FCA Research Reveals 1.1 Million Spike in Cryptoasset Buyers

FCA Research Reveals 1.1 Million Spike in Cryptoasset Buyers

FCA Research Reveals 1.1 Million Spike in Cryptoasset Buyers

Denisse Rudich reviews the FCA’s recent findings on the growth of the cryptoassets industry in the UK and potential regulatory changes

What happened​?

The FCA issued its findings of a quantitative study carried out to get a better understanding of the cryptoassets market and user behavior in the UK. The research looked into areas of potential harm as well as general attitudes towards cryptoassets. A key finding is that over 2.6 million people or companies in the UK have purchased cryptoassets.

What types of stakeholders will be impacted by this?

The research will be of interest to pretty much everyone in the cryptoassets ecosystem: from regulators to exchanges to financial institutions looking to offer custody services in the UK and abroad.

Why does this matter?

The study offers several significant insights into a market that has seen some controversy, particularly around fraud. As virtual assets service providers become regulated, it is important to gauge how both the market and consumer understanding of cryptoassets will continue to expand.

For example, the study found that “the majority of cryptoasset owners are generally knowledgeable about the product, are aware of the lack of regulatory protection afforded, and understand the risk of price volatility.” However, “an estimated 300,000 cryptoasset owners believe they have protection which leaves them at potential risk of financial harm.”

This makes the case that there needs to be better communication around the pitfalls of investing in cryptoassets, similar to other types of investments and asset classes.

Does this update/change create new opportunities? If so, what might they be?

Absolutely. Any time you gain new insights into a market, there is the opportunity for regulators to redefine their areas of focus for regulation, as well as their messaging towards target demographics. In a similar manner, crypto exchanges can gain an understanding of regulatory concerns but also themselves look at where to put their resources.

The FCA also highlighted that:
Cryptoassets present risks and opportunities for consumers and we hope that these insights will inform the policy debate and internationally as the use of these assets continues to grow.

Does this change create new risks for industry stakeholders? If so, what should they be looking out for?

One of the key findings is that 83% of cryptoassets purchases are carried out through non-UK exchanges. This is telling and could create regulatory arbitrage and a challenge for cryptoasset providers who have to comply with stringent anti-money laundering laws vs. those based in overseas jurisdictions who do not.

This could lead to the UK widening the net on what it regulates (i.e. those advertising in the UK or with UK clients on their books). The devil, of course, is in the details and along the lines of how do you regulate the internet? There are some lessons to be learned from the Gambling Commission on how they treat overseas entities with UK customers.

How does this impact compliance teams, and what can they do to stay ahead of the regulatory requirements?

Studies like these support businesses in their horizon planning, seeing what is looming in the distance. Compliance teams need to be aware of the ever-evolving regulation, not only in the UK but also in Europe. With countries such as the U.S. issuing crypto-related sanctions and the UN warning against North Korea’s use of crypto to evade sanctions, compliance teams must also look to maintain their sanctions screening systems up to date as well as ensure that they are signed up to regulatory intelligence sources.

The FCA stated that they are working with the UK Cryptoassets Taskforce to “understand and address the harms from cryptoassets whilst encouraging innovation in the interests of consumers.” This essentially means that they are likely to issue more guidance and decisions that will force cryptoassets providers to act quickly and possibly stop outgoing transfers or products and maybe even remove certain client types.

What can management teams or boards of directors do to stay ahead of these changes?

Management teams and boards should make sure that their compliance teams are adequately resourced so that they are able to quickly act on any information that may affect the business. changes.

For example, on 6 October 2020, the FCA published a final rule banning the sale of derivatives and exchange-traded notes to retail consumers. You can tell that this decision was informed by the survey, as the FCA clearly states:

The FCA considers these products to be ill-suited for retail consumers due to the harm they pose. These products cannot be reliably valued by retail consumers because of the:

  • inherent nature of the underlying assets, which means they have no reliable basis for valuation
  • prevalence of market abuse and financial crime in the secondary market (eg cyber theft)
  • extreme volatility in cryptoasset price movements
  • inadequate understanding of cryptoassets by retail consumers
  • lack of legitimate investment need for retail consumers to invest in these products

This essentially means that exchanges and providers must immediately cease to offer these products in the UK or to UK consumers.

What can service providers do to help their clients stay ahead of these changes?

Providing clients with intelligence and analysis to support their clients in staying ahead of the game is key. Making sure that the services that they are offering are understandable, clearly sourced, and agile can make the difference to a client’s ability to navigate the rapids that come with regulatory action.

