← Regulations / Libya / Operating Models / On-shore VASP

On-shore VASP in Libya

Locally-incorporated VASP that operates under full local jurisdiction, holding all required licenses and registrations.

Not permitted AI-Generated · Unreviewed

On-shore VASP is not permitted in Libya.

Verdict Details

Permitted
no
Local entity required
Yes
Licensing burden
High
Last updated
2026-07-13

AML Obligations

  • Customer Due Diligence (CDD) — obliged entities must identify and verify individual customers (name, address, DOB, nationality, official ID) and legal entities (name, legal form, proof of existence, senior management) per Law No. 1 of 2021.
  • Beneficial Ownership identification — must identify UBOs owning/controlling 25% or more of shares/voting rights in legal entity customers.
  • Ongoing transaction monitoring — scrutiny of transactions to ensure consistency with customer risk profile throughout the business relationship.
  • Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) required for PEPs, high-risk jurisdictions, complex/unusual large transactions, and transactions involving new technologies or products that favor anonymity.
  • Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) — any transaction, attempted transaction, or activity raising suspicion of ML/TF must be reported promptly to the Libyan Financial Intelligence Unit (LFIU).
  • Record-keeping — maintain CDD documents, transaction records (including blockchain addresses), STR copies, and account correspondence for prescribed periods.
  • Internal controls — obliged entities must implement internal policies, procedures, and controls for identifying and reporting suspicious activities.
  • No tipping-off — prohibitions on informing customers that an STR has been submitted or that an investigation is underway.

Key Restrictions

  • General prohibition: The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) Circular No. 2 of 2018 explicitly banned dealing in virtual currencies by all individuals and financial institutions within Libya.
  • All virtual currencies are treated with suspicion — no distinction is made between utility tokens, security tokens, or other crypto asset types.
  • Commercial banks and other financial institutions are prohibited from facilitating any cryptocurrency transactions.
  • No licensing framework exists for VASPs — the CBL's guidance effectively makes it unfeasible to obtain regulatory authorization for a VASP.
  • Any engagement with virtual assets carries significant legal and financial risks within Libya and falls outside the formal financial system.

Key Risks

  • Complete prohibition risk: Operating an on-shore VASP is illegal under CBL Circular No. 2 of 2018; any such activity would expose the operator to legal penalties under Libyan AML/CFT laws.
  • Enforcement opacity: Limited transparency in enforcement actions; few English-language records of prosecutions, creating uncertainty about penalty severity.
  • Technical capacity gaps: Regulators and law enforcement may lack specialized capacity to track crypto-related offenses, but this does not reduce legal risk.
  • Regulatory ambiguity: While crypto is banned, it is unclear whether mining or trading is expressly criminalized under penal law — the ban creates a regulatory gray area rather than clear criminal prohibition.
  • Tax exposure: Any income from crypto activities would be illegal and conducted outside the formal system, with no clear mechanism for reporting or resolution.
  • Political instability: Divided governance (competing institutions) may complicate any future regulatory development or licensing process.

Evidence

This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).

licensing 40% confidence

Law No. 1 of 2021 on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (Amending and replacing earlier laws like Law No. 2 of 2005).

licensing 40% confidence

This law establishes the general framework for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, defining predicate offenses, specifying obligations for financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), and outlining penalties. While it does not specifically mention "virtual assets" or "VASPs," its general provisions on financial transactions and illicit funds would apply to any entity processing value.

licensing 40% confidence

Identification and Verification:

licensing 40% confidence

For Individuals: Obtaining and verifying name, permanent address, date of birth, nationality, and official identification documents (e.g., national ID, passport).

licensing 40% confidence

For Legal Entities/Arrangements: Obtaining and verifying name, legal form, proof of existence, powers that regulate and bind the entity, and the names of relevant persons having a senior management position.

licensing 40% confidence

Beneficial Ownership: Identifying and verifying the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of customers who are legal entities or arrangements, typically individuals who own or control 25% or more of the entity's shares or voting rights, or otherwise exercise control through other means.

licensing 40% confidence

Purpose and Nature of Business Relationship: Understanding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.

licensing 40% confidence

Ongoing Monitoring: Conducting 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 obliged entity’s knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile.

licensing 40% confidence

Risk-Based Approach: Applying CDD measures based on a risk assessment of the customer, business relationship, or transaction. Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) would be required for higher-risk situations, such as:

licensing 40% confidence

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).

licensing 40% confidence

Customers from or in high-risk jurisdictions.

licensing 40% confidence

Complex, unusually large transactions, or unusual patterns of transactions that have no apparent economic or visible lawful purpose.

licensing 40% confidence

Transactions involving new technologies or products that favor anonymity.

