Centralized exchange in Fiji

Investment Tokens: Any token offered with the expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others, where the investor is largely passive. This includes:

Regulated Markets: Trading would ideally need to occur on a licensed securities exchange or a regulated platform. Fiji's existing stock exchange (South Pacific Stock Exchange) or a future RBF-licensed entity would be the only legal avenues for trading.

Licensing for Platforms: Any platform facilitating the secondary trading of security tokens would need to be appropriately licensed as a securities exchange or a financial market operator by the RBF. Given the lack of specific crypto licenses, this would be a high bar to meet under existing legislation.

Prospectus Requirement: Generally, an offer of securities to the public in Fiji requires the preparation and registration of a prospectus with the Registrar of Companies. This prospectus must contain all material information necessary for investors to make an informed decision.

RBF Approval/Notification: For any significant capital raising, foreign exchange implications, or the introduction of new financial products, direct engagement with and potential approval from the Reserve Bank of Fiji would likely be required, especially given their cautious stance on crypto.

AML/CFT Compliance: Any entity (exchange, broker, OTC desk) involved in the secondary trading of virtual assets (whether securities or not) is considered a "financial institution" or "designated non-financial business and profession" under Fiji's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism Act 2017. They would be subject to stringent AML/CFT obligations, including customer due diligence (KYC), suspicious transaction reporting, and record-keeping.

No specific license for cryptocurrency custody exists. As cryptocurrencies are not recognized as regulated financial products under the current RBF framework, there is no specific "crypto custodian license."

No specific rules for cryptocurrency asset segregation exist. Since there is no specific regulatory framework for crypto custody, there are no mandates for how client digital assets should be segregated from the custodian's proprietary assets.

No specific insurance or bonding requirements for cryptocurrency custodians exist. Given the absence of a dedicated framework, there are no mandates for custodians to carry specific insurance policies or bonding to cover potential losses due to hacks, fraud, or operational failures.

No specific cold storage mandates exist. There are no regulatory requirements dictating the use or proportion of cold storage (offline storage) for digital assets held in custody. Industry best practices, again, would guide custodians to use a combination of hot, warm, and cold storage for security.

No specific definition of a "qualified custodian" for digital assets exists. The RBF has not introduced any regulatory definitions or criteria for what constitutes a qualified custodian in the context of cryptocurrencies.

Banking Act 1995:

The RBF's general stance is one of caution and ongoing assessment. They have indicated that they are studying various aspects of digital currencies and payments, but this has not yet translated into specific regulatory frameworks for custody.

Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2004 (FTRA 2004): This is the foundational AML/CFT law in Fiji. It establishes the framework for reporting institutions, customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, and the powers of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

Customer Identification and Verification:

Beneficial Ownership: Identify and verify the ultimate natural person(s) who own or control the customer, or on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. For legal entities, this typically involves identifying individuals with 25% or more ownership/control.

Enhanced CDD (EDD): Must be applied in higher-risk situations, which typically include:

Reporting Threshold: There is no monetary threshold for reporting. Any transaction (including attempted transactions), regardless of value, where the VASP suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect involves money laundering, terrorism financing, or any other criminal activity, must be reported.

Timing: STRs must be submitted promptly to the FIU, typically within a few days of forming the suspicion.

No Tipping-Off: VASPs and their employees are strictly prohibited from "tipping off" or informing the customer or any other third party that an STR has been filed or that an investigation is underway.

Internal Reporting: VASPs must establish internal procedures for reporting suspicious activities to a designated AML Compliance Officer, who is then responsible for filing the STR with the FIU.

Types of Records:

Entity Targeted: General Public / Potential Investors. Violation Type: N/A (Preventative advisory, not an enforcement action). Penalty Amount: N/A.

RBF Statement (2023) - Warning on Virtual Assets and Cryptocurrency: While a specific press release for 2023 isn't easily found, the RBF's general stance is reiterated in public speeches and financial stability reports. Their 2022 Annual Report mentions ongoing monitoring and collaboration with FIU.

RBF Statement (2021) - Warning on Virtual Assets and Cryptocurrency (example of consistent messaging):

FATF Mutual Evaluation Report for Fiji (2022) - discussing Fiji's VA framework:

FIU Typology Reports (various years, discussing virtual asset risks):