutions No 994 and 1058. This regulation builds upon Law No 27,739, which incorporated the definition of “virtual assets” ( activos virtuales or AVs) and “virtual asset service providers” ( proveedores de servicios de activos virtuales or PSAVs) into the legal framework, and designated the CNV as the competent authority for their registration, supervision, regulation and sanctioning. In this context, Resolution No 994 and, in particular, Resolution No 1058 established the initial regulatory principles applicable to PSAVs (focusing on information security and prudential standards, among others), and formalised the PSAV registry within the CNV, making prior registration a mandatory requirement for entities providing virtual asset services in or directed to Argentina. This regu - latory framework has been regarded by the industry as pragmatic, flexible and gradual. As of early Janu - ary 2026, 94 legal entities and two individuals were registered. In addition, in recent months, the CNV issued Reso - lutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087, which authorised the tokenisation of certain securities. This regime includes debt securities or participation certificates in financial trusts with public offering, whose underly - ing assets are mainly composed of real-world assets (RWAs), units of closed-end investment funds with public offering backed by RWAs, shares (including dual-listed shares), negotiable obligations, and Argen - tine Depositary Receipt (CEDEARS). The regime was implemented within a regulatory sandbox for a one- year period, with the possibility of subsequent review and adjustments. The trading of these tokenised securities is carried out by PSAVs duly registered with the CNV. Finally, there also has been progress in the area of open finance. In May 2025, Decree No 353/2025 was enacted, creating the Open Finance System ( Sistema de Finanzas Abiertas ), which allows individuals and legal entities to share information with financial insti - tutions registered with the BCRA, subject to express consent, with the aim of fostering credit development, competition and financial inclusion. The BCRA was designated as the authority in charge of implement -
ing and overseeing the system. In this regard, specific regulations to be issued by the BCRA are expected during the first months of 2026. Looking ahead, the fintech sector is expected to con - tinue growing and developing in the next 12 months, with an increase in the number of companies, trans - actions, customers and businesses. This is mainly because of the recent change of administration in the federal government, which leans towards promoting citizens’ liberties and freedom of choice in the market, and also because of the good projections in terms of macroeconomic regularisation. At the same time, the regulatory framework is expected to continue evolving and adapting, particularly as the current authorities have actively encouraged public-private dialogue to support these developments. 2. Fintech Business Models and Regulation in General 2.1 Predominant Business Models In Argentina, the payments, crypto and lending verti - cals are the predominant business models. In the payments sector, competition between financial applications intensified and took on different forms. In the retail segment, differentiation focused on the incorporation of new products, promotions and dis - counts, while other platforms geared their strategy towards the institutional segment, offering solutions for companies that include international transfers. It should also be noted that the consolidation of user experience was a driver of growth in this vertical, along with trust, security and cybersecurity, which today serve as strategic differentiators to sustain the sector’s development, enhanced by the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) for real-time fraud detec - tion, the automation of operational processes, and the reduction of friction in digital transactions. In the crypto vertical, most crypto-asset exchanges operating in Argentina allow their users to acquire various types of cryptocurrencies (including stable - coins), and provide access to decentralised finance (DeFi) products. Moreover, the BCRA is working on and advancing a plan that would allow banks to offer
14 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
