On-shore VASP in Burkina Faso

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.

Exchanges (Fiat-to-Crypto, Crypto-to-Crypto): No specific license exists. Any attempt to operate a fiat-to-crypto exchange would necessitate a payment institution or banking license, which would then be rejected by BCEAO-supervised entities due to their crypto prohibition. Crypto-to-crypto exchanges, while not directly touching fiat, would still face banking access issues for operational needs and are considered unregulated.

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.

Payment Processors (facilitating crypto payments): No specific license exists. If these activities involve traditional payment processing in CFA Francs (XOF), they would fall under existing payment services regulations. However, if the payments are in crypto or facilitated by crypto, they would again be prohibited from using regulated financial infrastructure.

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.

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

BCEAO has shifted to a regulatory approach discussing crypto-assets and digital finance, with initiatives for fintech licensing and compliance, rather than outright prohibition.

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

Capital Requirements: No specific capital requirements for a crypto license as none exists. General business registration might have minimal capital requirements.

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

No specific regulatory framework for VASPs.

AML/KYC: Burkina Faso is a member of the Intergovernmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA), a FATF-style regional body. Thus, it is committed to implementing FATF recommendations. While there's no specific crypto AML/KYC framework, any entity dealing with funds or assets would be expected to comply with general AML/CFT obligations.

Relevant Authority: The Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières (CENTIF) is Burkina Faso's Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). It is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious transaction reports.

Burkina Faso has been removed from the FATF increased monitoring list as of October 2025 and continues to work with GIABA to sustain improvements in its AML/CFT/CPF systems.

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.

Purpose and Intended Nature of the Business Relationship: Understand and, where appropriate, obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.

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.

In Burkina Faso, VASP employees are not shielded from liability for breaching disclosure restrictions, even when reporting suspicions in good faith; unauthorized disclosures remain punishable under Law No. 001-2021.

"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.

Indirectly/Obligation-based: While a dedicated "FATF Travel Rule Act" might not exist, Burkina Faso, through its membership in GIABA and its commitment to FATF standards, is obligated to implement Recommendation 16 concerning virtual assets.

No specific national Travel Rule threshold: Given the lack of specific national legislation directly on the Travel Rule, specific threshold amounts for virtual asset transfers (like the FATF's recommended $1,000/€1,000) are not publicly detailed for Burkina Faso.

Future Expectation: Should Burkina Faso fully implement the Travel Rule, it would likely follow international best practices, possibly adopting standards promoted by GIABA or global industry working groups. For now, compliance would primarily involve internal risk-based procedures and record-keeping.

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.

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.

Nature of Reported Incidents: Any incidents related to cryptocurrencies in Burkina Faso are more likely to be:

Regional Context: The BCEAO (Central Bank of West African States) issued Instruction No. 001/RB/2021 on October 29, 2021, concerning the prohibition of crypto-asset activity in the WAEMU zone. While this instruction largely prohibits activities related to crypto-assets for financial stability reasons, it signals the region's approach to virtual assets and its desire to control them, which indirectly impacts AML/CFT compliance.

Instruction No. 001/RB/2021 (October 29, 2021) relative à l’interdiction des crypto-actifs dans l’espace UEMOA (often found on BCEAO's legal publications page or via news articles about it):