Crypto-funded debit card in Suriname

Neither a specific licensing nor a specific registration regime for VASPs exists.

There are no specific licenses or permits issued by the CBS or any other Surinamese authority explicitly for operating a crypto exchange, providing crypto custody, or processing crypto payments as distinct from traditional financial services.

No specific crypto-related licenses are required because the legal framework for virtual assets is currently absent.

However, this does not imply a "free pass." If an entity's operations begin to resemble traditional financial services (e.g., taking deposits, issuing financial instruments, providing lending services that involve fiat currency or carry financial risk) it could potentially fall under existing financial services laws and require traditional banking, money transfer, or investment licenses from the CBS. This would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the CBS.

AML/KYC (Anti-Money Laundering/Know Your Customer):

Mandatory. Even without a specific crypto law, Suriname, as a member of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) and generally following FATF Recommendations, has robust AML/CFT legislation.

Any entity dealing with significant financial transactions, including those involving virtual assets that can be converted to fiat or used for value transfer, would be expected to comply with Suriname's AML/CFT laws.

Relevant Legislation: Suriname's primary AML/CFT legislation includes the "Wet identificatie bij dienstverlening ter voorkoming van witwassen en financiering van terrorisme" (Act on Identification when Providing Services to Prevent Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) and related decrees. This law requires designated institutions (banks, money transmitters, casinos, trust companies, etc.) to:

Evidence fact sr.licensing.constit-customer-due-diligence-cddkyc not found (may have been renamed).

Monitor transactions for suspicious activity.

Report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Suriname.

Maintain proper records.

While VASPs are not explicitly listed in older versions of this law, the international trend is for them to be treated as financial institutions or designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) for AML purposes. Any VASP operating in Suriname would be under pressure to implement strong AML/CFT controls.

If an operation were deemed to fall under traditional financial licensing, then specific capital requirements would apply based on the type of traditional license (e.g., banking license, money transmitter license).

Not a specific requirement for a crypto license, as none exists.

However, for AML/CFT compliance and general business operations targeting Surinamese residents, having a registered local entity and a physical presence (or at least a registered agent) would be prudent and often necessary for opening bank accounts and complying with local tax laws.

None specifically for crypto custody. There is no specific licensing regime in Suriname for companies providing cryptocurrency or digital asset custody services.

FATF Mutual Evaluation Report of Suriname (2020): https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/fatf-gafi/en/countries-regions/s-t/suriname/documents/mer-suriname-2020.html (Look specifically at ratings for R.15 and findings related to VASPs).

No specific rules. Given the absence of a dedicated regulatory framework for crypto custodians, there are no explicit mandates or guidelines requiring the segregation of client digital assets from the custodian's own assets.

VASP Requirements: VASPs operating in or from Suriname, or dealing with Surinamese customers, must screen all their customers (KYC/CDD) and transactions against the UN sanctions lists. If a match is found, assets must be frozen, and a report made to the FIU-S.

VASP Requirements: VASPs must screen customers and transactions against OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List and other sanctions lists. They should also be aware of OFAC's guidance specifically addressing virtual currency.

No Explicit Classification: Suriname does not have specific legislation classifying stablecoins.

E-money/Payment Tokens: If a stablecoin functions purely as a medium of exchange, maintains a stable value, and is redeemable at par, it might conceptually fall under the purview of e-money regulations if the existing laws were broadly interpreted. However, Suriname's current e-money framework (if any exists) is unlikely to explicitly cover distributed ledger technology (DLT) based assets.

No Specific Licensing: There is no specific licensing regime for stablecoin issuers in Suriname.

General Financial Licensing (Hypothetical): If a stablecoin issuer were deemed to be performing activities that fall under existing financial services (e.g., banking, payment services, securities brokerage), they would theoretically need to obtain the relevant licenses under laws like the Wet Toezicht Bank- en Kredietwezen 2011 (Banking and Credit Supervision Act 2011) or payment services regulations. However, stablecoin issuance itself is not a defined licensed activity.

Developing Regulatory Framework: Suriname is still in the early stages of developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for virtual assets and cryptocurrencies. The Centrale Bank van Suriname (CBvS) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) are the primary financial regulators, but their focus has largely been on issuing warnings, conducting risk assessments, and working towards future legislation, rather than active enforcement against specific entities with public penalties.

Focus on Warnings and Risk Advisory: The Centrale Bank van Suriname (CBvS) has, on multiple occasions, issued warnings to the public about the risks associated with investing in or using cryptocurrencies, emphasizing their volatile nature, lack of legal tender status, and potential for fraud and money laundering. These are advisories, not enforcement actions against specific entities.

Lack of Publicly Disclosed Cases: Significant enforcement actions, especially those involving penalties and specific outcomes, are typically publicized by financial authorities to deter future violations. The absence of such public disclosures from the CBvS, the FIU, or major news outlets indicates that such actions have not occurred or have not been made public within the specified timeframe.