← Regulations / Bangladesh / Operating Models / Self-custodial wallet

Self-custodial wallet / non-custodial software in Bangladesh

Publisher of software where users hold their own private keys. The publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds.

Not permitted AI-Generated · Unreviewed

Self-custodial wallet is not permitted in Bangladesh.

Verdict Details

Permitted
no
Local entity required
No
Licensing burden
None
Last updated
2026-07-13

AML Obligations

  • No AML obligations arise in the ordinary course of publishing non-custodial wallet software, because the publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds.
  • However, under the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 (MLPA), if the publisher knowingly facilitates crypto transactions that constitute money laundering (e.g. by processing or routing transactions), criminal liability could attach — but this is an enforcement risk, not a routine compliance obligation.
  • Bangladesh Bank warnings and circulars discourage all crypto-related activity, but they are directed at banks, financial institutions, and persons 'dealing in' cryptocurrencies — not at software publishers who do not transact or custody.

Key Restrictions

  • Bangladesh has an outright prohibition on virtual assets / cryptocurrencies. Circular No. 34 of 2021 explicitly states that virtual assets are not legal tender and are not permitted for transaction or exchange within Bangladesh.
  • Bangladesh Bank has warned financial institutions against dealing in, facilitating, or promoting cryptocurrencies — this creates indirect pressure on any locally integrated wallet publisher.
  • Operating an exchange, providing custody, or engaging in payment processing involving crypto is explicitly prohibited.
  • No licensing or registration regime exists for virtual assets; no legal pathway exists to obtain permission.
  • Law enforcement has blocked websites and apps facilitating crypto services and arrested individuals for crypto-related activities, creating a credible enforcement risk for any publisher whose software is used by Bangladeshi residents.

Key Risks

  • Criminal enforcement risk: Publishing non-custodial wallet software accessible to Bangladeshi residents could be treated as facilitating illegal crypto transactions, even without custody. Authorities have arrested individuals for crypto-related activities under the MLPA and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
  • Regulatory ambiguity: No explicit carve-out exists for non-custodial software versus custodial services — the prohibitions are broadly worded against 'engaging in' or 'dealing in' cryptocurrencies.
  • Website/App blocking risk: Authorities have restricted access to platforms deemed to facilitate illegal financial activities.
  • Bangladesh remains on the FATF grey list, increasing pressure on authorities to take enforcement action against any crypto-related activity.
  • Imprisonment range of 4-12 years under MLPA Section 4 for money laundering convictions; asset forfeiture is also possible.

Evidence

This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).

licensing 88% confidence

In Bangladesh, cross‑border foreign exchange transactions are governed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (as amended), which remains in force and is administered by Bangladesh Bank. Bangladesh Bank has stated via circulars that cryptocurrencies/virtual currencies are not legal tender in Bangladesh and has warned against their use, but there is no explicit, publicly available provision in the Act itself or authoritative judicial ruling that categorically deems every cryptocurrency transaction—especially solely by virtue of being a “currency”—to be a violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Rather, potential violations would arise where such transactions fall within regulated foreign exchange or cross‑border payment activities without required Bangladesh Bank permission.

licensing 73% confidence

Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 (MLPA): The BB has highlighted the significant risks of money laundering and terrorist financing associated with the anonymity and unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies. While not specifically mentioning "virtual assets," engaging in transactions that facilitate money laundering through any means would fall under this act.

licensing 90% confidence

FE Circular No. 15 of 2017 (December 24, 2017): This was one of the earliest and most direct prohibitions. The BB warned against dealing in virtual currencies like Bitcoin, stating they are not legal tender, are not approved by the BB, and carrying out transactions with them could lead to violations of FERA and MLPA.

licensing 90% confidence

Circular No. 34 (of 2021) on Foreign Exchange Transactions (October 14, 2021): This circular reiterated the ban, explicitly stating that "virtual assets" (including cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin) are not legal tender and are not permitted for transaction or exchange within Bangladesh. It also warned about associated risks and legal consequences.