Author — DENISSE RUDICH

Denisse Rudich has over 15 years of delivering financial crime prevention, anti-money laundering, and counter-terrorist financing systems & controls across banking and public sectors, including as Head of AML/CFT Policy for RBS (CBD) and Strategic Advisor to Rabobank. She has experience working with many top-tier financial institutions as well as holding the roles of Director of the G7 and G20 Research Groups (London) and as Secretariat for the WEF’s Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime. Denisse set up the first global AML/CFT working group for the crypto industry and acts as a Senior Advisor to RegTech, FinTech, crypto/virtual assets firms, and The Sentry. She most recently acted as a technical expert on the Joint Working Group of InteVASPs Messaging Standards that issued the IVMS-101 Messaging Standard and was a member of the RegTech Council. Denisse is an author, trainer, speaker, and panelist at industry events and mentors multiple startups.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...

12 Month Review of Revised FATF Standards – Virtual Assets and VASPs

12 Month Review of Revised FATF Standards – Virtual Assets and VASPs

12 Month Review of Revised FATF Standards – Virtual Assets and VASPs

Jonathan C. Dunsmoor of Dunsmoor Law, P.C. discusses the impact of the 12-month review of the revised FAFT standards on the virtual asset industry

What happened​?

Overall, both the public and private sectors have made progress by implementing the newly revised FATF Standards, where 35 out of 54 jurisdictions are implementing FATF Standards. Even though there are still issues that need to be addressed, there has been no clear indication of a need to make amendments to the FATF Standards as of yet. This may change dramatically in the coming months, given the recent rise of Decentralized Exchanges (“DEX”) such as Uniswap.

What types of stakeholders will be impacted by this?

Anyone involved with the transmission of virtual currency needs to be aware of the FATF Standards and the applicability both locally and globally to their business operations. This is true regardless of whether the business is in the traditional money services business or in the virtual assets industry.

Why does this matter?

The reason for working diligently to maintain and improve upon these standards is simply to facilitate larger, more compliant business protocols globally. If the proliferation of terrorist financing and/or money laundering can be reduced, then the facilitation of greater access to investment opportunities can arise where transmission standards are respected and maintained.

Does this update/change create new opportunities? If so, what might they be?

Yes, the changes in the implementation and constant movement in technology regarding virtual assets will provide opportunities for further development of risk assessment departments in businesses, and the training and implementation of new technology tools will create a need for experts in these technologies and related industries. This is especially true for new asset classes and key threshold signature wallets.

Does this change create new risks for industry stakeholders? If so, what should they be looking out for?

No, these changes do not create new risks; however, changes in how virtual assets and VASPs are being used do create unknown risks that either have not been identified or lack the option for prevention due to the revised FATF Standards not being implemented within their jurisdiction. If a business engages with virtual assets and/or VASPs, it must be compliant with the law.

How does this impact compliance teams, and what can they do to stay ahead of the regulatory requirements?

There will be a wider need for deeper understanding in terms of the revised FATF Standards, as well as an understanding of the risks associated with virtual assets and VASPs. With the
changes in technology implemented by these avenues, it creates a demand for knowledge on tools and techniques to either prohibit or hinder the use of VASPs. The key will be staying abreast of new knowledge, sharing information, and implementing techniques that have been suggested by other members.

What can management teams or boards of directors do to stay ahead of these changes?

As mentioned, staying abreast of new knowledge presented in regards to the revised FATF Standards, sharing information among teams and the board, and making sure the Board of Directors is doing their due diligence in gaining information from other businesses that are using VASPs.

What can service providers do to help their clients stay ahead of these changes?

Service providers can start by implementing preventative measures under the FATF Standards. It’s important to have an idea of the client…that way, a service provider can perform their due diligence in reporting suspicious activity, screening for compliance issues, and keeping detailed records of their clients’ activities. It is highly recommended that internal protocols be developed and followed, especially for VASPs. This includes cross-border transactions as well as adherence to local laws regarding money transmission.

 

This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please seek competent legal counsel for specific questions or concerns regarding FATF or any topics discussed herein.

Author — JONATHAN C. DUNSMOOR

Jonathan C. Dunsmoor, Esq. is a U.S. corporate attorney who focuses his practice on securities law and regulatory matters, including compliance protocols for blockchain-related offerings, asset management, and corporate governance. He represents private companies wishing to raise funds, including those exploring blockchain/cryptocurrency opportunities, as well as angel investors and investment funds. Jonathan is Senior Of Counsel for the New York-based Reid & Wise, LLC with offices in San Francisco and Shanghai.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...

SEC Charges App Developer for Unregistered Security-Based Swap Transactions

SEC Charges App Developer for Unregistered Security-Based Swap Transactions

SEC Charges App Developer for Unregistered Security-Based Swap Transactions

Kayvan B. Sadeghi of Schiff Hardin LLP reviews recent actions from both the SEC and CFTC against app developer Abra

What happened​?

On July 13, 2020, the SEC and CFTC each filed settled enforcement actions against Abra and its related company, Plutus Technologies Philippines Corporation.

