Panama -- Enforcement Actions Regulatory Overview

Panama's cryptocurrency regulatory landscape is still developing, and as such, publicly disclosed, specific enforcement actions with all the detailed parameters you've requested (regulator, entity, violation type, penalty amount, date, outcome, and source URLs) are exceptionally rare or non-existent in public records for the last three years (mid-2021 to mid-2024).

Several factors contribute to this:

1. Evolving Regulatory Framework: Panama has been discussing comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation, most notably with Bill 697, which was partially vetoed in 2022. This lack of a clear, dedicated crypto legal framework means that enforcement would likely fall under existing general financial laws (e.g., anti-money laundering, fraud), making it harder to categorize specifically as "crypto enforcement."
2. Focus on AML/CFT: Panama was on the FATF grey list until October 2023, which heavily emphasized improving its Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. While this pressure indirectly affects crypto (as it's a known vector for financial crime), direct, high-profile enforcement actions against crypto entities with specific fines haven't been widely publicized as a result.
3. Publicity Practices: Panamanian financial regulators (like the Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá - SBP, or Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores - SMV, or the Unidad de Análisis Financiero - UAF) may not always publicize enforcement actions with the same level of detail as regulators in jurisdictions like the United States or Europe. Criminal investigations would fall under the Ministerio Público (Public Ministry), and details are often restricted during ongoing proceedings.

While there haven't been public "enforcement actions" with specified penalties against crypto entities in Panama during this period, regulators have issued warnings and clarified their stance:

• Regulator Name: Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) - Banking Superintendent of Panama
• Entity Targeted: Financial institutions under its supervision, and the general public.
• Violation Type (Implied): Operating without proper licensing for financial services involving crypto, and general financial risk to consumers.
• Penalty Amount: Not applicable (these are warnings, not direct fines).
• Date: Ongoing, but prominent warnings were issued in 2022 and 2023.
• Outcome: Increased awareness among regulated entities and the public about the risks and the SBP's stance that crypto activities are not regulated by them and do not carry deposit insurance.

Contextual Information & General Statements (No Direct Enforcement Actions with Fines):

1. SBP Circulars and Statements on Crypto Risks:

   • The SBP has repeatedly issued statements clarifying that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in Panama, are not regulated by the SBP, and entities under its supervision (banks) should exercise extreme caution and assess risks related to crypto assets. They have warned against financial institutions engaging in crypto activities without proper risk management and adherence to existing AML/CFT regulations.
   • Source (Example of SBP's position from 2022, reflective of current stance):
     • SBP Comunicado (Press Release) - 2022: "La Superintendencia de Bancos reitera la no validez de las criptomonedas como medio de pago o moneda de curso legal y la no regulación y supervisión sobre ellas." (The Superintendency of Banks reiterates the invalidity of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment or legal tender and the lack of regulation and supervision over them.)
     • While a direct URL for a specific enforcement action is not available, you can find the SBP's general warnings and position on their official website under press releases or communiqués:
       • Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá Official Website (Navigate to "Comunicados" or "Prensa" for recent statements on crypto risks, often in the context of the failed Bill 697).

2. Failed Cryptocurrency Law (Bill 697):

   • In 2022, Panama's National Assembly approved Bill 697, which aimed to regulate crypto assets. However, President Laurentino Cortizo partially vetoed it, citing concerns about its AML/CFT provisions and the need for more robust regulation under the existing framework. This highlights the government's struggle to establish a clear regulatory path, which precedes significant enforcement.
   • Source:
     • Reuters Article on Veto of Crypto Bill
     • Bloomberg Article on Panama's Crypto Bill

Conclusion:

Based on publicly available information for the last three years, there are no significant, specific cryptocurrency enforcement actions in Panama that match all the detailed criteria of regulator, named entity, specific violation type, publicly declared penalty amount, date, and outcome with direct source URLs.

The landscape is characterized by:

• Regulatory warnings about the risks and unregulated nature of crypto.
• An attempt to legislate that faced a partial veto.
• An underlying focus on strengthening general AML/CFT frameworks (partially due to FATF pressure).

It is possible that smaller-scale AML-related actions involving crypto have occurred but were not publicly detailed, or that criminal investigations are ongoing without public disclosure of specifics. However, for "significant" and "publicly available" enforcement actions as requested, the record is currently blank.