← Regulations / Puerto Rico / Operating Models / Self-custodial wallet

Self-custodial wallet / non-custodial software in Puerto Rico

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 Puerto Rico with a local entity, subject to AML obligations and low licensing burden.

Verdict Details

Permitted
conditional
Local entity required
Yes
Licensing burden
Low
Last updated
2026-07-13

AML Obligations

  • No AML obligations attach solely for publishing self-custodial wallet software, because the publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds or private keys, and thus does not meet the definition of a money transmitter under FinCEN guidance (FIN-2013-G001; FIN-2019-G001)
  • If the publisher also provides ancillary services that involve custody, transmission, or exchange of virtual currency (e.g., integrated fiat on-ramp, swap functionality executed by the publisher), it would trigger MSB classification and the full suite of BSA/AML obligations: designate an AML compliance officer, implement CIP procedures, conduct ongoing monitoring, file SARs (threshold $5,000), and register with FinCEN as an MSB
  • Under PR Money Services Business Act (Act 17-2016), a licensed money transmitter must also comply with Puerto Rico-specific AML program requirements including independent audits, transaction monitoring, and OFAC sanctions screening

Key Restrictions

  • The software publisher must not hold, control, or have access to user private keys or funds — doing so would convert the model to a custodial VASP triggering full MTL licensing
  • If the wallet software integrates features where the publisher facilitates exchange or transmission of virtual currency (e.g., built-in token swaps routed through the publisher's infrastructure), the publisher may be deemed a money transmitter under FinCEN guidance and PR Act 17-2016
  • Tokens classified as securities under the Puerto Rico Uniform Securities Act (Law 60-2020) that are integrated into or promoted through the wallet software could trigger securities registration requirements for the publisher

Key Risks

  • Regulatory boundary risk: FinCEN and OCIF may take a broader view of what constitutes 'money transmission' in wallet software (e.g., hosted swap APIs, transaction routing middleware), potentially reclassifying non-custodial publishers as MSBs
  • Securities law exposure if the wallet promotes, features, or facilitates transactions in tokens that meet the Howey Test criteria under PR securities law (Law 60-2020)
  • Lack of clear Puerto Rico-specific guidance on non-custodial software publishers means regulatory interpretation could shift
  • Enforcement precedent risk: U.S. federal actions (e.g., against Tornado Cash, Consensys/SEC) signal increasing scrutiny of wallet software that exercises any control over user transactions

Evidence

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

aml 60% confidence

Guidance on Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies (FIN-2013-G001, March 18, 2013): This initial guidance clarified that exchangers and administrators of virtual currency are "money transmitters" under the BSA.

aml 60% confidence

Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Certain Business Models Involving Convertible Virtual Currencies (FIN-2019-G001, May 9, 2019): This updated guidance broadened the scope, clarifying that various VASP models (e.g., peer-to-peer exchangers, DApps, anonymity-enhanced coin providers) may also be MSBs.

enforcement 60% confidence

Reasoning: When an exchange facilitates the exchange of fiat currency for virtual assets, or vice-versa, it is performing a money transmission service by accepting funds (fiat or virtual assets) from one party and making them available to another, or transmitting funds on behalf of consumers.

aml 60% confidence

Puerto Rico Money Services Business Act (Act No. 17-2016): This act regulates money services businesses in Puerto Rico, including licensing, examination, and enforcement. VASPs operating as money transmitters in Puerto Rico are typically required to obtain a license under this Act and comply with its provisions, which include AML program requirements.

enforcement 60% confidence

Comprehensive AML Program: Licensed entities must establish and maintain a robust Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) program. This includes:

aml 60% confidence

FinCEN Regulations (31 CFR Chapter X): FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, issues regulations implementing the BSA.

aml 60% confidence

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.): This is the foundational AML legislation in the U.S. It requires financial institutions (including MSBs/VASPs) to keep records and file reports on certain financial transactions.

licensing 60% confidence

Puerto Rico Uniform Securities Act (Law No. 60-2020), Article 1.102(28): Defines "security" to include, among other things, "investment contract." This broad definition allows OCIF to apply the Howey Test framework to novel instruments like cryptocurrency tokens.

licensing 20% confidence

Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury (PRDT): Involved in tax compliance and IRS guideline implementation

licensing 20% confidence

Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF): Responsible for licensing and regulating money services businesses (MSBs) and digital asset custody services

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 pure self-custodial (non-custodial) wallet software in Puerto Rico is not itself a VASP/MSB and faces no licensing or AML obligations, provided it never holds, controls, or has access to user private keys or funds; however, any features that involve transmitting or exchanging virtual currency on behalf of users (e.g., integrated swap services, fiat on-ramps) would trigger MTL licensing, full BSA/AML compliance, and OCIF supervision.

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?