cryptocurrency purchase, sale and custody services, which could be announced during the first months of 2026. This measure would benefit not only banks but also PSAVs and other fintechs that develop ser - vices for businesses, as they could become traditional banks’ crypto partners. Regarding the lending vertical, this segment shows a relative lag due, among other factors, to the macroeco - nomic context inherited from previous years; however, it has shown a significant recovery in recent months, and further improvements are expected as the mac - roeconomic environment continues to stabilise and improve. The main challenge lies in deepening credit penetration. Participants in this segment consider that such progress can be achieved through, among other things, increased data availability – an aspect expect - ed to be driven by the new Open Finance measures (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market ) – and fully digital, end-to-end processes, which enable more efficient collection mechanisms and lower operating costs, as well as through enhanced financial educa - tion. In addition, there have been important new projects and start-ups in the regtech sector and in the provi - sion of IT services to financial institutions and fintech companies, as well as in the use of blockchain tech - nology. 2.2 Regulatory Regime There is no centralised regulatory framework govern - ing the entire fintech ecosystem in Argentina. Instead, there are separate regulations scattered throughout the legal system, with some issues receiving more detailed regulation than others. The following para - graphs review the key regulations that apply to the main fintech verticals. Payments Verticals Before 2020, e-money systems were not expressly covered by any specific regulation within the Argen - tine domestic legal framework; therefore, they were governed by pre-existing general rules, such as (among others): • the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC); • the Consumer Protection Law No 24,240 (CPL);
• certain aspects of the Credit Cards Law No 25,065 (CCL); • the Anti Money Laundering Law No 25,246 (AMLL) for certain business models; • the Personal Data Protection Law No 25,326 (PDPL); and • the Digital Signature Law No 25,506 (DSL). Many of these regulations continue to apply today, notwithstanding the specific regulations enacted in recent years. In 2020, the BCRA issued a series of communications aimed at regulating these businesses, which have been named PSPCPs, and implemented Transfers 3.0 ( Transferencias 3.0 ), an interoperability scheme between bank accounts and payment accounts that enables QR-code interoperability, and immediate set - tlement. Throughout the following years, the BCRA issued further regulation for payment service providers ( proveedores de servicios de pago or PSPs), incorpo - rating new roles (among others, initiation, acquiring, aggregation or sub-acquiring, and non-bank agen - cies that collect payment of taxes and/or services), and enacting rules that align the operation of pay - ment accounts issued by PSPCPs with that of bank accounts, as well as progressively establishing more stringent cybersecurity and digital fraud prevention requirements for all participants in the system. Lending Businesses Online lending businesses are mainly regulated by the CCC, as regular lending operations, in addition to the CPL, AMLL, PDPL and DSL. Also, in 2020 the BCRA amended the rules regarding “non-financial credit providers” ( proveedores no finan - cieros de crédito or PNFCs), making them mandatory for companies that, based on their last financial state - ments, granted credit in excess of ARS10 million and are not financial institutions. In addition, in 2021 the BCRA regulated crowdlend - ing businesses, which have been named “providers of credit services between individuals through platforms”
15 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
Public Offerings of Securities, Securities Markets and Exchanges The CML regulates public offerings of securities, securities markets and exchanges, and intermediar - ies operating in such markets; it also covers the public offering of term contracts, futures and options, their markets, clearing houses and intermediaries. Insurtech Insurtech activities fall under the general rules of Insurance Law No 17,418 (IL). 2.3 Compensation Models Compensation models vary from business to business and vertical to vertical. Businesses related to the payments vertical are usu - ally compensated through transactional commissions that are ultimately borne by the affiliated businesses. PSAVs frequently charge a fee for their services or include their earnings in the prices of the cryptocur - rencies that can be purchased or sold on their plat - forms. Businesses related to lending verticals are compen - sated through the interest rate charged to the bor - rower. It is important to mention that case law exists that limits the interest applicable to loans when such interest is deemed excessive. In regtech undertakings and the provision of IT, as well as blockchain and services to financial institutions and fintech companies, the compensation model is freely agreed between the parties (ranging from fixed amounts to variables per transaction). 2.4 Variations Between the Regulation of Fintech and Legacy Players While legacy players’ activity tends to be highly regu - lated and centralised mostly by the BCRA and the CNV, the regulation applicable to the fintech industry is more flexible and, as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime , there is no centralised regulatory framework governing the entire fintech ecosystem. Nevertheless, the BCRA and the CNV do issue specific regulations on most of the verticals.
