Systematic internalization affects Sellers of financial instruments which act outside of marketplaces and represents one of the four variants of proprietary trading that is subject to authorization. But can systematic internalization be applicable to trades of crypto assets as well?
The German Banking Act as well as the current version of the draft legislation for the MiCA regulation both use and define the term crypto asset. But is the term used congruently or are there relevant differences?
Since the catalogue of financial instruments in the German Banking Act was expanded by the introduction of crypto assets, the question arises if blockchain-based e-money units qualify as crypto assets at the same time. If so, e-money tokens would not only be payment units but also financial instruments and therefore could trigger authorization obligations according to the German Banking Act.
The fifth AML Directive was supposed to ensure that certain central service providers of the crypto sector comply with AML obligations. Since Germany exceeded the requirements of the amending directive with the transposition into national law, the question remains which crypto businesses are subject to the German Money Laundering Act as of 2020.
Last week, the German Parliament finally decided on how to regulate crypto custodians as of 2020. In the first part of our blog series “Let´s build a Crypto Custodian” we take a look at the requirements that managing directors of crypto custody service providers will have to fulfil in order to be accepted by BaFin.
With the Crypto Custodian Service, the German legislator plans to introduce a completely new fiancial service which requires service providers to obtain a BaFin licence. Additionally, Crypto Assets shall in future explicitely qualify as financial instruments. But what does this mean for blockchain fintechs?