Abra is a cryptocurrency app developer that offered synthetic exposure to dozens of fiat currencies, digital currencies, and blue-chip stocks and ETFs. They were penalized for structuring and effecting swaps without complying with U.S. securities and commodities laws.

Abra unsuccessfully sought to avoid U.S. laws by excluding U.S. purchasers and moving certain operations out of the U.S. The SEC announcement emphasizes that one “may not evade the federal securities laws merely by transacting primarily with non-U.S. retail investors and setting up a foreign entity to act as a counterparty, while conducting crucial parts of their business in the United States.”

What types of stakeholders will be impacted by this?

This announcement should serve as a caution to anyone seeking to structure their business conduct or offerings to stay outside the reach of U.S. securities and commodities laws.

Why does this matter?

U.S. regulators view the reach of U.S. laws far more broadly than businesses might expect. This action also demonstrates the clear intent of the SEC and CFTC to work together where their jurisdictions may overlap, including in the blockchain space.

Does this change create new risks for industry stakeholders? If so, what should they be looking out for?

This action highlights and increases the regulatory risks for anyone who has sought to stay outside the reach of U.S. laws by excluding U.S. purchasers. The SEC and CFTC likely will now view the market as on notice that the efforts taken by Abra were insufficient.

Does this change create new opportunities for industry stakeholders? If so, what might they be?

Any company that has concerns about compliance with U.S. securities and commodities laws should consider this announcement an opportunity to evaluate with counsel whether to approach the SEC and/or CFTC proactively.

How does this impact compliance teams, and what can they do to stay ahead of the regulatory requirements?

Compliance teams must remain vigilant with KYC and AML requirements, but they must also realize that a well-intentioned and implemented plan to exclude U.S. purchasers is only part of the puzzle, not a complete solution.

What can management teams or boards of directors do to stay ahead of these changes?

Management teams and boards can evaluate with outside counsel both their existing compliance programs and whether to proactively engage regulators through channels such as LabCFTC and SEC’s FinHub.

What can service providers do to help their clients stay ahead of these changes?

Service providers will do well to stay in their lane, understand what risks they can help control, and also where their best efforts alone may fall short of reaching their client’s end goal.

Author — KAYVAN B. SADEGHI

Kayvan B. Sadeghi is a trial and appellate lawyer at Schiff Hardin LLP with more than 15 years of experience in complex commercial and securities litigation, investigations, and enforcement proceedings. He regularly defends clients before the U.S. Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, state attorneys general, and other government agencies. His clients have included leading global companies, and their directors and officers, across a range of industries including financial services, media, technology, and energy.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...

Banker and Insurance Agent Banned From Providing Financial Advisory Services in Singapore

Banker and Insurance Agent Banned From Providing Financial Advisory Services in Singapore

Banker and Insurance Agent Banned From Providing Financial Advisory Services in Singapore

MAS issued prohibition orders to two individuals for fraud and dishonest conduct

What Happened?

August 19, 2020: The Monetary Authority of Singapore has issued prohibition orders against Mr. Aw Yong Seng, a former representative of Prudential Assurance Company Singapore Pte Ltd, and Mr. Chew Swee Sun, a former representative of Bank of Singapore Limited.

Both individuals were previously charged with false orders for securities, unauthorized trading, and other violations, and convicted to a sentence of 8 weeks – 4 months imprisonment.

The prohibition order restricts Mr. Aw and Mr. Chew from providing any financial advisory services and taking part in the management of any financial advisory firm.

Source: https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/enforcement/enforcement-actions/2020/mas-bans-two-individuals-for-fraud-and-dishonest-conduct

Who Is Impacted?

Bankers, insurance agents, asset managers, and other financial services professionals.

Why This Matters?

Financial services providers must comply with strong client authentication procedures to capture the client’s consent and authorization prior to executing trade orders.

What’s Next?

To better protect themselves, financial services providers should review their user experience and customer journies through onboarding, KYC review, enhanced due diligence, order management, re-authentication, and transaction processing. Compliance teams should review and assess the risk for each channel of client engagement such as face-to-face, video call, phone, email, messaging, web portal, and mobile application.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...

SEC Charges Former Hertz CEO with Filing of Inaccurate Financial Statements

SEC Charges Former Hertz CEO with Filing of Inaccurate Financial Statements

SEC Charges Former Hertz CEO with Filing of Inaccurate Financial Statements

Mark Frissora allegedly pressured his employees to “find money”

What Happened?

August 18, 2020: The Securities and Exchange Commission of the U.S. charged former Hertz CEO Mark Frissora with aiding and abetting the car rental company in filing inaccurate financial statements. According to the SEC, Frissora pressed employees to make changes to the company’s financial reports in 2013.