( proveedores de servicios de créditos entre particu- lares a través de plataformas or PSCPPs). Equity crowdfunding is regulated by Entrepreneurial Capital Support Law No 27,349 (ECSL) and CNV Res - olution No 942/2022. PSAVs At an initial stage, PSAV businesses were regulated by the pre-existing general rules of the CCC, the CPL, the PDPL and the DSL, among others. In 2024, the regulation status of these businesses underwent a series of changes, among other things through the enactment of Law No 27,739 that modi - fied the AMLL, defined the concepts of AV and PSAV, designated the PSAVs as obligated entities before the Financial Intelligence Unit ( Unidad de Información Financiera or UIF), and created a PSAV Registry under the CNV. In this context, the CNV and UIF issued Res - olutions No 994/24 and 49/24, respectively, to regu - late the provisions of Law No 27,739. Subsequently, in 2025, the CNV issued Resolution No 1058/25, which went a step further, establishing the core principles and initial parameters applicable to the provision of PSAV services, including general rules of conduct and the definition of specific conditions under which PSAVs must carry out their activities, following a principles-based and risk-oriented approach. However, the CNV’s regulatory authority does not extend to the regulation of virtual assets themselves, except where such assets fall within the definition of negotiable securities, pursuant to the CNV’s origi - nal jurisdiction under Capital Market Law No 26,831 (CML). In this regard, in 2025 the CNV enabled the tokenisation of certain securities authorised for public offering through CNV Resolutions No 1069, 1081 and 1087 (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market ). Regtech Businesses Regtech businesses, the provision of computer ser - vices and innovations in the use of blockchain tech - nology are regulated by the CCC, the DSL and Intel - lectual Property Law No 11,723 (IPL).
16 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
Unlike financial institutions, in some cases prior authorisation from a state agency is not required to carry out or operate a fintech business. There are also some distinctions from a tax perspec - tive between transactions carried out by or through financial institutions and transactions carried out by or through fintech companies. However, it is likely that such distinctions will gradually disappear. 2.5 Regulatory Sandbox There is no comprehensive or fully established sand - box regime in Argentina, beyond certain isolated or preliminary initiatives. In April 2022, the CNV launched an “Innovation Hub” aimed at those entities with service technology pro - jects and/or innovative financial products that are linked to the capital market. This was to be the first step towards a possible CNV regulatory sandbox, which was ultimately not launched in 2023. In 2024, the Argentine Fintech Chamber, in collabora - tion with the organisation Crecimiento, submitted a proposal to regulate the tokenisation of RWAs through a sandbox. Regulatory agencies (BCRA, CNV and UIF) remain in constant communication with the Chamber and the organisation regarding the proposal, and have shown interest in advancing it. Finally, in June 2025, the CNV launched a regulatory sandbox for the tokenisation of securities, solely as a temporary regime with a one-year duration (see 1.1 Evolution of the Fintech Market ). Upon the expiry of this regime, the CNV will assess its continuation and potential expansion. 2.6 Jurisdiction of Regulators Just as fintech regulations are scattered (as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime ), so too is the jurisdiction of the regulators involved in the sector. The BCRA The BCRA has jurisdiction over entities engaged in regular intermediation between the supply and demand of financial resources (financial institutions) that fall within the scope of the FEL. It is responsible for the regulation and supervision of monetary policy,
credit policies and exchange control regulations. In addition, the BCRA has competence in payments and can expand its regulatory purview to other activities when deemed necessary, considering the volume of operations and their impact on credit and monetary policies. The CNV The CNV is responsible for implementing the CML. It has jurisdiction and oversight over various areas, including public offerings, brokerage entities, collec - tive investment schemes, and securities exchanges and markets. Also, as mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime , after the issuing of Law No 27,739, the CNV has jurisdiction over and oversees PSAVs. The AAIP Another relevant regulator is the Public Information Access Agency ( Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública or AAIP), which is the implementing authority of the PDPL. The UIF The UIF is the implementing authority of the AMLL. The SSN The Superintendence of Insurance ( Superintendencia de Seguros de la Nación or SSN) has jurisdiction over the IL, supervising the activities of producers, interme - diaries, and insurance and reinsurance entities. 