Fintechs Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2020-10-27

FinCEN and the Federal Reserve Board published the NPRM proposing a $250 threshold and CVC-related clarifications at 85 FR 68005.

2026-11-09

Withdrawal of the NPRM takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register; no final rule will be issued from the withdrawn proposal without a new opportunity for public comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to document that the $250 threshold was proposed but never finalized, and that the applicable threshold remains $3,000 under the existing Recordkeeping Rule and Travel Rule framework.
• Firms may wish to validate that transaction-monitoring, case-management, record-retention, and payment-message controls have not been configured on the assumption that the withdrawn $250 threshold became effective.
• Covered institutions may wish to continue collecting, retaining, and transmitting the information required by 31 CFR 1010.410(e), 31 CFR 1010.410(f), and, where applicable, 31 CFR 1020.410(a) for transactions within the existing rule scope.
• Crypto businesses and their banking or payment partners may wish to retain existing risk-based controls for CVC transactions rather than treating withdrawal of the clarification as a removal of applicable AML obligations.
• Firms may wish to monitor for a future NPRM addressing CVC, stablecoins, digital assets with legal tender status, or transaction thresholds, because the agencies expressly left open the possibility of future amendments after additional public feedback.
• Remittance and payment providers may wish to assess whether procedures, customer disclosures, vendor specifications, and interinstitutional messaging agreements were prepared for the proposed $250 threshold and should now be revised or archived.

What changed

The agencies withdrew the NPRM published at 85 FR 68005 on October 27, 2020, and stated that they will take no further action on that proposal. The proposed reduction of the Recordkeeping Rule threshold under 31 CFR 1010.410(e) and 31 CFR 1020.410(a) from $3,000 to $250 for funds transfers and transmittals of funds beginning or ending outside the United States will not take effect. The proposed reduction of FinCEN's Travel Rule threshold under 31 CFR 1010.410(f) from $3,000 to $250 for transmission of information to other financial institutions in the payment chain will also not take effect.

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2024-06-30

MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.

2024-12-30

Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.

2026-11-06

The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
• Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
• Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
• Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
• Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
• Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
• Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
• Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.

Key dates

2026-11-04

ASIC published the enforcement notice covering 22 large proprietary companies and confirmed total payments of $4,356,000.

2025-08-01

Approximate month in which ASIC commenced its data-focused surveillance of large proprietary companies and other entities for late or missing financial reports.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map every Australian entity in the corporate group against its financial reporting obligations, including changes in size, ownership, control, corporate structure and operations.
• Firms should consider maintaining a central obligations register recording each entity's financial year end, applicable reporting category, audit requirements, board approval milestones and ASIC lodgement deadline.
• Finance and governance functions may wish to schedule audit planning, management accounts, director approvals and electronic lodgement sufficiently early to address audit-related delays.
• Directors and company secretaries should consider reviewing whether any financial reports, directors' reports or auditors' reports are overdue and arranging prompt lodgement rather than waiting for ASIC contact.
• Groups may wish to document controls for identifying newly reportable entities, including entities that become large proprietary companies or become foreign-controlled.
• Compliance teams should consider retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, auditor engagement, escalation of reporting delays and remediation of overdue filings in case ASIC opens a surveillance review.
• Where ASIC has contacted an entity or an infringement notice has been paid, firms should consider confirming whether all outstanding reports have been lodged because ASIC states that its investigation may continue and payment does not resolve separate reporting obligations.

What changed

No new statutory reporting rule was introduced. ASIC has escalated enforcement of existing obligations under the Corporations Act 2001, including the requirement for large proprietary companies and other prescribed entities to prepare, audit and lodge required financial reports, directors' reports and auditors' reports within the applicable statutory period. For most entities required to lodge, the general deadline is within four months after financial year end; disclosing entities, registered schemes and registrable superannuation entities generally have three months.

Key dates

2026-11-04

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-54 and the Supervisory Framework on Bank Use of Super Intelligence for examiner use.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory current and planned SI and agentic-SI use cases, including embedded functionality supplied by vendors, and map each use case to its business owner, permitted actions, autonomy level, human oversight, data sources, and potential consequences of failure or misuse.
• Banks should consider documenting a risk-based classification methodology focused on potential consequences, transfer of agency, and degree of human oversight rather than technical sophistication alone.
• Risk and control owners may wish to assess whether existing model-risk, governance, data-governance, privacy, cybersecurity, compliance, operational-resilience, vendor-management, testing, monitoring, documentation, auditability, and independent-challenge controls adequately address SI-enabled activities.
• Higher-consequence or more autonomous use cases should be considered for stronger restrictions on permitted actions, more direct human oversight, independent validation or challenge, enhanced performance monitoring, audit trails, testing, fallback procedures, and resilience measures.
• Boards and senior management may wish to clarify accountability for SI deployments without creating a separate SI risk appetite unless the bank determines that one is useful internally; the OCC framework does not require one.
• Internal audit and compliance teams may wish to retain evidence showing how SI risks are identified, measured, monitored, controlled, and escalated within existing risk-management frameworks, particularly because examiners may use the framework during ordinary examinations despite its nonbinding status.
• Banks should consider reviewing contracts and oversight arrangements for SI vendors, including access to data, model changes, incident notification, testing rights, service continuity, explainability or transparency, subcontracting, and termination or fallback arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor future OCC revisions and stakeholder feedback because the framework is expressly intended to be a living document.

What changed

The OCC provided examiners with a risk-based, proportionate framework covering SI used in activities including credit decisioning, payments, fraud detection, customer service, operations, risk management, and market activities. Examiners are instructed to consider the bank’s size, complexity, risk profile, and the nature, consequences, autonomy, and complexity of each SI use case; banks are not required to create a separate SI risk category or SI-specific risk appetite. The framework identifies 16 components across six pillars: purpose, risk, control, oversight, resilience, and assurance.

Key dates

2018-08-03

iSignthis represented that less than 15% of quarterly revenue came from one-off or set-up fees; the Court found that the proportion exceeded 75% and that approximately AUD 3 million of one-off revenue and AUD 2.85 million of related one-off costs were not disclosed.

2020-05-12

iSignthis received Visa's letter communicating the finality of Visa's decision to terminate its relationship; the Court found that disclosure to the ASX was required on or shortly after this date.

2020-12-07

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against iSignthis and Nickolas John Karantzis.

2022-05-11

iSignthis changed its name to Southern Cross Payments Ltd.

2022-11-04

Southern Cross Payments Ltd was delisted from the ASX.

2024-06-21

The Federal Court found that iSignthis had contravened disclosure laws and that Karantzis had breached relevant director duties.

2025-08-08

The Federal Court ordered iSignthis to pay a AUD 10 million penalty and ordered Karantzis to pay AUD 1 million and be disqualified from managing corporations for six years.

2025-09-05

iSignthis and Karantzis lodged appeals against the liability and penalty decisions.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing continuous-disclosure procedures against Corporations Act 2001 section 674 and ASX Listing Rule 3.1, including escalation criteria for operational, commercial and revenue information.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether financial reporting distinguishes recurring revenue from one-off or set-up fees and discloses material associated costs consistently with market communications.
• Listed entities should consider documenting how they assess materiality, finality and reasonable grounds for delay when a major counterparty indicates that a contract or relationship may end.
• Boards and senior officers may wish to review controls ensuring that information provided to the ASX is accurate, complete and not misleading, including verification of statements made in analyst briefings and investor presentations.
• Firms should consider confirming that trading suspensions do not cause disclosure controls to stop operating and that market-sensitive developments continue to be assessed during a suspension.
• Companies may wish to retain contemporaneous records of disclosure decisions, legal advice, board or committee deliberations and communications with counterparties where disclosure timing is disputed.
• Compliance teams should consider whether director and officer accountability frameworks adequately address the risk of personal civil penalties and disqualification for failures to take reasonable steps to ensure ASX information is accurate.

What changed

The appeal did not introduce a new statutory obligation, but it confirms the substantial enforcement consequences of existing Australian continuous-disclosure and director-duty requirements. The Court upheld findings concerning iSignthis's failure to accurately disclose the extent of one-off revenue and related costs, and its failure from 12 May 2020 to disclose Visa's decision to terminate its relationship and the reasons communicated by Visa.

Key dates

2025-10-21

The FCA commenced High Court proceedings in the Business and Property Division against Huobi Global S.A. and persons unknown concerning alleged breaches of section 21 FSMA.

2026-02-10

The FCA publicly announced its enforcement action against HTX for unlawful cryptoasset promotions to UK consumers.

2026-10-29

The FCA announced the High Court settlement and undertakings; HTX was no longer active in the UK, with no deposits or new UK registrations permitted.

2027-10-01

The FCA publication states that cryptoassets remain largely unregulated in the UK, apart from anti-money-laundering and financial-promotion requirements, until October 2027.