licensing 90% confidence

Cryptocurrency Exchanges: Operating an exchange for buying, selling, or trading cryptocurrencies is prohibited.

licensing 90% confidence

Payment Processors: Engaging in payment processing or facilitating transactions involving cryptocurrencies is prohibited.

licensing 95% confidence

Neither a registration nor a licensing regime exists for virtual assets in Bangladesh.

licensing 100% confidence

The current approach is one of outright prohibition and warning against engaging in any activities related to cryptocurrencies.

licensing 78% confidence

Under Bangladesh’s Money Laundering Prevention Act (MLPA), Section 4, individuals convicted of money laundering are subject to a statutory imprisonment range of 4 to 12 years, with the precise term within that range determined by the court based on the nature, severity, and value of the offense.

licensing 76% confidence

Asset forfeiture is a legal process in which authorities confiscate property connected to alleged criminal activity, including assets used in, derived from, or otherwise linked to crime, sometimes through in rem proceedings that do not require a criminal conviction and can extend beyond only the assets directly involved in specific illegal transactions.

licensing 90% confidence

Warnings to Financial Institutions: Bangladesh Bank has repeatedly issued warnings to all banks and financial institutions against dealing in, facilitating, or promoting cryptocurrencies. These warnings serve as an instruction to financial institutions to block transactions related to crypto.

licensing 85% confidence

Prohibition on Use and Exchange: Law enforcement and regulatory bodies have acted against individuals and groups involved in unauthorized foreign exchange transactions or money laundering using cryptocurrencies. For instance, there have been reports of arrests for operating illegal crypto exchanges or facilitating crypto transactions that violate the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012. These are generally broader criminal charges, not specific securities violations related to crypto.

aml 0% confidence

Criminal investigations into cryptocurrency-related fraud and illegal remittance schemes are active in Bangladesh, but there is insufficient recent evidence to confirm significant arrests of individuals involved.

aml 0% confidence

Violation Type: Engaging in cryptocurrency transactions, which is considered illegal under existing foreign exchange regulations (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) and anti-money laundering laws (Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012). BB states crypto carries high risks of money laundering, terror financing, and capital flight.

enforcement 98% confidence

Entity Targeted: General public, financial institutions, and implicitly, anyone involved in cryptocurrency. Violation Type: Engaging in cryptocurrency transactions, which is considered illegal under existing foreign exchange regulations (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) and anti-money laundering laws (Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012). BB states crypto carries high risks of money laundering, terror financing, and capital flight. Penalty Amount: N/A (for a warning), but the underlying laws carry severe penalties (fines, imprisonment, asset forfeiture) for non-compliance. Outcome: Public awareness campaigns, continued illegal status of crypto, discouragement of financial institutions from dealing with crypto. This forms the basis for criminal prosecutions.

enforcement 98% confidence

Entity Targeted: Websites, apps, and platforms (including potentially crypto exchanges) deemed illegal or operating against national interests. Violation Type: Operating without license, facilitating illegal financial activities (which crypto trading falls under), or other violations of telecommunication laws. Penalty Amount: N/A (penalty is the blocking of access). Outcome: Restricted access to various online platforms, making it harder for Bangladeshi citizens to access crypto services directly.

Verdict Attribution

Source:
AI-Generated · Unreviewed
AI synthesized:
2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
Last updated:
2026-07-13
Confidence:
medium

This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.

No — publishing non-custodial wallet software for use by Bangladeshi residents is effectively prohibited because Bangladesh maintains an outright ban on virtual asset activities (Circular No. 34 of 2021, FE Circular No. 15 of 2017), no licensing pathway exists, authorities block crypto-related platforms, and enforcement actions (arrests, asset seizure, imprisonment under MLPA) apply to anyone facilitating crypto transactions, though the specific application of these prohibitions to pure non-custodial software publishers (who never hold funds) has not been explicitly tested.

Questions this verdict aims to answer

  • Does software publishing trigger VASP / MSB classification?
  • Do AML obligations attach when no custody exists?
  • What disclosure or consumer-protection rules apply?