2.7 No-Action Letters In Argentina, regulators do not issue “no-action” let - ters. 2.8 Outsourcing of Regulated Functions Financial institutions may outsource several functions to third-party vendors. However, this activity is regu - lated by the BCRA, which must be informed of such arrangements and which may carry out inspections of the premises and activities of the vendors. Despite this, the outsourcing of regulated functions does not release a financial institution from its obligations vis- à-vis its clients and the BCRA. Moreover, PSAVs may also outsource functions inher - ent to their activity to third-party vendors, in accord - ance with the regulatory framework established by the
17 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago J. Mora, Nicolas Garfunkel, Milagros Caneda and May Steward, GPG Advisory Partners
2.11 Implications of Additional, Non- Financial Services Regulations The CCC As mentioned in 2.2 Regulatory Regime , all fintech businesses fall under the provisions of the CCC, based on the similarities of their operations with nominated businesses provided for in the CCC. In addition, the general rules applicable to contracts and obligations under the CCC include the following topics: • liability regime (Section 1708 et seq); • accountability regime ( rendición de cuentas ) (Sec - tion 858 et seq); • the principle of good faith (Section 961); and • standard-form contracts (Section 984 et seq). The DSL The DSL also applies since this regulation incorpo - rates the concepts of digital documents, electronic signatures and digital signatures into the Argentine legal framework, and establishes the terms of equiva - lence between these new concepts and the concepts of material documents and handwritten signatures. The PDPL The PDPL establishes several rights that companies must recognise regarding personal data holders. It also limits the way data can be collected and pro - cessed, and mandates specific actions that compa - nies must take before the competent authority. The CPL B2C business is subject to the CPL, which is designed to protect consumers as the weaker party in contrac - Fintech businesses are also subject to the Argen - tine Antitrust Law No 27,442 (AAL). This law applies across all verticals, but in practice is particularly rel - evant to the payments vertical, especially with respect to abuse of a dominant position, restrictive contrac - tual arrangements, and merger control. This is all the more so given that, in recent years, there have been interventions by the competition authority, as well as cross-complaints among different fintech players and between fintechs and banks. tual relationships. The Antitrust Law
CNV. Such outsourcing arrangements must be formal - ised through agreements that expressly require third parties to provide all information necessary for the PSAV to comply with the applicable reporting regime and with any information requests issued by the CNV or other competent authorities. In all cases, outsourc - ing arrangements may not include any waiver or limi - tation of the PSAV’s responsibility for the services provided. PSAVs must notify the CNV of such arrange - ments, report their termination, and make the relevant agreements available upon request of the CNV. 2.9 Gatekeeper Liability Fintech providers are under no specific legal obliga - tion to act as gatekeepers. At the same time, these entities fall under the general security and diligence obligations contained in the CCC, the CPL and the PDPL and must therefore ensure that their platforms operate adequately. In addition, almost all fintech companies fall within the scope of the AMLL and are considered reporting entities under the regulations, subject to registration, know-your-customer (KYC) and suspicious transac - tion reporting obligations. 2.10 Significant Enforcement Actions When fintech companies engage in activities that fall within the scope of the Financial Entities Law No 21,526 (FEL) or the CML, without the corresponding authorisations, or fail to comply with the regulations applicable to them by any of the regulatory agencies (BCRA, CNV, UIF), these authorities may initiate sum - mary investigations and impose sanctions. The sanctions applicable to individuals and legal entities that violate the provisions include warnings or notices, financial penalties, and temporary or per - manent prohibitions to operate and disqualifications from serving as directors, administrators, trustees, members of supervisory boards, managers, compli - ance officers or auditors, among others. Additionally, if the investigation reveals the commis - sion of crimes, the authorities may initiate the corre - sponding criminal actions.
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