2031-10-21

The court order provides that Huobi Global's undertakings continue until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all UK-facing cryptoasset communications across websites, applications, email, affiliates, influencers and social-media platforms, including communications published by overseas group entities.
• Firms should consider documenting the legal basis for each UK financial promotion under section 21 FSMA, including the firm's authorisation status, any authorised-person approval and any applicable exemption under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005.
• Overseas firms should consider geo-blocking and other durable controls for UK users, while testing whether content, account access, app availability, search visibility or social-media activity remains capable of having an effect in the UK.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to implement pre-publication approval, withdrawal and monitoring controls for third-party affiliates, influencers and social-media operators, with records showing who approved each communication and where it was distributed.
• Firms with existing UK users should consider reviewing account-access, deposit, withdrawal and customer-communications arrangements so that any UK exit strategy does not leave consumers exposed to continuing unlawful promotions.
• Cryptoasset businesses may wish to monitor the FCA Warning List and Firm Checker and assess whether their UK activities could also trigger UK anti-money-laundering registration or other authorisation requirements.

What changed

This is a settlement and enforcement outcome rather than a new generally applicable rule. Huobi Global is bound by court undertakings not to knowingly, directly or indirectly, communicate or cause to be communicated financial promotions contravening section 21 FSMA, including promotions on HTX websites, software applications and social-media platforms. HTX will not target, solicit or actively seek to engage UK consumers; UK consumers can no longer deposit funds or open new accounts, and residual-asset withdrawals are addressed through HTX's published arrangements.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The Bank of England published the consultation and draft Supervisory Statement on CCP acceptance of tokenised collateral.

2027-02-12 Deadline

Consultation closes; responses on the draft supervisory expectations and wider tokenised-collateral policy are requested by this date.

2028-01-01

Target year for the Bank’s planned RT2 synchronisation capability supporting settlement between digital-asset ledgers and central bank money; this is a stated implementation target, not a compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• CCPs and prospective CCP applicants should consider whether tokenised versions of currently accepted or eligible collateral would constitute new collateral requiring notification to, or permission from, the Bank under the existing supervisory and margin-permission processes.
• Compliance, legal and risk teams should consider mapping each proposed tokenised collateral arrangement end to end, including issuance, representation of rights, custody, transfer, settlement finality, redemption, liquidation and default management.
• CCPs should consider preparing evidence on valuation methodology, price reliability, liquidity, conversion between tokenised and conventional forms, repo or outright-sale access, stress-market behaviour and concentration treatment across identical underlying assets.
• CCPs and their service providers should consider legal opinions addressing ownership, enforceability, insolvency treatment, settlement finality under the Settlement Finality Regulations, transfer restrictions and the relationship between ledger records, CSD records and underlying assets.
• Operational-resilience assessments should consider ledger, bridge, smart-contract, custodian, wallet, key-management and other third-party failure scenarios, including alternative access, transfer, liquidation and recovery arrangements.
• CCPs should consider whether proposed arrangements require changes to models, parameters, margining, collateral haircuts, default-management procedures, investment-policy controls, outsourcing oversight or governance approvals.
• Affected firms and infrastructure providers may wish to submit responses to the Bank’s consultation by 2027-02-12, particularly on practical barriers, wider tokenised-asset use cases and whether the proposed expectations remain suitable for future collateral types.
• Firms operating cross-border collateral arrangements should consider the interaction with parallel international developments, including ESMA’s October 2026 call for evidence on tokenised collateral in EU central clearing.

What changed

The Bank proposes to assess tokenised collateral through the existing supervisory process for new collateral, including where a tokenised version has risk characteristics that differ from the approved non-tokenised asset because of its delivery method, credit risk or liquidity profile. The draft Supervisory Statement adopts a technology-neutral, outcomes-focused and proportionate approach: CCPs would need to demonstrate that tokenised collateral can be valued, transferred, controlled and realised within required timeframes in normal and stressed conditions.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-10-28

ADGM published the Guidance on Crypto Mining Activities in and from ADGM under section 23 of the Commercial Licensing Regulations 2025.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering establishment or continued operation in ADGM should perform the RA pre-application self-assessment and document why their activities fall within commercial mining rather than an FSRA-regulated financial service.
• Operators should assess whether they require or should apply for the dedicated commercial licence associated with activity code 7230 and should avoid representing the licence as an authorisation to conduct regulated financial services.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare an up-to-date corporate structure and ultimate-beneficial-owner information for RA review, together with governance documentation proportionate to the scale and risk of the operation.
• Operators should identify all blockchain addresses used to receive mining rewards and establish controlled procedures for making the required confidential on-chain address disclosures to the RA.
• ADGM-headquartered groups should map global mining activities, reporting lines, outsourced infrastructure, jurisdictional controls and board oversight so that the ADGM entity can demonstrate reasonable supervision of overseas operations.
• Firms should review whether staking, validator, custody, brokerage, token issuance, investment management or other associated activities separately require FSRA permission or create an additional regulatory perimeter.
• Operators may wish to monitor the RA’s forthcoming consultation on the second-phase regulatory framework and preserve records supporting their current perimeter analysis, licensing basis, governance and operational-risk controls.
• Firms should consider the practical implications identified in independent commentary, including operational resilience, cybersecurity, infrastructure security, energy management, transparent service terms and any applicable UAE federal tax, accounting and AML/CFT requirements, without treating those commentary points as additional requirements expressly created by this publication.

What changed

Commercial crypto mining conducted in or from ADGM is associated with dedicated RA commercial activity code 7230 and requires the applicable commercial licensing pathway. The Guidance is technology-neutral and covers Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and future consensus mechanisms. It establishes a pre-application self-assessment to help applicants distinguish mining from FSRA-regulated financial activities, and highlights expectations concerning corporate structure, ultimate beneficial ownership, and confidential disclosure of on-chain addresses used for reward flows.

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2026-04-21

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd.

2026-09-25

Further voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd, including limits on receiving payments from existing customers and an orderly wind-down requirement.

2026-10-07

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on MOMSB Ltd and Momentus Capital Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-09

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-15

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Abbital Ltd, including specified conditions for taking on customers, entering into lending arrangements and accepting payments, together with an independent review of its AML systems and controls.

2026-10-23

The FCA announced the restrictions and reiterated its enhanced oversight of Annex 1 firms and due-diligence expectations for regulated firms dealing with them.

Suggested considerations

• Annex 1 firms should consider reviewing their business-wide AML risk assessment, customer and beneficial-owner due diligence, ongoing monitoring, suspicious-activity escalation, governance, management information, resourcing and independent-testing arrangements against the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
• Annex 1 firms seeking registration or under FCA assessment should consider ensuring that policies and controls are tailored to their actual lending activities, customer base, delivery channels and growth plans, rather than relying on generic or group-level documentation.
• The six named firms should consider mapping their operational processes, customer communications, payment arrangements and lending activity to the precise terms of their voluntary restrictions and preserving evidence of compliance with those terms.
• FCA-authorised firms should consider identifying all Annex 1 counterparties and refreshing onboarding and periodic-review procedures to obtain direct confirmation of registration, conduct independent verification, understand the counterparty's business model and assess whether its AML controls create heightened relationship risk.
• Regulated firms should consider recording the rationale for accepting, continuing or restricting relationships with Annex 1 firms and escalating discrepancies between a firm's registered activities, actual activities, ownership, governance or AML framework.
• Groups with multiple Annex 1 entities should consider documenting entity-specific risk assessments and controls, since group-wide or off-the-shelf procedures may not demonstrate that each entity manages its own risks effectively.
• Lenders and their service providers should consider contingency arrangements for restricted firms, including payment handling, loan-book servicing, customer communications and orderly wind-down scenarios.

What changed

Kingscrown Finance Ltd is subject to restrictions limiting how it may receive payments from existing customers and requiring an orderly wind-down of its existing loan book. MOMSB Ltd, Momentus Capital Ltd, Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd are restricted from taking on new customers or entering into new lending arrangements, subject to the specified exceptions; restrictions also apply to accepting payments from existing customers, and the firms must obtain independent reviews of their AML frameworks.

Key dates

2026-10-22

FCA published CP26/37 and opened the consultation.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses.

2027-06-30

End of the first half of 2027, during which the FCA expects to publish final regulatory requirements; the exact publication date is not specified.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the consultation proposals against their current SMF population, including whether SMF18, SMF22 or the existing SMF7 definition is used and how responsibilities would be reallocated.
• Dual-regulated and Enhanced firms should review whether SMF5 and SMF10 to SMF15 appointments would move from prior approval to notification, while considering the continuing need for documented fitness and propriety assessments.
• Compliance teams may wish to model whether the proposed £200 million, £100 billion, £75 million and £750 million Enhanced thresholds would change the firm's classification, including group-level and three-year rolling-average calculations.
• Firms should plan to preserve accurate internal Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Maps even if routine FCA submissions are removed.
• Firms should review Prescribed Responsibility allocations and identify the impact of removing nine responsibilities, including the proposed retention of A, D, Z and J-3.
• Certification-function inventories, annual certification processes, regulatory-reference procedures and Directory reporting should be mapped so that transition arrangements can be implemented if the proposals are finalised; firms should not discontinue current obligations before final rules and commencement.
• Conduct and HR teams should assess changes to training, staff notifications, disciplinary classifications, appeal processes and breach-reporting workflows, distinguishing staff subject only to Individual Conduct Rules from those also subject to Senior Manager Conduct Rules.
• Firms should retain processes for prompt notification of matters of regulatory significance under Principle 11, SUP 15 and SUP 10C, because the consultation does not remove those obligations.

