Guyana -- Enforcement Actions Regulatory Overview

Guyana's cryptocurrency regulatory and enforcement landscape is still developing. Unlike jurisdictions with mature crypto markets, Guyana has seen limited formal regulatory enforcement actions (e.g., large fines against licensed entities) specifically targeting cryptocurrency businesses by financial regulators. Instead, the most significant actions have revolved around:

1. Criminal prosecution of alleged fraudsters utilizing digital assets.
2. Public advisories and warnings from the central bank about the risks of cryptocurrency, signaling a cautious and largely unregulated stance.

Below are the most significant actions and regulatory postures within the last 3 years (roughly June 2021 to present):

1. Significant Criminal Enforcement Action: Coinvest Guyana / Accelerated Capital Firm Inc. (ACFI) Pyramid Scheme

This is the most prominent case involving digital assets and financial fraud in Guyana in recent years. While not purely a "crypto enforcement action" in the sense of targeting a regulated crypto exchange for AML failures, it involved a scheme that leveraged digital assets and purported investments to defraud individuals, leading to criminal charges.

• Regulator/Enforcing Body: Guyana Police Force, Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU)
• Entity Targeted: Individuals associated with "Coinvest Guyana" and "Accelerated Capital Firm Inc. (ACFI)," particularly Yuri Garcia-Lopez and Ateeka Ishmael, along with others later implicated.
• Violation Type: Operating a pyramid scheme, obtaining money by false pretences (fraud), unlicensed financial operations. The scheme reportedly solicited investments with promises of high returns, often facilitated through digital means and sometimes referencing digital asset investments as part of its pitch, though its core was a classic Ponzi/pyramid structure.
• Penalty Amount:
  • Not a direct regulatory fine, but criminal charges laid.
  • The duo (Garcia-Lopez and Ishmael) faced over 100 fraud charges related to bilking Guyanese citizens of billions of dollars.
  • They were granted bail totaling hundreds of millions of Guyanese dollars (e.g., GYD $200 million each for many charges, reduced to GYD $10 million for some).
  • Assets were frozen and seized by the state as part of the criminal proceedings.
• Date:
  • Arrests and initial charges began in August/September 2020, with ongoing court proceedings and further charges laid well into 2021 and 2022.
  • Recent updates on their court cases and other related individuals continue into 2023 and 2024.
• Outcome:
  • Yuri Garcia-Lopez and Ateeka Ishmael were arrested, charged with multiple counts of fraud and operating a pyramid scheme.
  • They have been embroiled in lengthy court battles, with charges being consolidated and preliminary inquiries ongoing.
  • Other individuals involved in promoting or facilitating the scheme have also faced charges.
  • The legal proceedings are ongoing, aiming for convictions and restitution for victims.

Source URLs:

• Guyana Chronicle (2022 update): https://guyanachronicle.com/2022/10/21/coinvest-accused-granted-high-court-bail/
• News Room Guyana (2021): https://newsroom.gy/2021/07/09/socu-files-more-charges-against-accused-pyramid-schemers/
• Stabroek News (2024 update on related case): https://www.stabroeknews.com/2024/05/17/news/guyana/coinvest-accused-jailed-for-six-months-for-assault/ (This article briefly mentions their status and a related conviction for another offense).

2. Significant Regulatory Posture: Bank of Guyana's Warnings and Advisories

While not direct "enforcement actions" against specific entities with penalties, the consistent and stern warnings from Guyana's central bank represent the most significant regulatory stance on cryptocurrency, advising against its use due to lack of regulation and risks. These advisories deter potential operators and inform the public, setting the groundwork for future enforcement should regulations be introduced.

• Regulator Name: Bank of Guyana (BoG)
• Entity Targeted: General public, financial institutions, and implicitly, anyone considering operating an unregulated cryptocurrency business in Guyana.
• Violation Type: While not a "violation" in itself, the BoG warns against the inherent risks and unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies, implying that conducting such activities falls outside the regulated financial system and thus carries significant risks for participants. The advisories highlight that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender, are not regulated by the BoG, and offer no consumer protection.
• Penalty Amount: N/A (These are advisories, not direct enforcement actions with fines).
• Date: The BoG has issued several advisories, with significant ones within the last 3 years:
  • March 2021: A prominent advisory reiterating that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender and are unregulated.
  • Ongoing: The BoG's stance has been consistently cautious since then, with similar warnings periodically reiterated through public statements and official channels.
• Outcome: Increased public awareness of the risks associated with cryptocurrencies in Guyana, a clear statement that such activities are outside the regulated financial sector, and a deterrent for unregulated operations seeking legitimacy. This stance limits the growth of formal crypto businesses until a regulatory framework is established.

Source URLs:

• Bank of Guyana Official Advisory (March 2021): https://bankofguyana.org.gy/bog/news-and-updates/advisory-cryptocurrencies
• Kaieteur News (Reporting on BoG's stance in 2021): https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2021/03/17/bank-of-guyana-advises-against-cryptocurrency/
• Stabroek News (Reporting on BoG's stance, more recent context): https://www.stabroeknews.com/2023/12/28/news/guyana/bank-of-guyana-warns-against-cryptocurrency/ (While this particular article is late 2023, it reflects the ongoing nature of these warnings, confirming the BoG's consistent stance within the 3-year window).

Conclusion:

Guyana's approach to cryptocurrency enforcement over the last three years has been primarily reactive (addressing fraud like the Coinvest scheme) and preemptive (issuing warnings from the central bank). There has not been a robust framework for licensing or regulating crypto exchanges or other digital asset service providers, meaning there are fewer formal regulatory enforcement actions against such entities. The focus remains on consumer protection against scams and maintaining financial stability within a traditional financial system.