← Regulations / Papua New Guinea / Operating Models / Custodial SaaS

Custodial wallet / SaaS in Papua New Guinea

Hosted wallet provider that holds keys on behalf of end users, often white-labeled to businesses (custody as a service).

Conditional AI-Generated · Unreviewed

Custodial SaaS is conditionally permitted in Papua New Guinea 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

  • No specific VASP/custody licensing regime exists yet — AML obligations under the AML/CTF Act 2015 would apply to any entity providing virtual asset services, including custodial wallets (via FATF interpretation).
  • Customer identification and verification (KYC) at onboarding.
  • Ongoing customer due diligence.
  • Transaction monitoring for suspicious activity.
  • Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) to FASU (the FIU).
  • Designated person/entity screening against UN Consolidated Sanctions List at onboarding and ongoing.
  • Asset freezing obligations — must immediately freeze assets of designated persons and report to FASU.
  • Prohibition on dealing with or making funds available to designated persons/entities.
  • Travel Rule compliance for VA transfers (information sharing between VASPs).
  • Implementation of robust risk-based AML/CTF programs.
  • FASU is the AML/CTF regulator and receives STRs and disseminates sanctions information.

Key Restrictions

  • No specific crypto custody licensing framework exists — no dedicated qualified-custodian regime for digital assets.
  • Cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in PNG per BPNG 2021 public warning.
  • No segregation, insurance, or proof-of-reserves rules specifically exist for digital asset custody.
  • Traditional trust/financial services licenses are not designed for digital assets and may not be applicable.
  • Foreign entities likely to require local incorporation and physical presence for any financial licensing pathway.
  • Any fiat-to-crypto or payment-related activity may additionally trigger National Payment Systems Act 2013 licensing.

Key Risks

  • Regulatory vacuum — no clear licensing pathway means operating in a grey area; future regulation could impose costly retroactive requirements.
  • BPNG has publicly warned against cryptocurrency risks (volatility, scams, illicit use) and stated crypto is not legal tender — signaling a hostile stance.
  • No asset segregation, insurance, or proof-of-reserves rules for custodial wallets creates consumer/institutional liability risk.
  • IF FATF-style VASP regulation is adopted, capital requirements and fit-and-proper tests for directors/management will apply; unprepared operators may be excluded.
  • Reputational and correspondent-banking risk — PNG financial institutions rely on US/EU correspondent relationships, exposing operators to OFAC/EU sanctions compliance expectations.
  • Uncertainty around whether the SaaS operator or the white-label client bears primary AML/reporting obligations.

Evidence

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

licensing 60% confidence

Bank of Papua New Guinea (BPNG): BPNG has previously issued warnings to the public regarding the risks associated with cryptocurrencies, including volatility, lack of consumer protection, and potential use for illicit activities. These warnings do not constitute a regulatory framework but indicate a cautious approach.

licensing 60% confidence

Custody Providers: Similarly, no specific license for crypto custody. Traditional trust or financial services licenses might be considered, but these are not designed for digital assets.

licensing 60% confidence

Currently, neither a specific registration nor a licensing regime exists for VASPs.

licensing 60% confidence

Anticipated Future: Based on FATF recommendations, it is highly probable that PNG will eventually adopt a licensing regime for VASPs. The FATF standards recommend that VASPs be licensed or registered, and subject to effective systems for monitoring and ensuring compliance with AML/CTF requirements. Licensing typically implies a more rigorous pre-approval process and ongoing supervision than simple registration.

licensing 60% confidence

Capital Requirements: Financial institutions, including future VASPs, are typically required to maintain a certain level of minimum paid-up capital to demonstrate financial stability and ability to absorb losses. The exact amount would be determined by BPNG based on the scope and risk of services offered.

licensing 60% confidence

AML/KYC (Anti-Money Laundering / Know Your Customer): This is the most certain requirement. Future regulations will mandate VASPs to:

licensing 60% confidence

Identify and verify customers (KYC).

licensing 60% confidence

Conduct ongoing customer due diligence.

licensing 60% confidence

Monitor transactions for suspicious activity.

licensing 60% confidence

Report suspicious transactions to FASU.

licensing 60% confidence

Implement robust risk-based AML/CTF programs.

licensing 60% confidence

Adhere to the "travel rule" for VA transfers, requiring information sharing between VASPs.

licensing 60% confidence

Local Presence: For foreign entities, a local physical presence, a local board of directors, or a local registered company structure is often a requirement for financial licenses.

licensing 60% confidence

Management & Governance: Fit and proper tests for directors and senior management, robust governance structures, internal controls, and risk management frameworks (including cybersecurity).

licensing 60% confidence

Consumer Protection: Rules around disclosures, clear terms of service, dispute resolution mechanisms, and safeguarding of client assets.

licensing 60% confidence

Technology & Security: Requirements for secure systems, data protection, and measures against cyber threats.

aml 60% confidence

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Act 2015 (AML/CTF Act 2015): This Act provides the legal basis for identifying, freezing, and confiscating assets related to money laundering and terrorist financing. It obligates financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) to implement AML/CTF measures. While it pre-dates specific crypto regulation, its broad definitions and principles are applied to virtual asset activities where deemed appropriate by regulators.

aml 60% confidence

Financial Analysis and Supervision Unit (FASU): As the FIU, FASU issues guidance, receives suspicious transaction reports (STRs), and disseminates information regarding designated persons and entities subject to sanctions.

aml 60% confidence

Designated Person/Entity Screening: VASPs must screen their customers (both at onboarding and on an ongoing basis) against the UN Consolidated Sanctions List, which includes individuals and entities designated under various UN sanctions regimes (e.g., terrorism, proliferation, specific country regimes).

aml 60% confidence

Asset Freezing: If a VASP identifies that it holds assets (including virtual assets) belonging to a designated person or entity, it must immediately freeze those assets and report the match to FASU.

aml 60% confidence

Prohibition on Dealing: VASPs are prohibited from making funds or economic resources available to, or for the benefit of, designated persons or entities.

aml 60% confidence

Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR): Any transaction involving designated persons, or transactions suspected of being related to money laundering or terrorist financing, must be reported to FASU.

aml 60% confidence

Legal Basis: The AML/CTF Act 2015 mandates compliance with international obligations, including UN sanctions. FASU, under this Act, is responsible for disseminating UN sanctions lists to reporting entities and overseeing compliance.

enforcement 60% confidence

Entity Targeted: General public, financial institutions, individuals considering or engaging with cryptocurrencies. Violation Type (Implied): Engaging in unauthorized financial activities; lack of consumer protection for speculative investments; potential for financial crime. Penalty Amount: N/A (This was a public warning, not an enforcement action with a specific penalty).

enforcement 60% confidence

Outcome: The BPNG clarified that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender in PNG. They highlighted risks such as volatility, lack of regulation, potential for scams, and use in illicit activities. The statement advised the public to exercise caution and warned that losses would not be protected by PNG laws. It also indicated the BPNG's intention to develop appropriate regulations for digital assets in the future. This warning has generally underpinned the BPNG's ongoing stance.

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 — custodial wallet/SaaS operation is legally ambiguous in Papua New Guinea due to the absence of a dedicated VASP or custody licensing regime, but AML/CTF obligations under the AML/CTF Act 2015 apply via FATF standards, and operators likely need local incorporation; BPNG has publicly warned against crypto risks and intends to introduce regulation, creating significant uncertainty.

Questions this verdict aims to answer

  • What custody license / qualified-custodian status applies?
  • What segregation, insurance, and proof-of-reserves rules apply?
  • What AML obligations attach to the SaaS vs the white-label client?