What changed

The FCA proposes to make SMF5 (Head of Internal Audit) and SMF10 to SMF15 functions notified rather than subject to prior approval at specified dual-regulated and Enhanced firms. It proposes to remove SMF18 (Other Overall Responsibility) and SMF22 (Local Responsibility), narrow SMF7 (Group Entity Senior Manager), and retain SMF24 (Chief Operations Function) as a pre-approved function.

Key dates

2020-11-01

Beginning of the period during which the Central Bank found Coinbase Ireland breached safeguarding and outsourcing obligations under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011.

2025-08-19

End of the enforcement period identified by the Central Bank.

2026-10-21

Central Bank of Ireland and Coinbase Ireland reached the settlement under the undisputed-facts settlement process.

2026-10-22

Central Bank published the enforcement outcome and announced the proposed reprimand and discounted monetary penalty.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all safeguarding responsibilities to the specific Irish or EU-authorised entity that holds the regulatory obligation and document how the entity retains effective control despite group or third-party outsourcing.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the regulated entity has sufficient local expertise, decision-making authority and management information to oversee safeguarding and challenge outsourced providers on an ongoing basis.
• Firms should consider independently validating the design of safeguarding calculations, reconciliations, treasury-rebalancing processes and designated safeguarding-account funding, including testing for data, systems and mapping errors.
• Firms may wish to perform daily or otherwise risk-appropriate reconciliations between customer liabilities, safeguarding obligations and funds held in designated accounts, with documented investigation and remediation of exceptions.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether control testing covers the complete safeguarding process, including outsourced components, and whether testing is sufficiently independent and frequent to identify prolonged shortfalls.
• Firms should review escalation procedures for safeguarding incidents, control failures, underfunding and material changes to operating models, including criteria and ownership for notifying the Central Bank of Ireland.
• Authorised firms should compare their current operating model with representations, commitments and governance arrangements submitted during authorisation and assess whether any material changes were notified to the Central Bank.
• Outsourcing registers, contracts and service-level arrangements should be reviewed to confirm clear regulatory access, audit rights, information rights, incident reporting, business-continuity provisions and accountability for safeguarding outcomes.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new statutory rule; it applies existing obligations under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and establishes a substantial enforcement precedent. Coinbase Ireland admitted that it lacked an adequate outsourcing-governance framework, relied excessively on a US Coinbase Group entity, lacked sufficient local skill and expertise to oversee safeguarding, used inadequately designed and tested systems that left its designated safeguarding account underfunded, and lacked adequate escalation and reporting arrangements for material safeguarding changes.

Key dates

2026-10-21

FCA published GC26/7 and opened the guidance consultation.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses to GC26/7.

2027-01-01

FCA plans to publish final DeFi guidance during January 2027; no specific publication day has been stated.

2027-10-25

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 are due to bring new cryptoasset activities into the FCA regulatory perimeter.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each DeFi use case, protocol, smart-contract dependency, service provider and customer-facing activity against the firm's existing SYSC 15A, SYSC 6 and Money Laundering Regulations obligations.
• Firms should consider documenting governance and accountability for DeFi arrangements, including who controls or can materially influence protocol changes, access permissions, treasury assets, upgrades, emergency controls and customer outcomes.
• Operational resilience teams may wish to assess important business services, impact tolerances, vulnerabilities, third-party and smart-contract dependencies, oracle and bridge risks, key-management arrangements, cyberattack scenarios and credible disruption testing.
• Financial-crime teams should consider whether existing customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, blockchain analytics, wallet-risk assessment, suspicious activity escalation and record-keeping controls remain effective for pseudonymous, automated or cross-chain activity.
• Firms may wish to review outsourcing and third-party risk assessments for protocol developers, validators, custodians, wallet providers, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure and other critical DeFi dependencies.
• Legal and regulatory teams should assess whether current and planned activities fall within the existing perimeter or the new cryptoasset activities introduced by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026, including whether there is an identifiable controlling entity.
• Affected stakeholders may wish to submit responses to the FCA by 18 November 2026 and identify any areas where the illustrative guidance is unclear, disproportionate or difficult to apply to genuinely decentralised arrangements.
• Firms may wish to track the FCA's planned final guidance in January 2027 and update risk assessments, policies, control testing and implementation plans before the new cryptoasset regime commences.

What changed

The FCA is proposing guidance describing the operational resilience and financial crime risks associated with DeFi and providing illustrative measures firms may consider. The guidance is relevant to firms within SYSC 15A, SYSC 6 and the Money Laundering Regulations, including firms using distributed-ledger technology, automated protocols, open and interoperable systems or arrangements with limited traditional intermediation. It is intended to clarify application of existing requirements rather than establish a separate DeFi regime or new Handbook obligations.

Key dates

2026-09-30

The application period opened for existing UK cryptoasset businesses seeking to conduct new regulated cryptoasset activities and benefit from the savings provision.

2026-10-21

FCA consultation CP26/36 opened and was published.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Deadline for responses to FCA consultation CP26/36.

2027-01-01

FCA aims to publish final perimeter guidance after considering consultation responses.

2027-02-28 Deadline

Application period closes for firms seeking to rely on the savings provision for newly regulated cryptoasset activities.

2027-10-25

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 are scheduled to bring the new cryptoasset activities into the FCA regulatory perimeter.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map each proposed and existing cryptoasset activity against the statutory regulated activities in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 and the proposed PERG guidance, documenting the factual basis for any exclusion relied upon.
• Technical-service providers should assess whether they merely provide access to a third-party service or decentralised protocol, or whether they also arrange, execute, safeguard, operate, control or otherwise provide a service to users; the use of automation or decentralised technology should not be treated as determinative.
• Stablecoin and payment businesses should identify the precise duration, purpose, parties and asset flows associated with temporary holding and backing-asset arrangements and test whether the relevant statutory conditions are met.
• Trading firms and market makers should distinguish genuine proprietary trading from activity performed as a service for another person and retain evidence supporting any reliance on the proprietary-trading or qualifying-cryptoasset-trading-platform market-maker exclusion.
• Firms should review safeguarding and settlement structures, including structures involving central securities depositaries and third-country central securities depositaries, for possible inclusion within the proposed exclusions or within regulated custody-related activities.
• Businesses that may need authorisation should consider submitting responses to CP26/36 by 18 November 2026 and should not defer application planning while the guidance remains in consultation.
• Existing UK cryptoasset businesses seeking to conduct newly regulated activities should consider submitting an otherwise complete application between 30 September 2026 and 28 February 2027 to preserve access to the applicable savings provision.
• Firms materially affected by uncertainty about the technical-services-provider exclusion should consider engaging the FCA through its pre-application support service and retaining evidence of how that uncertainty affected application preparation.

What changed

The FCA proposes guidance on exclusions from regulated cryptoasset activities introduced by the draft Cryptoassets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. The examples include temporary settlement arrangements; temporary arrangements for holding UK qualifying stablecoins in connection with payment transactions; arrangements involving backing assets held in relation to a UK qualifying stablecoin; proprietary trading where the person is not providing a service to another person; proprietary trading by a market maker on a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform; and technical services that...

Key dates

2026-10-21

OCC publishes Bulletin 2026-52, revised PS-01 and PS-02 forms for public comment, and issues its GENIUS Act implementing final rule.

2027-01-18

The OCC final rule implementing the GENIUS Act and the GENIUS Act take effect, according to the OCC’s related final-rule materials.

2027-01-25 Deadline

First weekly PS-01 report date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

2027-03-31 Deadline

First quarterly PS-02 report date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected issuers should review the revised PS-01 and PS-02 workbooks and instructions and identify every required data element, reporting frequency, aggregation rule, and responsible control owner.
• Firms should consider submitting comments within 30 days after publication of the information-collection notice in the Federal Register, with particular attention to data availability, calculation methodology, confidentiality, reporting burden, and transition timing.
• Issuers should map daily issuance, redemption, reserve, ownership-concentration, and trading data to PS-01 and test whether systems can produce a complete weekly submission for the January 25, 2027 report date, subject to OMB approval.
• Issuers should assess whether finance and regulatory-reporting systems can produce PS-02 information on income, assets, liabilities, off-balance-sheet activities, and capital for the March 31, 2027 report date.
• Firms should establish governance for data certification, reconciliation to general-ledger and reserve records, exception management, senior review, and retention of supporting documentation for OCC examination.
• Issuers should assess the interaction between the reporting forms and the final rule’s reserve, redemption, risk-management, audit, capital, custody, and supervisory requirements, rather than treating the forms as an isolated reporting exercise.
• Foreign issuers should confirm their OCC registration status, reporting perimeter, U.S. activities, and allocation of information-production responsibilities between U.S. operations, parent entities, and service providers.

