Centralized exchange in Guyana
Order-book exchange that takes custody of user assets and matches trades between users.
CEX is conditionally permitted in Guyana with a local entity, subject to AML obligations and high licensing burden.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- conditional
- Local entity required
- Yes
- Licensing burden
- High
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
AML Obligations
- AML/CFT Act 2009 (as amended, including 2023 amendment No. 4 of 2023) applies — VASPs are now explicitly within scope as reporting entities
- Customer identification required: name, address, date of birth, national ID/passport for individuals; legal form, directors, proof of incorporation for entities
- Beneficial ownership identification and verification required
- Ongoing transaction monitoring to ensure consistency with customer risk profile
- Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) required for PEPs, high-risk jurisdictions, complex ownership structures, and high-value or unusual transactions
- Screening against national and international sanctions lists (UN, OFAC etc.)
- Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) must be filed promptly with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) — no de minimis threshold
- Travel Rule compliance required: obtain, hold, and transmit originator/beneficiary information for virtual asset transfers; zero threshold for VASP-to-VASP transfers; USD 1,000/EUR 1,000 threshold triggers additional detail (address or national ID number)
- Record-keeping: customer identification records, transaction records, and Travel Rule data must be retained (typically 5–7 years)
- No tipping-off prohibition applies
- No specific technical solution mandated (e.g., TRISA); VASPs must implement their own systems for information exchange and interoperability
Key Restrictions
- No specific crypto exchange / VASP licensing regime exists — no dedicated 'exchange license' or 'custody license'
- Bank of Guyana has repeatedly warned that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender and are unregulated — operating without clarity creates legal risk
- Any VASP activity may be treated as unlicensed financial services activity; criminal fraud charges have been pursued against operators of crypto-related schemes
- The Guyana Police Force / SOCU is the enforcing body, not a financial regulator — enforcement occurs through criminal law rather than administrative regulation
- Local entity incorporation is strongly implied given the criminal liability framework and enforcement posture
- Custody segregation rules are not codified for crypto assets under any specific regulatory instrument
Key Risks
- Criminal enforcement risk: There is active precedent (Coinvest / Accelerated Capital Firm case) of crypto-related operators being prosecuted for fraud and operating pyramid schemes, facing over 100 charges and billions in alleged losses
- Regulatory ambiguity: No dedicated crypto exchange license exists; operators lack a clear lawful pathway and may be deemed to be conducting unauthorized financial services
- Bank of Guyana's consistent public warnings discourage residents from using crypto and undermine legitimacy of any crypto business
- Travel Rule implementation is nascent — the 2023 amendment is recent and detailed FIU/BOG guidance for VASPs may still be developing
- Asset seizure risk: Assets of accused operators have been frozen and seized by the state as part of criminal proceedings
- Ongoing court proceedings into 2023–2024 demonstrate sustained enforcement attention
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
No Specific Crypto Licenses: There are no distinct licenses for "crypto exchanges," "crypto custody," or "crypto payment processors" in the same way there are for traditional financial institutions.
Regulator/Enforcing Body: Guyana Police Force, Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU)
Regulator Name: Bank of Guyana (BoG)
Bank of Guyana (BoG) Stance: The Bank of Guyana has generally adopted a cautious stance, issuing public advisories warning about the risks associated with virtual assets (volatility, scams, lack of consumer protection). While they acknowledge the emergence of crypto, they have not yet issued specific regulations or licensing requirements for VASP activities.
Criminal prosecution of alleged fraudsters utilizing digital assets.
Yuri Garcia-Lopez and Ateeka Ishmael were arrested, charged with multiple counts of fraud and operating a pyramid scheme.
The duo (Garcia-Lopez and Ishmael) faced over 100 fraud charges related to bilking Guyanese citizens of billions of dollars.
Assets were frozen and seized by the state as part of the criminal proceedings.
Not a direct regulatory fine, but criminal charges laid.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (as amended) (AMLCFTA). This Act, enforced by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Guyana, serves as the cornerstone for financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), which now explicitly include VASPs.
This amendment, along with others, updated the original Act to address evolving FATF standards and typically broadened the scope of "reporting entities" or "financial institutions" to include new types of services, implicitly or explicitly bringing VASPs under its ambit.
Identifying and Verifying the Beneficial Owner: Determining the natural person(s) who ultimately own or control the customer, or on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted.
Ongoing Monitoring: Continuously scrutinizing transactions made throughout the course of the relationship to ensure they are consistent with the VASP's knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds.
Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): Applying more stringent measures for higher-risk situations, such as:
Screening for Sanctions: Customers and transactions must be screened against national and international sanctions lists (e.g., UN Security Council sanctions, OFAC sanctions).
Obligation to Report: VASPs are legally obligated to report any suspicious transaction or activity to the FIU, regardless of the amount. A transaction is suspicious if the VASP has reasonable grounds to suspect that it may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing, or if it deviates from the client's usual activity or financial profile.
No Tipping-Off: VASPs and their employees are prohibited from disclosing to the customer or any third party that a report has been or will be made to the FIU (i.e., "tipping-off").
Customer Identification Records: Copies of identification documents, verification data, beneficial ownership information.
Adopted: Yes, Guyana has made legislative amendments to include Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) within its Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) framework, thereby adopting the requirements that underpin the Travel Rule.
Effective Date: The key legislative instrument is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2023 (No. 4 of 2023). This Act amended the principal AML/CFT Act 2009 (Cap. 10:11) to include virtual assets and VASPs. While the exact gazetting date marks its legal effectiveness, the practical implementation and issuance of specific guidance for VASPs are ongoing.
For transfers between VASPs, the Travel Rule generally requires the originating VASP to obtain and transmit certain originator and beneficiary information (name, account number/wallet address) for transactions with no de minimis threshold (i.e., zero threshold for VASP-to-VASP transfers of required basic information).
For transactions exceeding the equivalent of USD 1,000/EUR 1,000, the originating VASP must obtain and transmit more detailed information, including the originator's address or national identity number, and the beneficiary's address or national identity number.
Instead, VASPs are required to:
Maintain records of all virtual asset transfers and associated Travel Rule data for a specified period (typically 5-7 years).
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.
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). 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.
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.
Conditional — a centralized exchange may operate in Guyana only as an AML/CFT-registered VASP (under the 2023 amendment to the AML/CFT Act) with FIU supervision and Travel Rule compliance, but no dedicated exchange or custody license exists, the Bank of Guyana has publicly warned against crypto, and criminal enforcement precedent (Coinvest case) creates substantial legal risk for unregulated operations.
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- What exchange / VASP license applies?
- What custody segregation rules apply to user assets?
- What market-conduct and listing rules apply?
- What travel-rule obligations apply on withdrawals?