← Regulations / Madagascar / Operating Models / Self-custodial wallet

Self-custodial wallet / non-custodial software in Madagascar

Publisher of software where users hold their own private keys. The publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds.

Conditional AI-Generated · Unreviewed

Self-custodial wallet is conditionally permitted in Madagascar without local incorporation, subject to AML obligations and low licensing burden.

Verdict Details

Permitted
conditional
Local entity required
No
Licensing burden
Low
Last updated
2026-07-13

AML Obligations

  • No explicit AML obligations attach to mere software publishing in Madagascar, as the publisher never holds or controls user funds keys.
  • However, if the software publisher were construed as a 'reporting entity' under Loi n° 2018-043 (the general AML/CFT law), broad obligations could apply: customer identification and verification (national ID, passport, legal entity docs), beneficial ownership identification, purpose and intended nature of business relationship, ongoing transaction monitoring on a risk-sensitive basis.
  • Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) required for PEPs, high-risk jurisdictions, complex/unusually large transactions, and transactions involving new technologies or anonymity.
  • Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) must be filed with the FIU (SAMIFIN/CRF) promptly upon suspicion, with no tipping-off prohibition.
  • Record-keeping: All CDD, transaction, and business correspondence records for at least five years after the relationship ends or transaction date.

Key Restrictions

  • No specific crypto or VASP regulatory framework exists — operating in a complete legal vacuum with no official recognition by the Banque Centrale de Madagascar (BCM).
  • BCM has publicly warned (2018 communiqué) that it does not recognize, regulate, or supervise cryptocurrencies, creating uncertainty around legality of software tools enabling crypto use.
  • Cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in Madagascar; no official recognition or supervision of their underlying technologies.
  • The software publisher must not engage in any activity that could be construed as financial intermediation, custody, exchange, or payment processing — pure software distribution only.

Key Risks

  • High regulatory risk: complete absence of clear rules means legality is uncertain — sudden regulatory changes or retroactive enforcement could occur.
  • Ambiguous application of general AML/CFT laws (Loi n° 2018-043) — broad definitions could be interpreted to capture non-custodial wallet publishers as 'reporting entities' facilitating financial transfers.
  • No consumer protection framework exists for crypto users — no dispute resolution, no segregation mandates, no insurance requirements.
  • BCM hostile stance and public warnings (2018) suggest official discouragement of crypto-related activities; reputational / PR risk for local operations.
  • FATF Recommendation 15 implementation pressure may bring sudden VASP regulation that captures non-custodial wallet publishers without transition period.

Evidence

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

licensing 60% confidence

Such activities are currently unrestricted but carry significant legal and operational risks due to the absence of specific protections or guidelines.

licensing 60% confidence

Such activities may be implicitly restricted or discouraged under broader financial regulations, or even face outright prohibitions from the Central Bank.

licensing 60% confidence

No Specific Crypto Licensing Regime: There is no specific law or regulation mandating licenses for cryptocurrency exchanges, custody providers, or virtual asset payment processors in Madagascar, unlike jurisdictions that have implemented frameworks like MiCA (EU), MAS (Singapore), or VARA (Dubai).

licensing 60% confidence

Central Bank Caution/Warnings: The Banque Centrale de Madagascar (BCM) – the country's central bank and primary financial regulator – has historically maintained a cautious, if not prohibitive, stance towards cryptocurrencies. They have likely issued public warnings about the risks associated with virtual assets, including price volatility, lack of consumer protection, and potential for illicit finance. These warnings often imply that crypto is not recognized as legal tender and regulated financial institutions should not facilitate their use.

licensing 60% confidence

AML/CFT Implications: While there are no crypto-specific AML/CFT regulations, Madagascar, as a member of the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG) and subject to FATF recommendations, has general anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) laws. The Cellule de Renseignement Financier (CRF) is Madagascar's Financial Intelligence Unit.

licensing 60% confidence

In the absence of specific VASP regulations, these general AML/CFT laws could be interpreted to apply to entities dealing with virtual assets, especially if they interact with the traditional financial system. However, without specific guidance, the application remains ambiguous.

licensing 60% confidence

FATF Recommendation 15 specifically calls for countries to regulate and supervise VASPs for AML/CFT purposes. Madagascar is expected to implement these recommendations, which could lead to future regulations.

licensing 60% confidence

Registration vs. Licensing Regime: Currently, neither a dedicated registration nor a licensing regime for VASPs exists in Madagascar.

aml 60% confidence

Loi n° 2018-043 du 19 décembre 2018 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme (Law No. 2018-043 of December 19, 2018, on the Fight against Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism).

aml 60% confidence

While it may not explicitly name "Virtual Asset Service Providers," the broad definitions within such laws typically encompass entities that facilitate financial transfers, exchanges, or safekeeping of value, which can include virtual assets. VASPs are often implicitly or explicitly considered reporting entities under the "other financial institutions" or "designated non-financial businesses and professions" categories, especially regarding FATF Recommendation 15.

aml 60% confidence

Obligation to Report: VASPs, as reporting entities, are legally obligated to report any suspicious transactions or activities to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), regardless of the amount involved. This includes transactions that are unusual, lack clear economic rationale, or appear to be connected to money laundering or terrorist financing.

aml 60% confidence

Identification and Verification:

aml 60% confidence

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, including, where necessary, the source of funds.

aml 60% confidence

Enhanced CDD (EDD): Required for higher-risk situations, such as:

aml 60% confidence

Duration: Records must typically be kept for at least five (5) years after the business relationship has ended or after the date of an occasional transaction.

custody 40% confidence

Not Legal Tender: Cryptocurrencies are not recognized as legal tender in Madagascar.

custody 40% confidence

No Official Recognition or Supervision: The BCM explicitly stated that it does not recognize, regulate, or supervise cryptocurrencies or their underlying technologies.

custody 40% confidence

High Risk: The BCM highlighted the risks associated with cryptocurrencies, including price volatility, lack of consumer protection, potential for fraud, and use in illicit activities.

custody 40% confidence

No Specific Framework: There is no specific legal or regulatory framework governing the issuance, trading, or custody of cryptocurrencies in Madagascar.

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 publisher of self-custodial wallet software can operate in Madagascar in a legal vacuum (no specific licensing regime), but faces material ambiguity risk: general AML/CFT laws could be interpreted to apply, the BCM has publicly warned against crypto activity, and there is zero regulatory recognition or consumer protection framework for non-custodial tools.

Questions this verdict aims to answer

  • Does software publishing trigger VASP / MSB classification?
  • Do AML obligations attach when no custody exists?
  • What disclosure or consumer-protection rules apply?