What changed

The OCC is reopening public comment on revised weekly Form PS-01 and quarterly Form PS-02 and their instructions. PS-01 requires daily data compiled and submitted weekly for each payment stablecoin, covering issuance, reserves, ownership concentration, and trading activity. PS-02 requires quarterly reporting on the issuer’s condition and income, including balance-sheet assets and liabilities, off-balance-sheet activities, income, and capital.

Key dates

2026-10-21

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-51 and stated that applications and waiver requests will be accepted only after OMB approves the related information collection.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule become effective; the Prior Approval Requirement generally applies, and unauthorized issuance of a payment stablecoin in the United States may carry criminal penalties.

2028-01-18 Deadline

The maximum statutory period for a waiver beginning on January 18, 2027 expires, subject to the terms and shorter duration of any individual waiver.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should determine whether they are currently issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States and whether they fall within the OCC application pathway or another primary federal payment stablecoin regulator's pathway.
• Existing issuers should consider preparing and submitting a substantially complete OCC application as soon as the agency announces that applications are accepted, rather than relying on the waiver as a substitute for authorization.
• Applicants should map their submission against every prescribed application question and documentation requirement, including the business plan, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, risk management, capital and liquidity, shared services, BSA/AML, OFAC, third-party risk, enterprise risk, compliance risk, and audit functions.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare a separate written waiver request addressing the Prior Approval Requirement, identifying any additional GENIUS Act or final-rule requirements that cannot be met by January 18, 2027, and explaining the requested duration and operational rationale.
• Issuers should monitor the OCC's GENIUS Act landing page and press releases for OMB approval and the opening of the application and waiver process, because the bulletin does not provide a fixed application-opening date.
• Firms should maintain evidence supporting the completeness and accuracy of their applications and establish a process to respond promptly to OCC requests for missing information within the 30-day review cycles.
• Prospective issuers that are not already operating in the United States should consider planning for operations to begin only after OCC approval, consistent with the agency's stated position on waiver eligibility.
• Regulatory change teams should continue tracking separate FinCEN, OFAC, OCC, and other agency rulemakings concerning AML, CFT, sanctions, and customer-identification requirements rather than assuming that an OCC application or Prior Approval Requirement waiver resolves those obligations.

What changed

Beginning January 18, 2027, a person generally must be approved as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer before issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States; unauthorized issuance may carry criminal penalties. Under GENIUS Act section 5(f) and 12 CFR 15.30(g), an issuer with a substantially complete OCC application pending on January 18, 2027 may request a written waiver of the Prior Approval Requirement and other statutory or final-rule requirements that it cannot satisfy by the effective date.

Key dates

2025-07-18

The GENIUS Act was enacted.

2026-10-21

The OCC published the final rule and related application, waiver and reporting materials.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule take effect; U.S. payment stablecoin issuance generally requires permitted payment stablecoin issuer status, and a substantially complete application must be pending by this date to support eligibility for an OCC waiver request.

2027-01-25

Proposed first weekly OCC reporting date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

2027-03-31

Proposed first quarterly OCC reporting date, subject to OMB approval of the information collection.

Suggested considerations

• Firms seeking permitted payment stablecoin status should consider mapping their licensing strategy, corporate structure and applicable OCC pathway under 12 CFR part 15 before 2027-01-18.
• Existing U.S. issuers that need transitional relief should consider submitting a substantially complete OCC application on or before 2027-01-18 and preparing a written waiver request promptly after the OCC begins accepting applications and waiver requests.
• Applicants should consider documenting business plans, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, capital and liquidity, risk management, third-party and shared-services arrangements, audit functions and compliance governance in the application package.
• Issuers should consider validating reserve composition, one-to-one backing, liquidity, concentration, counterparty exposure, stress-testing and redemption controls against the final rule rather than relying on the proposal's reserve assumptions.
• Issuers should consider testing operational capacity to process redemptions within two business days and to notify the OCC within 24 hours when the 10% redemption-demand trigger is reached.
• Issuers and distribution partners should consider reviewing stablecoin rewards, yield, rebate and promotional arrangements on a transaction-by-transaction basis because pre-existing programs are not automatically grandfathered and the final rule provides no general safe harbor.
• Covered firms should consider establishing governance for audits, reporting, examination responses, custody controls, foreign-issuer oversight and potential approval revocation or rescission.
• Compliance teams should track the separate Treasury-coordinated BSA, AML and OFAC rulemaking and avoid treating this final rule as the complete GENIUS Act compliance framework.

What changed

The final rule applies to national banks and their subsidiaries, federal savings associations and their subsidiaries, federal branches and their subsidiaries, federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers, foreign payment stablecoin issuers, and state qualified payment stablecoin issuers over which the OCC has regulatory or enforcement authority.

Key dates

2025-07-18

The GENIUS Act was enacted.

2026-10-21

The OCC published the final rule, application and waiver guidance, and revised proposed reporting forms.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule take effect; U.S. payment-stablecoin issuance generally requires permitted payment stablecoin issuer approval, and existing issuers seeking a waiver generally must have a pending substantially complete OCC application by this date.

2027-01-25 Deadline

Proposed effective report date for the weekly reporting form, subject to Office of Management and Budget approval.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Proposed effective report date for the quarterly reporting form, subject to Office of Management and Budget approval.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering U.S. payment-stablecoin issuance should assess whether they qualify as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer, a federal qualified issuer, a state-qualified issuer subject to OCC authority, or a foreign issuer within the rule's scope.
• Existing U.S. issuers should consider preparing a substantially complete OCC application and evaluating whether a waiver request is needed by January 18, 2027; the OCC may grant waivers for up to 12 months beginning on that date, generally where an eligible application is pending.
• Applicants should prepare documentation covering the business plan, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, risk management, capital and liquidity, shared services, BSA/AML/OFAC controls, third-party risk, enterprise risk, compliance risk, and audit functions.
• Issuers should map reserve assets to the final rule's 1:1 backing, daily-liquidity, diversification, and counterparty-concentration requirements and establish controls capable of supporting generally timely redemption within two business days.
• Compliance and product teams should inventory interest, yield, cashback, loyalty, referral, and exchange rewards arrangements involving payment stablecoins and document the business purpose and consideration supporting each payment, because the OCC has not provided a categorical safe harbor and will apply the statutory prohibition case by case.
• Issuers should design weekly reserve and payment-stablecoin activity reporting and quarterly reports of condition and income, subject to confirming the final OMB-approved forms and effective reporting dates.
• Banks and other OCC-supervised custodians should review custody arrangements, segregation and control frameworks, third-party dependencies, and contractual allocation of responsibility for stablecoin and reserve-asset custody.
• Firms should track the separate Treasury, FinCEN, OFAC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC implementation work because the OCC final rule does not complete BSA, AML, or sanctions requirements and is only one component of the GENIUS Act framework.

What changed

New 12 CFR part 15 establishes requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers, foreign payment stablecoin issuers subject to OCC authority, certain state-qualified issuers, and specified custody activities conducted by OCC-supervised entities. The framework covers issuer activities, reserve assets, redemption, risk management, audits, reports, examinations, supervision, custody, applications and registrations, state-to-federal transitions, foreign-issuer supervision, approval revocation or rescission, and capital and operational backstops.

Key dates

2026-10-21

The French Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR published their joint response to the European Commission consultation on the MiCA review.

2026-09-30 Deadline

The European Commission consultation deadline identified in independent legal commentary; this date had passed before publication of the French authorities' response.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to maintain the existing MiCA control framework because this publication does not create an immediate amendment, authorisation requirement or prohibition.
• Firms should consider mapping each token, service and distribution channel against the definitions and perimeter provisions of MiCA, MiFID II and payment-services legislation, with particular attention to products that could require more than one authorisation.
• EU-authorised crypto-asset service providers should consider reviewing onboarding, asset-admission, execution, custody, trading and distribution controls for exposure to asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens that may not satisfy MiCA requirements.
• Stablecoin issuers and groups using the same fungible token across EU and third-country markets should consider documenting issuance structures, reserve segregation, redemption rights, equivalence assumptions and supervisory-cooperation dependencies in anticipation of possible multi-issuance rules.
• Significant crypto-asset service providers and crypto-conglomerates should consider assessing governance, prudential, group-risk and supervisory-reporting readiness for a possible future shift of direct or enhanced oversight toward ESMA.
• Banks, payment firms and investment firms should consider assessing strategic opportunities and regulatory dependencies arising from euro-denominated e-money tokens and tokenised bank deposits without treating the French position as approval of any specific product.
• DeFi, staking and crypto-lending businesses should consider identifying responsible intermediaries, documenting due-diligence controls and preserving evidence of protocol governance and risk assessments pending any future EU framework.
• Industry participants may wish to monitor the Commission's MiCA review, subsequent legislative proposals, ESMA and EBA opinions, and national implementation developments before changing operating models.