licensing 40% confidence

VASPs, if regulated, would be obliged to report any suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

licensing 40% confidence

Reporting Obligation: Any transaction, attempted transaction, or activity that raises suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing must be reported promptly.

licensing 40% confidence

No Tipping-Off: Prohibitions on "tipping off" the customer or any third party that an STR has been made or that a money laundering/terrorist financing investigation is underway.

licensing 40% confidence

Internal Controls: Implementation of internal policies, procedures, and controls for identifying and reporting suspicious activities.

licensing 40% confidence

Customer Due Diligence Records: All documents and information obtained during the CDD process (identification documents, beneficial ownership information).

licensing 40% confidence

Transaction Records: Records of all transactions, including amounts, currencies, dates, and parties involved. This would be particularly critical for virtual asset transactions, including blockchain addresses.

licensing 40% confidence

STRs: Copies of all suspicious transaction reports submitted.

licensing 40% confidence

Account Files and Business Correspondence: Relevant documentation related to customer accounts and business relationships.

licensing 40% confidence

Central Bank of Libya (CBL):

licensing 40% confidence

Libyan Financial Intelligence Unit (LFIU):

aml 60% confidence

General Prohibition: All virtual currencies are generally subject to the same prohibitory or highly restrictive guidance issued by the CBL. The CBL does not distinguish based on the underlying nature or rights conferred by the token; rather, it focuses on the medium of exchange itself being unregulated and risky.

aml 60% confidence

All cryptocurrencies are treated with suspicion: Given the overarching restrictive stance, the concept of differentiating between utility tokens, security tokens, or other categories as distinct "securities" does not apply in Libya's current regulatory framework.

aml 60% confidence

CBL Warnings: The Central Bank of Libya has consistently issued strong warnings to financial institutions and the public against dealing with virtual currencies. These warnings constitute the primary enforcement mechanism, deterring widespread adoption and use.

aml 60% confidence

Content: This is the most significant directive. It explicitly warned against dealing in virtual currencies due to the absence of a regulatory framework, high risks, and potential for fraud, money laundering, and terrorism financing. It effectively banned commercial banks and other financial institutions from processing transactions related to cryptocurrencies.

aml 60% confidence

Facilitation of money laundering and terrorism financing due to perceived anonymity and cross-border nature.

aml 60% confidence

None Exist: There are no established registration or exemption requirements for token issuers in Libya. This is primarily because the issuance or facilitation of trading such tokens is not a recognized or permitted activity under current regulations. The CBL's guidance effectively makes it unfeasible or illegal for entities to operate in this space.

aml 60% confidence

Lack of Legal Basis: Without a legal framework that recognizes and regulates crypto assets, there is no mechanism for issuers to seek registration or exemptions.

aml 60% confidence

No Specific Rules: Similarly, there are no specific rules governing the secondary trading of cryptocurrency tokens. Any attempt to engage in such trading would fall under the general prohibitions or warnings issued by the CBL regarding cryptocurrency transactions.

aml 60% confidence

Unregulated and Discouraged: The CBL has consistently warned against engaging in any form of dealing, exchanging, or trading of virtual currencies.

enforcement 60% confidence

Entity Targeted: All individuals and financial institutions within Libya (general ban, not a specific entity). Violation Type: Dealing in, trading, or possessing cryptocurrencies. Penalty Amount: Not applicable to the ban itself, but potential penalties under Libyan law for illegal financial activities could include fines and imprisonment.

enforcement 60% confidence

Date: The initial ban was issued in 2018, and it has been reaffirmed multiple times since. There is no indication it has been lifted in the last three years.

tax 60% confidence

The fundamental principle is that cryptocurrency is banned in Libya. This overrides any discussion of specific tax treatments.

tax 60% confidence

Any engagement with virtual assets carries significant legal and financial risks within Libya.

tax 74% confidence

Libya has no specific tax laws, rates, or reporting requirements tailored to cryptocurrency, but crypto mining and trading are not expressly criminalized in Libyan law; instead, the Central Bank of Libya has banned cryptocurrency transactions, creating a regulatory gray area rather than clear blanket illegality.

Verdict Attribution

Source:
AI-Generated · Unreviewed
AI synthesized:
2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
Last updated:
2026-07-13
Confidence:
high

This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.

Not permitted — the Central Bank of Libya has issued a general prohibition (Circular No. 2 of 2018) against dealing in virtual currencies by all individuals and financial institutions, no VASP licensing framework exists, and cryptocurrency activities remain illegal in Libya; AML/CFT obligations under Law No. 1 of 2021 would theoretically apply if VASPs were legalized, but no lawful on-shore VASP can currently operate.

Questions this verdict aims to answer

  • What license(s) are required to operate locally?
  • What capital, governance, and reporting obligations apply?
  • What is the application process and timeline?