Custodial wallet / SaaS in Burkina Faso

Custody Providers: No specific license exists. Operating a custody service for virtual assets falls into the same unregulated category and would face the same banking challenges.

Neither exists for crypto-specific activities. There is no framework for either registration or licensing of VASPs in Burkina Faso. Entities operating in this space are therefore in a legal grey area, highly exposed to risks, and generally lack regulatory recognition.

No specific regulatory framework for VASPs.

Implication for VASPs: This means that entities wishing to operate as crypto exchanges, custody providers, or payment processors in Burkina Faso (or any UEMOA country) will face significant challenges, primarily the inability to obtain banking services from regulated financial institutions within the UEMOA zone. This effectively makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to operate legally and effectively.

The BCEAO has, on several occasions, issued communications (e.g., in 2018 and subsequent updates) warning the public and financial institutions about the risks associated with cryptocurrencies. These communications generally declare that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in the UEMOA zone and prohibit regulated financial institutions (banks, microfinance institutions, payment service providers) from engaging in transactions related to, or facilitating, the use of virtual assets.

Local Presence: Any legally registered business in Burkina Faso would require a local presence and incorporation under Burkinabe law.

BCEAO's 15 New Instructions on External Financial Relations (implementing Regulation No. 06/2024/CM/UEMOA), effective August 1, 2025

Entities operating in this space do so in a legal grey area, exposed to regulatory risks, potential legal challenges, and lack of consumer protection.

Despite the lack of specific crypto regulation, general AML/CFT laws still apply, overseen by CENTIF Burkina Faso.

Law N°024-2016/AN of 20 May 2016 on the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism. This law transposed the recommendations of the FATF and GIABA into national law. While it predates explicit FATF guidance on VASPs, its broad scope regarding "financial institutions" and "designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs)" is often interpreted to cover entities dealing with virtual assets if they perform similar functions to traditional financial services.

AML-related identification and verification of identity generally requires collecting and verifying key personal data (such as full name, date of birth, and address) and confirming it through reliable sources, which may include a single government‑issued photo ID or a mix of documentary and electronic methods; a rigid requirement for two physical forms of identification is not a universal or current standard.

For natural persons in the US: Full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, nationality, and official identification document number(s) from reliable, independent sources (such as state-issued driver's license, passport, or Social Security number). Verification must use reliable, independent source documents. Note: The US has no national ID card; verification relies on a decentralized system of state and federal documents. Validity period requirements vary by document type and regulatory context.

For legal entities: Name, legal form, address (registered office and current operational address if different), registered office, official registration number, constitutional documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws, memorandum and articles of association), and identification of individuals authorized to act on behalf of the entity.

Beneficial Ownership Identification: Identify and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner(s) of the customer. This includes understanding the ownership and control structure of legal persons and arrangements.

Ongoing Monitoring: Conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions are consistent with the VASP's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile.

Risk-Based Approach: Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customers or transactions (e.g., Politically Exposed Persons - PEPs, complex transactions, transactions from high-risk jurisdictions). Simplified due diligence (SDD) may be applied in low-risk scenarios, but not to the extent of foregoing identification entirely.

VASPs are obligated to report any transaction or activity that they suspect to be related to money laundering or terrorist financing, regardless of the amount.

The report must be made promptly to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Burkina Faso.

"Tipping off" (informing the customer or a third party that an STR has been filed or that an investigation is underway) is strictly prohibited.

All necessary records of transactions, both domestic and international, to enable their reconstruction.

Records of the information obtained through CDD measures (copies of identification documents, account files, business correspondence).

Records pertaining to suspicious transaction reports filed.

Centrale Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières (CENTIF): This is Burkina Faso's Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). CENTIF is the body to which all suspicious transaction reports are submitted, and it is responsible for analyzing these reports and disseminating intelligence to law enforcement agencies. CENTIF also plays a key role in ensuring compliance with AML/CFT obligations across various sectors.

BCEAO's Stance: The BCEAO has consistently issued warnings to the public about the risks associated with cryptocurrencies, stating that they are not recognized as legal tender and are not regulated by the central bank or other financial authorities in the region. These are general advisories, not specific enforcement actions against particular entities within Burkina Faso.

Lack of Specific National Framework: Burkina Faso, like many countries in the region, has not yet established a comprehensive national regulatory framework specifically for cryptocurrencies. Without clear laws defining crypto entities, licensing requirements, and prohibited activities, it's challenging for regulators to conduct formal enforcement actions with specific penalties.

Given the junta's crackdown on media and secret detention of journalists in Burkina Faso, local outlets like LeFaso.net and Sidwaya may not be able to freely publish BCEAO warnings without government censorship or reprisal.