What changed

No legal requirements changed on 2026-10-21. The French authorities proposed streamlining MiCA and clarifying when an activity falls under MiCA, the legislation governing financial instruments, or payment-services legislation, including where one business model could require multiple authorisations. They stated that a financial instrument should remain fully subject to the financial-instruments regime irrespective of the technology used for issuance or trading, and that the same principle should apply to payment instruments.

Key dates

2021-04-22

Beginning of the period in which ASIC alleges the Panacea Capital Cryptocurrency Investment Fund was offered without an AFS licence.

2022-06-17

End of the period in which ASIC alleges the Crypto Fund operated without an AFS licence.

2024-03-21

ASIC announced that Brian Creigh was permanently banned from providing financial services or being involved in a financial services business.

2026-10-19

Creigh was charged in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and granted conditional bail.

2026-10-20

ASIC published the enforcement release announcing the criminal charges.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider confirming that every entity and individual providing financial product advice, dealing, arranging or other financial services in Australia holds the required AFS licence or is properly appointed as an authorised representative for the relevant activities.
• Compliance teams may wish to map digital-asset products against the financial product and financial services definitions in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including where pooled investor money is used to pursue returns from a portfolio of digital assets.
• Firms should consider reviewing marketing materials, fact sheets and investor communications for unsupported claims about licensing status, capital protection, guarantees, historical performance, targeted returns and the nature of underlying investments.
• Compliance teams may wish to strengthen onboarding and ongoing due diligence for digital-asset fund operators, directors, promoters, overseas counterparties and receiving entities, including checks against ASIC banning and disqualification records.
• Firms should consider reviewing transaction-monitoring and escalation controls for investor funds moving to offshore entities or unrelated investment vehicles, with particular attention to circumstances that could raise proceeds-of-crime or fraud concerns.
• Distributors and professional intermediaries may wish to retain evidence of licence verification, product governance reviews, investor disclosures and the basis for any representations made to prospective investors.
• Firms should consider treating the charges as allegations not yet determined by a court and separating the criminal proceeding from ASIC’s earlier administrative banning action when assessing legal, conduct and reputational risk.

What changed

No new licensing rule or general obligation was introduced. The publication announces enforcement proceedings: one charge under section 911A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for carrying on a financial services business without an AFS licence, and one charge under section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) for dealing with proceeds of crime worth $1 million or more. The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions following ASIC’s referral of a criminal brief.

Key dates

2022-05-12

The CFTC filed its complaint against Alexandre and EminiFX, alleging fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and operation of an unregistered commodity pool.

2026-07-01

As of July 2026, the court-appointed receiver had returned more than $98 million to over 28,000 investors.

2026-10-19

The CFTC announced that the Southern District of New York had entered orders granting summary judgment, injunctive relief, and a civil monetary penalty against Alexandre and EminiFX.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory products, investment clubs, managed accounts, and digital-asset offerings that pool customer contributions and obtain exposure to forex, futures, options, or other commodity interests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their activities constitute operating a commodity pool or acting as a commodity pool operator or associated person under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, including whether registration or an available exemption is required.
• Firms should consider validating marketing claims about returns, automated trading, proprietary technology, trading results, and risk, with particular scrutiny of unusually high or consistent returns such as weekly performance representations.
• Compliance teams may wish to test segregation, custody, reconciliation, withdrawal, and use-of-funds controls to detect commingling, personal use of customer assets, payments to earlier investors, and unexplained transfers.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence supporting reported performance, trading activity, investor statements, and asset ownership so that customer communications can be reconciled to underlying records.
• Digital-asset businesses may wish to review whether crypto terminology or a technology-focused structure obscures activities that remain subject to commodities, anti-fraud, registration, or customer-protection requirements.
• Firms should consider escalating suspected misappropriation, fabricated performance, or unregistered commodity-pool activity through applicable internal investigation, suspicious-activity, and regulatory-reporting processes.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or generally applicable regulatory amendment. The Southern District of New York entered summary judgment and injunctive relief against Alexandre and EminiFX, finding that the defendants made fraudulent representations, misappropriated investor funds, and operated as an unregistered commodity pool operator, with Alexandre acting in an unregistered associated-person capacity. The judgment imposes $228,576,962 of restitution, $15,049,500 of disgorgement subject to offset by restitution payments, and a $45,148,500 civil monetary penalty.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The FCA publication was issued as part of its wider AI supervisory and industry-engagement work.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider maintaining an inventory of AI use cases, including internally developed, embedded and outsourced tools, with a named accountable senior manager and documented risk classification for each use case.
• Compliance teams may wish to map each consumer-facing AI use case to Consumer Duty outcomes, the target market, foreseeable harms, vulnerable-customer considerations, fair value where relevant, complaints handling and available redress.
• Firms should consider documenting why AI is appropriate for the identified consumer need, which activities remain staff-led, where the system must abstain or escalate, and how those controls have been tested in practice.
• Model and risk functions may wish to test accuracy, bias, error rates, explainability, data quality, drift and robustness across relevant consumer characteristics, including vulnerability, accessibility, digital capability and financial capability.
• Firms should consider testing consumer understanding of AI disclosures and outputs with representative user groups, rather than relying solely on technical model explanations or generic disclaimers.
• Operations and technology teams may wish to implement proportionate live monitoring, clear escalation thresholds, sample-based human review, incident and near-miss processes, fallback arrangements and channel continuity where an AI system fails or produces harmful outputs.
• Firms should consider retaining auditable records of prompts, inputs, outputs, model and vendor versions, filters, approvals, overrides, escalations, complaints and remediation decisions for a period consistent with the applicable record-keeping requirements.
• Outsourcing and third-party risk assessments may wish to address concentration and dependency risks, access to testing and performance information, change control, data use, subcontracting, service continuity and the firm’s ability to challenge or replace an AI provider.

What changed

The publication consolidates the FCA’s expectations under the existing framework, including the Principles for Businesses, Threshold Conditions, SYSC, operational resilience, outsourcing and critical third-party requirements, Consumer Duty, vulnerable-customer guidance, SM&CR and DISP. It identifies good practice such as defining the consumer need and target market before deployment, testing outcomes across consumer characteristics and vulnerability scenarios, setting human escalation and abstention controls, maintaining auditable records of prompts, outputs, model versions and decisions, and...

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The interim final rule becomes effective and 17 CFR 1.3 is amended to exclude qualifying casino-style gambling products from the CEA swap definition.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the interim final rule must be received by the CFTC through the specified submission channels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms offering sportsbook, casino, lottery, raffle, bingo, or other gaming products should consider documenting how each product satisfies both the Provider Test and Product Test, including the relevant state or tribal authorization and applicable gaming-law classification.
• Gaming operators should consider verifying that the provider is acting within the scope of its license or authorization and retaining evidence that the transaction is offered on house or other standardized terms rather than traded through a multilateral or individually negotiated market.
• Prediction-market operators, designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, swap dealers, and banks should consider reviewing event-linked products separately from traditional sportsbook wagers, with particular attention to venue, price formation, trading structure, and whether participants interact through competing bids and offers.
• Firms should consider reassessing products that combine sportsbook or casino-style features with exchange trading, bilateral dealer negotiation, or other market mechanisms, because the rule’s exclusion may not apply even where the underlying event resembles a conventional wager.
• Compliance teams may wish to update product inventories, legal opinions, customer disclosures, jurisdictional analyses, and surveillance or onboarding controls to reflect the distinction between authorized house wagers and exchange-traded event contracts.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments to the CFTC on the Provider Test, the definition of transactions regulated as gaming or gambling, and alternative ways to distinguish swaps from traditional gambling products by November 18, 2026.
• Firms should consider separately assessing state gaming, tribal gaming, consumer-protection, tax, anti-money-laundering, and licensing requirements because exclusion from the CEA swap definition does not remove those obligations.

What changed

New 17 CFR 1.3(7) creates a two-part exclusion from the swap definition. Under the Provider Test, the product must be offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under state law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the provider must act within the scope of that authorization, and the transaction must be regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable state or tribal law.

Key dates

2026-10-16

ESMA published Q&As 2949, 2950, 2936, 2937 and 2938.

2025-06-25

The EMIR 3 active account regime began applying to counterparties already within scope after the six-month implementation period.