Frissora is also accused of failing to disclose to investors that the company was keeping cars for longer periods of time to cut down on depreciation costs.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/08/13/former-hertz-ceo-charged-in-accounting-scandal/#3aa81d1f333c

Who Is Impacted?

Frissora has agreed to pay a $200,000 fine to settle the charges with the SEC, and also to repay his former employer $2 million in incentive-based compensation.

Why This Matters?

For all companies, it is important to understand the importance of accuracy in your statements to investors and the public. This SEC enforcement highlights how the regulator is working to maintain checkpoints of accountability within their capital markets.

What’s Next?

Aside from fines, Frissora will be subject to increased scrutiny during Know-Your-Customer (KYC) reviews, as his name will appear in risk-screening results.

Compliance teams can use recent cases like this to test the effectiveness of their compliance systems. Does this name search produce a result in your U.S. screening procedures? If so, how quickly can your compliance workflows identify and present this new risk to your risk management team?

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...

SEC Charges Wind Turbine Company and Individuals With Defrauding Investors

SEC Charges Wind Turbine Company and Individuals With Defrauding Investors

SEC Charges Wind Turbine Company and Individuals With Defrauding Investors

Kristina Subbotina of Ross Law Group reviews the SEC’s recent action against the wind turbine company and individuals

What happened​?

The SEC filed a complaint against Thunderbird Power Corp., a wind turbine company (the “Company”) and its three affiliated individuals (together with the Company, the “Defendants”), Thunderbird’s CEO Richard Hinds, former Thunderbird president Anthony Goldstein, and consultant John Alexander “Lex” van Arem. The SEC alleged that the Defendants defrauded investors in a US $1.9 million unregistered offer and sale of the Company’s stock.

Specifically, the SEC stated that the Defendants made false and misleading statements through the Company’s press releases, marketing materials, offering materials, and a YouTube video. For example, the press releases and the YouTube video mislead investors by stating that Siemens had tested the Company’s wind turbine product and confirmed its efficiency and production ability. The SEC alleged that the Company’s offering memorandum contained material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company’s operations, including how the Company would use investor proceeds.

Additionally, all the Defendants allegedly misappropriated 40% of the investor funds to enrich themselves and to compensate sales agents.

What types of stakeholders will be impacted by this?

Private companies raising funds in private offerings, and its officers and even consultants. Investors should also be aware of the continued existence of fraudulent investment schemes.

Why does this matter?

This enforcement action brings attention to the continued existence of fraudulent investment schemes, and the very real risk of illegal offerings being conducted at present. It should heighten both regulatory and investor awareness of the prevalence of this issue.

Also, the SEC continues its efforts to discourage issuers from defrauding investors and demonstrates that even relatively small offerings (under $2 million) are under its purview.

Does this change create new risks for industry stakeholders? If so, what should they be looking out for?

In general, the SEC’s complaint serves as a reminder to private companies to comply with the U.S. securities laws and regulations when offering and selling securities, specifically:

  • Provide correct and complete information in the company’s offering materials, including offering memorandum and subscription agreement;
  • Ensure the information provided in marketing materials (i.e., presentations, business plans, posts, and videos on social media platforms) should be consistent with the information in the offering materials; and
  • Register the offer and sale of the securities under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless the company qualifies for an exemption from the registration requirements.

How does this impact compliance teams, and what can they do to stay ahead of the regulatory requirements?

Compliance teams should make sure that their company’s employees and consultants, including sales representatives, communicate to investors only information consistent with the offering materials. A compliance team, for example, may want to review emails and phone communications between the sales representatives and investors to ensure the former do not mislead the latter.

What can management teams or boards of directors do to stay ahead of these changes?

Management teams or boards of directors can be reminded to continue directing strong efforts to ensure compliance with the U.S. federal and states securities laws and regulations:

  • Sales representatives receiving compensation in the form of a percentage of the investor funds raised must be registered broker-dealers. You can verify a person’s broker-dealer registration on the FINRA’s website: https://brokercheck.finra.org/.
  • For a compliant unregistered offering of securities, Form D must be filed within 10 days from the sale of those securities, and blue sky filings must be made in each state where the investors reside.
  • If the issuer conducts general solicitation, all of its investors must be accredited, and the accredited investor status must be verified internally or through a third-party provider

What can service providers do to help their clients stay ahead of these changes?

Service providers should remind their clients (i) to provide the complete and correct information in the offering and marketing materials, and (ii) to properly qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements.

Author — KRISTINA SUBBOTINA

Kristina Subbotina is a corporate and securities attorney with Ross Law Group PLLC representing investment funds and emerging growth companies throughout their lifecycle, including formation, financing rounds, and exit strategies. 

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech
The Future of Identity Verification in Fintech

Identity verification is a cornerstone of the fintech industry, crucial for ensuring security, compliance, and trust in digital financial services. As the fintech landscape evolves, so do the methods and technologies used for...