Suggested considerations

• CASPs should consider mapping each client-funds flow against MiCA Article 70(2) and (3), documenting the end-of-next-business-day transfer control and verifying that any intermediary-held credit-institution account is specifically held for the CASP and technically segregated.
• CASPs and their payment-service-provider partners may wish to review contractual terms, account mandates, insolvency protections, reconciliation processes and evidence demonstrating clients’ ownership rights and prohibition of proprietary use.
• Crowdfunding providers using registration, membership or access fees should consider documenting why their model does or does not constitute a crowdfunding service under Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 and reviewing website disclosures, fee descriptions, client communications and investor-protection controls.
• AAR counterparties should recalculate the 12-month aggregate month-end average gross notional position, including the applicable group perimeter and excluding client-clearing activity, against the EUR 6 billion and EUR 100 billion thresholds.
• AAR counterparties relying on the 85% exemption should consider testing the one-half rule across the relevant derivative classes, retaining the underlying EU-CCP clearing data and avoiding any assumption that the exemption removes the representativeness requirement.
• Affected counterparties should review trade-level residual-maturity data, bucket allocation, annual-average trade counts and reporting calendars so that representative clearing can be demonstrated at the applicable reporting date.
• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, management information and regulatory inventories to distinguish ESMA Q&A interpretive expectations from directly binding Level 1 and Level 2 requirements.

What changed

For CASPs, ESMA clarifies that client funds may be temporarily held in an account with a non-bank payment service provider, such as a payment institution or electronic money institution, provided the funds are transferred to an account with a credit institution or central bank no later than the end of the business day following receipt.

Key dates

2025-12-08

FCA opened DP25/3, Expanding consumer access to investments.

2026-03-06

FCA closed the DP25/3 feedback period.

2026-10-16

FCA published FS26/3, summarising feedback and setting out next steps.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA's planned review of financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments and assess whether current product classifications and promotional controls would remain defensible if similar-risk products are brought into a more consistent regime.
• Firms may wish to inventory customer-facing risk information for mainstream investments and identify disclosures, digital journeys and governance processes that could require revision following the FCA's planned early-2027 consultation.
• Platform operators and distributors may wish to review appropriateness-testing journeys, including customer understanding, repeat transactions, exemptions, escalation and recordkeeping, in anticipation of FCA stakeholder engagement during 2027.
• Manufacturers and distributors of model portfolio services may wish to test product governance, target-market definitions, distribution strategy, cost and risk disclosures, and evidence of good consumer outcomes before the FCA publishes its multi-firm review findings in Q1 2027.
• Firms may wish to review whether digital interfaces, trading-app functionality, gamification features and other friction-reducing design choices support informed decision-making and remain consistent with Consumer Duty outcomes.
• Industry participants may wish to engage with the FCA's future consultations and stakeholder work, while avoiding treating FS26/3 as permission to relax existing financial-promotion, suitability, appropriateness or consumer-protection controls.

What changed

FS26/3 does not introduce new requirements, thresholds or effective dates for firms. The FCA will review whether financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments treat products with similar risks consistently; it plans to consult in early 2027 on changes to rules and guidance concerning risk information for mainstream investments; and it will review how appropriateness assessments operate in practice, including the merits of alternative models, with stakeholder engagement planned for 2027.

Key dates

2026-09-30

The extended sector-wide no-action position associated with INFO 225 ended.

2026-11-27 Deadline

Deadline for submissions on ASIC Consultation Paper 392, at 5pm AEDT.

2027-04-08

The DAF Act and the new DAP and TCP framework are scheduled to commence.

2027-10-07 Deadline

The proposed transition deadline by which platforms already operating as DAPs or TCPs should apply for an AFS licence or variation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their products, custody arrangements and platform activities fall within the DAP or TCP definitions under the DAF Act and the proposed ASIC guidance.
• Affected operators should consider whether they need a new Australian financial services licence or a variation to an existing licence, including whether any streamlined process may apply.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current custody, segregation, asset-control, reconciliation, trading, settlement and incident-management processes against the proposed standards.
• Firms should assess the likely impact of the proposed net tangible asset and other financial requirements on capital planning, liquidity and licence documentation.
• Operators should review proposed customer disclosure documents and platform rules, including how digital-asset risks, custody arrangements, execution and settlement are explained to clients.
• Businesses affected by the framework should consider submitting comments to ASIC by 2026-11-27 and engaging with ASIC's consultation events or targeted roundtables.
• Firms should maintain evidence of their licensing analysis and transition planning, particularly because the sector-wide INFO 225 no-action position ended on 2026-09-30 and independent commentary indicates that existing licensing obligations apply outside the relief period.

What changed

CP 392 proposes implementation guidance for digital asset platforms (DAPs), which hold digital tokens for clients and provide associated platform services, and tokenised custody platforms (TCPs), which record underlying client assets as digital tokens. ASIC is proposing standards covering asset holding, trading and settlement activities, and financial requirements including net tangible asset requirements where relevant.

Key dates

2025-11-07

The FCA published its multi-firm review of CFD providers’ provision of price and value, identifying concerns including narrow fair value assessments, opaque overnight funding charges and charges on matched long and short positions.

2026-05-01

The FCA surveyed 81 CFD firms about changes made or planned after the November 2025 review; the source identifies May 2026 but does not specify an exact day.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to document a comprehensive fair value assessment covering spreads, commissions, overnight funding, ancillary fees, cash-balance interest and all other amounts charged to consumer accounts, rather than focusing primarily on execution costs.
• Firms should consider testing whether overnight funding rates are reasonable against prevailing reference or base rates, relevant UK-regulated peers, the underlying asset class and the benefits delivered, with documented rationale for material outliers and wide long-versus-short spreads.
• Firms may wish to assess separately the treatment of matched or hedged positions, including whether applying the full funding spread to both legs is proportionate where there is no net market exposure and whether any reduced-margin or promotional arrangements encourage clients to maintain costly open positions.
• Firms should consider reviewing client-facing disclosures at each relevant stage of the journey, including onboarding, product pages, deal tickets and account interfaces, and explaining the calculation, rate, frequency, leverage effect and potential cumulative impact of overnight charges in accessible language.
• Firms may wish to present projected overnight costs using an annualised percentage measure alongside daily or monetary charges, while retaining clear explanations that actual costs may vary.
• Appropriateness and target-market processes should be reviewed for robustness, including any income thresholds, enhanced scrutiny, vulnerability monitoring and escalation arrangements introduced after the November 2025 review.
• Firms should consider whether interest paid on client cash or margin balances, and the absence of such interest, has been properly assessed as part of the overall price and value outcome.
• Management information may need to evidence the review of charges, peer comparisons, complaints, customer understanding, vulnerable-client outcomes and remediation decisions because the FCA states it will follow up individually where concerns remain.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and good-and-poor-practice feedback, not a new binding rule or implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to assess all costs and charges in their fair value assessments, use relevant UK-regulated peer comparisons, consider consumer outcomes rather than treating fair value as a compliance exercise, and review whether overnight funding rates are reasonable in light of prevailing base rates, peer pricing and the benefits provided.

Key dates

2026-10-14

The EBA announced that USDC issued by Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS had been classified as a significant EMT under MiCA.

2026-11-12 Deadline

Dual supervision of USDC begins: the EBA assumes direct responsibility for own funds, reserve of assets, liquidity requirements, and recovery and redemption plans, while the ACPR retains specified governance and organisational responsibilities.

Suggested considerations

• Circle and its regulatory counsel should map existing own-funds, reserve-of-assets, liquidity, recovery, and redemption controls to the EBA’s supervisory expectations and establish clear evidence and reporting channels before 2026-11-12.
• Circle should confirm the allocation of responsibilities between the EBA and ACPR, including supervisory contacts, escalation procedures, information requests, and documentation ownership for prudential and organisational matters.
• Crypto-asset service providers should reassess their USDC due diligence, product governance, liquidity, redemption, custody, safeguarding, and operational-risk controls in light of the significant-EMT designation.
• Firms using USDC should identify exposures in client assets, settlement, treasury, collateral, and payment flows and assess whether updated counterparty, liquidity, concentration, and business-continuity assessments are appropriate.
• Compliance teams should monitor EBA and ACPR communications, supervisory-college activity, and any subsequent guidance or requests concerning significant EMT reporting and recovery or redemption planning.
• Firms operating across the EU and United States should review information-sharing, incident-notification, and cross-border supervisory arrangements, noting the EBA’s memorandum of understanding with the New York State Department of Financial Services.

What changed

USDC will be subject to the MiCA framework for significant EMTs from 2026-11-12. The EBA will assume direct supervisory responsibility for own-funds requirements, the reserve of assets, liquidity requirements, and recovery and redemption plans; the ACPR will continue supervising governance, qualifying holdings, fit and proper assessments, outsourcing, and conflicts of interest. Under MiCA Articles 56 and 43(1), an EMT is classified as significant where at least three significance criteria are met during the applicable reporting periods.

Key dates

2026-10-14

The CFPB announced the debanking investigation and enforcement initiative; the OCC released its report on the nine largest national banks on the same date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory account closures, service restrictions, onboarding denials, credit denials, and material service-friction decisions since 2020, with particular attention to political or religious affiliations and lawful activities in firearms, oil and gas, coal, tobacco, digital assets, and other sectors identified by the OCC.
• Firms should consider testing whether customer-facing reasons for adverse decisions accurately and specifically reflect the documented internal rationale, including compliance with ECOA and Regulation B adverse-action notice requirements and applicable FCRA adverse-action notice requirements.
• Institutions may wish to review reputation-risk policies, sector restrictions, escalation criteria, committee materials, employee guidance, and risk taxonomies to confirm that decisions are based on objective, individualized, documented, and legally supportable risk considerations rather than generalized political, social, or reputational preferences.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving relevant complaints, account-review records, escalation communications, decision logs, adverse-action notices, and policy versions in anticipation of CFPB information requests or supervisory examination.
• Banks and covered nonbanks may wish to compare complaint-portal submissions and internal complaint data against account-closure and service-denial populations to identify unexplained patterns, inconsistent reasons, or failures to provide required notices.
• Firms should consider assessing whether deposit-account and payment-service decisions create potential UDAAP exposure even where ECOA or FCRA does not directly apply, while continuing to apply legitimate safety, soundness, sanctions, fraud, AML, credit, and operational-risk controls.
• Senior compliance and legal personnel may wish to establish governance for politically sensitive or sector-based account decisions so that risk-based controls are not removed indiscriminately and exceptions are documented, consistently applied, and subject to appropriate review.

What changed

The CFPB did not issue a new regulation or impose a new compliance deadline. It announced a supervisory and enforcement initiative implementing Executive Order 14331 and responding to the OCC's report covering conduct identified between 2020 and September 2025. The CFPB stated that it will investigate potential violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, including Regulation B adverse-action requirements, the Fair Credit Reporting Act adverse-action requirements, and the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Federal Register publication date for the ANPRM, published as 91 FR 64811 and document number 2026-20888.

2026-12-14 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the CFTC on Regulation CTX, Regulation CAM, and the interpretation and implementation of CEA section 2(c)(2)(D).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned retail crypto products could constitute transactions covered by CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including products described as spot, margin, leveraged, financed, perpetual, or otherwise structured to defer delivery.
• Firms should consider mapping current customer agreements, funding arrangements, custody models, delivery controls, and liquidation processes against the CFTC's preliminary positions on offers and actual delivery.
• Prospective venues may wish to assess the potential CAM operating model, including registration perimeter, governance, listing standards, market surveillance, position controls, execution, recordkeeping, cyber and system safeguards, proof-of-reserves, and customer-asset arrangements.
• FCMs, IBs, DCOs, custodians, and leverage providers should consider identifying the registrations, permissions, capital, segregation, margin, clearing, insolvency, and operational dependencies that a CAM structure could create.
• Crypto businesses may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of section 2(c)(2)(D), the definition and practical test for actual delivery, treatment of fully paid open transactions, permissible crypto assets, and the allocation of responsibilities among CAMs, FCMs, DCOs, and leverage providers.
• Firms should monitor whether the CFTC follows the ANPRM with a formal proposed rule and should not treat the ANPRM as creating immediate registration, margin, reporting, or conduct obligations.
• Affected firms may wish to preserve evidence of product design, delivery capability, customer disclosures, surveillance controls, and legal analysis in anticipation of supervisory or enforcement scrutiny under the CFTC's stated interpretation of section 2(c)(2)(D).

What changed

The CFTC has published ANPRM RIN 3038-AF80, 91 FR 64811, concerning proposed Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets. Regulation CTX would seek to clarify when section 2(c)(2)(D) applies to crypto asset transactions, including the meaning of covered offers, actual delivery, and actual delivery of fully paid open transactions. Regulation CAM would create a crypto asset market subcategory of designated contract market registration under 17 CFR part 38, supported by related amendments or requirements under 17 CFR parts 1, 38, and 39.

Key dates

2021-03-29

The current CFD product intervention order commenced, imposing leverage limits, standardised margin close-out arrangements, negative-balance protection and restrictions on specified inducements.

2022-04-06

ASIC extended the CFD PIO for five years to 23 May 2027.

2027-05-23

The current CFD PIO is due to expire unless it is remade, extended or revoked earlier.

2037-05-23

Indicative end of the proposed further 10-year extension, subject to Ministerial approval and the final instrument's commencement and expiry terms.

2026-11-09 Deadline

Deadline at 5pm AEDT for submissions on the proposed extension, amendments and separate question concerning CFDs over options with losses exceeding the premium.

Suggested considerations

• CFD issuers and distributors should consider mapping all products against the proposed expanded CFD definition, including products settled by cash, set-off or transfer of digital assets.
• Firms should consider testing initial-margin systems so that margin is calculated separately for each CFD and opposing long and short positions cannot reduce the required amount through netting.
• Firms offering CFDs over options should consider classifying contracts by whether retail-client losses are capped at the premium and assessing the effect of the proposed margin methodology on collateral, liquidation and client disclosures.
• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any option-linked CFD could expose a retail client to losses exceeding the premium and prepare evidence for the separate ASIC question on continued retail availability.
• Firms should consider reviewing discounts, rebates, bonuses and educational or research tools against the proposed conditions and assessing whether records can be retained for the proposed seven-year period.
• Product-governance teams may wish to refresh target-market determinations, onboarding controls, leverage settings, margin-close-out logic, negative-balance controls and inducement policies for the proposed extended period.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments to ASIC by 5pm AEDT on 9 November 2026, particularly on digital-asset settlement, option CFD availability, margin methodology and operational implementation costs.
• Firms should continue complying with the current PIO until any amended instrument takes effect and should plan on the basis that the existing order expires on 23 May 2027 unless remade or otherwise extended.

What changed

The proposed ASIC Corporations (Product Intervention Order Amendment—Contracts for Difference) Instrument 2026/XX would extend the existing CFD PIO until 2037 unless revoked earlier. It would modernise the definition of a CFD to capture products settled by transferring digital assets, replace the term cryptoasset with digital asset, clarify initial-margin rules for CFDs over options, and require initial margin to be calculated separately for each CFD rather than reduced by netting opposing positions.

Key dates

2026-10-09

CFTC announced publication of the NPRM concerning inclusion of certain event contracts in the definition of swap and identified a 30-day comment period beginning on Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory event contracts by underlying event, settlement structure, customer type, and current legal classification, including whether each product is a binary option, another swap, a future, a security-based swap, or a casino-style gambling product.
• Potential operators, DCMs, SEFs, registrants, trade associations, and affected customers should consider submitting written comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register; the Federal Register publication date and resulting calendar deadline should be monitored because the CFTC release does not specify either date.
• Firms may wish to assess whether current exchange, venue, customer-eligibility, market-surveillance, anti-manipulation, product-certification, disclosure, margin, reporting, and recordkeeping controls would support treatment of relevant contracts as swaps under existing CFTC requirements.
• Operators currently relying on state licenses may wish to evaluate the potential need for DCM or SEF arrangements, CFTC registration, federal compliance infrastructure, and transitional management of overlapping state and federal obligations if the rule is finalized.
• DCMs and SEFs may wish to review product-listing governance against CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C), applicable core principles, and 17 CFR 40.2(c), including whether particular contracts are readily susceptible to manipulation or involve gaming or other activity contrary to the public interest.
• Legal and tax teams may wish to keep CEA classification separate from federal tax and information-reporting analysis, which the NPRM states will continue to depend on the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, and IRS guidance.
• Firms may wish to monitor the separate CFTC action concerning casino-style gambling products and assess how the two rulemakings interact for products near the boundary between event contracts and gambling wagers.

What changed

The NPRM, RIN 3038-AF82, would add proposed 17 CFR 1.3(Swap)(2)(i)(G): “Event contracts, including those based on sports-, politics-, cultural, and weather-related events.” The CFTC relies on several existing swap-definition provisions, including CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), covering options, transactions dependent on events with potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences, instruments commonly known as swaps, and combinations or permutations of covered instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-09

The CFTC announced the interim final rule.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify sportsbook, casino, lottery, bingo, raffle, and other wagering products in their portfolios and map each product against the provider, licensing, State or Tribal regulatory, and trading-venue conditions in 17 CFR 1.3(7).
• Licensed gaming operators should retain evidence that each relevant product is offered within the scope of the applicable State or Tribal authorization and is regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable law.
• Operators and market intermediaries should assess whether any product is traded on an exchange, board of trade, swap execution facility, or other multilateral or individually negotiated market, because that structure prevents reliance on the specific exclusion.
• Prediction-market and derivatives businesses should maintain a separate legal analysis for products that fail the exclusion; failure to qualify does not by itself establish that a product is a swap.
• CFTC-regulated market participants should compare the rule's house-versus-customer and price-formation distinctions with their event-contract inventories, exchange rules, clearing arrangements, and product approvals.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after Federal Register publication, referencing RIN 3038-AF81 and the title "Further Definition of Swap to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products."
• Compliance teams should continue evaluating applicable State gaming, Tribal gaming, tax, consumer-protection, licensing, and other federal requirements because the rule addresses CEA classification only and does not displace those regimes.

What changed

The rule adds 17 CFR 1.3(7) to the definition of "Swap" and excludes an agreement, contract, or transaction offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., acting within the scope of that authorization and subject to State or Tribal gaming regulation. The product must not be traded on a board of trade, organized exchange, swap execution facility, or any other market where trades are executed multilaterally or are subject to individual negotiation.

Key dates

2026-10-09

ESMA launched the Call for Evidence on the use of tokenised collateral by EU CCPs.

2027-01-15 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to ESMA's Call for Evidence.

2027-03-31

ESMA is expected to assess the feedback during the first quarter of 2027; the source does not specify an exact day.

Suggested considerations

• CCPs, clearing members and relevant infrastructure providers should consider whether to submit evidence through ESMA's consultation webpage by 15 January 2027, including practical data on existing pilots, live arrangements, legal structures and stress scenarios.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to map each proposed tokenisation model against the collateral requirements in Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013, including quality, liquidity, credit and market-risk, custody and operational-availability criteria.
• Firms developing tokenised collateral arrangements should consider documenting whether the token gives the holder ownership of, a security interest in, or another enforceable right to the underlying asset, and how that right would operate across insolvency, default and cross-border situations.
• CCPs and clearing members may wish to test whether tokenised collateral can be accessed, transferred, valued, liquidated or converted into central-bank money or other liquidity within required default-management timelines, including during distributed-ledger outages, congestion, cyber incidents and loss of connectivity to traditional infrastructures.
• Firms should consider assessing client-asset segregation, title-transfer, custody, insolvency-remoteness and settlement-finality arrangements where distributed-ledger systems interact with traditional custodians, central securities depositories or payment systems.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to reassess whether tokenisation changes the risk profile of otherwise eligible collateral, including redemption, transfer restrictions, oracle dependence, smart-contract risk, operational resilience, concentration risk and liquidity-discount assumptions.
• Industry respondents may wish to provide ESMA with evidence on interactions between tokenised collateral and tokenised cash, stablecoins, tokenised deposits and other settlement assets, rather than assuming that liquidity in the underlying asset automatically carries over to its tokenised form.
• Firms should monitor ESMA's first-quarter 2027 assessment and any subsequent amendments to EMIR technical standards, supervisory convergence measures or supervisory expectations; no immediate change to existing collateral controls should be inferred from the Call for Evidence.

What changed

ESMA has opened a consultation and requested stakeholder evidence by 15 January 2027. It is examining the full collateral lifecycle, including transfer, custody, protection, segregation, access, valuation, settlement and conversion into liquidity during market stress or following a clearing-member default. The Call for Evidence covers tokenised representations of assets held in traditional infrastructures, assets issued directly on distributed-ledger technology, hybrid models, and interactions with tokenised cash and other settlement assets.

Key dates

2026-10-08

ESMA published its opinion on the provision of crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA-compliant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens.

2027-01-08 Deadline

Latest date by which National Competent Authorities should require remediation of remaining pre-existing exposures, calculated as three months after publication; firms may be required to act earlier.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory every ART and EMT made available to EU clients and classify whether each token satisfies the applicable MiCA requirements, including any relevant authorisation, notification, offer, and admission-to-trading conditions.
• Compliance teams may wish to map each affected token across trading, exchange, execution, placing, order-routing, advice, transfer, custody, and portfolio-management workflows, including bundled or indirect services.
• Firms should consider suspending onboarding, purchases, subscriptions, trading, swaps, staking-related access where relevant, and other activities that could allow EU clients to acquire or increase exposure to a non-MiCA-compliant token.
• Technology and operations teams should assess geolocation, account, wallet, order-management, token-listing, transfer, and API controls, with testing and monitoring designed to prevent EU-client access or increased exposure.
• Legal and product teams should review client terms, token-listing policies, disclosures, contractual restrictions, and arrangements with issuers, liquidity providers, exchanges, and other intermediaries.
• Firms should identify pre-existing client exposures and prepare a documented wind-down or remediation plan capable of completion by 2027-01-08, subject to any earlier NCA requirement.
• Firms may wish to define narrowly controlled exit-only services for liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer, and safekeeping, with time limits, risk controls, client communications, records, and escalation to the relevant NCA.
• Governance functions should document the interpretation of the ESMA opinion, approvals for affected product changes, control ownership, exceptions, surveillance, management information, and evidence available for supervisory review.

What changed

The opinion covers the full range of MiCA crypto-asset services, including operating trading platforms, exchanging crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets, executing orders, placing crypto-assets, reception and transmission of orders, investment advice, transfers, custody and administration, and portfolio management. ESMA expects National Competent Authorities to supervise so that CASPs do not maintain, introduce, or facilitate EU-client access to non-MiCA-compliant ARTs or EMTs.

Key dates

2026-10-08

FINMA published the final partial revision of Circular 2016/7.

2026-11-01 Deadline

The revised Circular 2016/7 enters into force and the new supervisory expectations for digital onboarding apply.

2027-11-01 Deadline

Market commentary reports a transitional deadline for firms using qualified electronic signatures to add liveness detection and residence verification.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should map each digital onboarding journey to the revised Circular 2016/7 method requirements, distinguishing video identification, online identification, Swiss e-ID and qualified electronic-signature workflows.
• Firms should assess whether their liveness-detection controls reliably establish that the applicant is a physically present living person and can resist photographs, replayed video, deepfakes and other AI-enabled manipulation.
• Firms should review identity-document validation rules and testing so that approved QR-code documents, including the Swiss driving licence, are handled on an equivalent basis to documents with an MRZ where the circular permits this.
• Firms should validate digital residence-verification processes, including whether the process reliably links the contracting party and the relevant device or infrastructure to the declared place of residence.
• Firms planning to use the Swiss e-ID should confirm technical readiness, evidence retention and treatment of the e-ID's non-copyable, non-archivable characteristics, while avoiding use of the e-ID for workflows limited to video identification.
• Firms should update AML, fraud-risk and onboarding policies, vendor requirements, testing scripts, staff procedures and customer disclosures before the effective date.
• Compliance teams may wish to reassess whether supplementary controls are warranted for higher-risk channels, such as device intelligence, fraud databases, transfer-account verification, duplicate-account detection or enhanced review, because FINMA's circular does not eliminate risk-based control expectations.
• Firms using qualified electronic signatures should confirm any transitional implementation requirements identified in the final circular and related commentary, including the reported 1 November 2027 date for adding liveness and residence verification to that route.

What changed

The Swiss e-ID may be used as an identification method when onboarding clients through digital channels under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, although market commentary indicates that it is available for online identification rather than video identification. Official identification documents bearing a QR code are treated as equivalent to documents containing a machine-readable zone, expanding the acceptable document formats for digital onboarding.

Key dates

2026-10-07

AFM and DNB published their joint policy statement and exploration on tokenisation of securities in the Netherlands.

2023-03-23

Applications became available under the EU DLT Pilot Regime as implemented and supervised in the Netherlands; this is relevant background for firms assessing DLT market-infrastructure models, not a new deadline arising from the AFM and DNB publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each proposed tokenised instrument by its legal and regulatory characteristics, distinguishing securities or other MiFID II financial instruments from crypto-assets covered by MiCA and from non-financial crypto-assets.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to document whether the proposed arrangement is native tokenisation or a hybrid model, identify which record constitutes the legally authoritative record, and assess the resulting title, transfer, custody, settlement and insolvency risks under Dutch law.
• Market infrastructures and investment firms considering a DLT model should assess whether Regulation (EU) 2022/858 and the Dutch DLT Pilot Regime are available, including the need for specific permission and the eligibility limits applicable to DLT financial instruments and operators.
• Firms should continue applying existing requirements, including MiFID II conduct and organisational rules, the Prospectus Regulation where applicable, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse, Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 on central securities depositories where applicable, and relevant custody, client-asset and investor-protection controls; the AFM and DNB statement does not disapply them.
• Issuers, custodians, trading venues and service providers may wish to participate in or monitor the proposed government-supervisor-market follow-up and prepare concrete use cases that identify where statutory clarification, contractual documentation or a Dutch legislative amendment would be needed.
• Firms operating cross-border should compare the Dutch position with jurisdictions that have introduced specific legal recognition for electronic or DLT-based securities, while avoiding reliance on another jurisdiction's legal treatment without confirming Dutch offering, custody, settlement and investor-protection implications.
• Governance functions may wish to update technology, legal, operational-resilience and outsourcing risk assessments to account for the possibility that infrastructure and issuance activity migrate to jurisdictions offering greater legal certainty.

What changed

No legislation, regulatory technical standard, authorisation requirement or immediate compliance deadline was introduced. AFM and DNB jointly identified a legal gap: although EU and Dutch law do not generally prohibit DLT, market participants are commonly forced to maintain both a DLT-based record and a traditional legal administration, creating uncertainty about the legal significance of the token and limiting efficiency gains.