今天內政部 (DIA) 發布了針對虛擬資產服務提供者 (VASP) 的《2009 年反洗錢和打擊資助恐怖主義 (AML/CFT) 法案》第二階段修訂法規指南。
該指南應為 VASP 提供有用的指導，幫助其了解如何處理虛擬資產、其準貨幣處理方式以及涉及虛擬資產的轉讓的性質。它也明確了虛擬資產被納入電匯制度的隱含後果——定義的短暫改變實際上代表了對 VASP 可能最實質的影響，但可能並非所有人都從法規中理解。
我們之前已經更廣泛地討論了修訂條例，特別是第二階段的修訂。此次發布是繼 AML/CFT 監管機構聯合以及 DIA 在 4 月底和 5 月初單獨發布的早期批次指南之後發布的。
誰需要閱讀這項指南？為什麼？
該指南針對「提供涉及『虛擬資產』交易或交易的活動和服務的任何企業」。這些企業應確保遵守指南和相關修訂後的法規，以履行反洗錢/打擊資助恐怖主義義務。
這項指南涵蓋什麼？
該指南逐步介紹了修訂條例中與 VASP 相關的變更，並解釋了 DIA 打算如何應用這些變更。這些可以大致分為：
• 專門涉及電匯要求的內容－約佔指南的一半；
• 定義虛擬資產和VASP 概念的人；
• 解釋它們如何適應制度所涵蓋的交易類型。
該指南還指出，VASP 必須確保其 AML/CFT 合規文件「更新以反映這些新要求」，並更廣泛地遵守 AML/CFT 制度下的非 VASP 特定義務。
電匯需求
電匯需求如何適用於 VASP 的主要轉變是，虛擬資產到虛擬資產、虛擬資產到法定貨幣（或反之亦然），轉帳被聲明為電匯。除非 VASP 確信所有相關方都在新西蘭，否則它們也必須被視為國際電匯。
這標誌著與先前立場的轉變，先前的立場是，VASP 在技術上只需遵守涉及法定貨幣的轉帳要求（例如入口和出口交易），否則滿足電匯定義。然而，DIA 2020 年 3 月的 VASP 指南將虛擬資產交易也納入被描述為「最佳實踐」。國際電匯的假設也反映了 DIA 在先前指南中的立場。
該指南闡述了 DIA 在一系列議題上的立場和期望：
• 虛擬資產到虛擬資產的轉移是指「價值在每一端都以虛擬資產的形式存在」（無論是一種虛擬資產的移動，或是多種虛擬資產之間的轉換）。
• 就電匯定義而言，虛擬資產被視為「資金」。
• 將虛擬資產轉移到不涉及其他VASP 的非託管/自託管錢包將不屬於電匯。
• VASP 應審查其進行的虛擬資產交易，並確保其符合電匯要求（包括涉及第三方平台或其他金融機構的交易要求）。
• VASP 應制定「適當的程序、政策和控制措施，以確定他們可以確信電匯的所有各方都在新西蘭的情況」，以便不必將其視為國際電匯。他們還應保存該決定及其依據的記錄。
• 若懷疑電匯的任何一方是否在新西蘭，VASP 應將其視為國際電匯。
• VASP「通常必須遵守與客戶進行相同交易相關的兩套電匯要求」。 《指南》列舉了三個交易範例，以及 VASP 如何在交易的不同部分扮演不同的角色。
該指南逐步介紹了適用於轉帳中每個角色的要求——指示付款的實體（訂購機構）、為接收者接收付款的實體（受益機構）或介於兩者之間的實體（中介機構） DIA認為VASP 僅適用於有限的情況）。
此外，對於 1,000 美元或以上的國際電匯（包括根據 VASP 的推定進行處理的電匯），該法案規定的交易報告要求將適用。
虛擬資產和VASP定義
該法規於2023 年7 月31 日引入了「虛擬資產」的定義，即可以進行數位交易、轉移或用於支付或投資目的的價值的數位表示，但不是金融產品，也不是法定貨幣的數位表示。
雖然這是該定義首次在AML/CFT 立法或法規中使用，但它與DIA 之前考慮虛擬資產的方式（例如，在其2020 年3 月的VASP 指南中）以及金融行動特別工作組(FATF) 在其建議中定義它們的方式大致一致。
然而，這種定義的使用在“數位交易或轉移”和“用於支付或投資目的”之間明顯有一個“或”，而不是 FATF 和早期 DIA 材料中的“和”。這為紐西蘭提供了更廣泛的捕獲範圍——特別是不一定需要支付或投資目的——儘管其影響將非常取決於事實，並且指南沒有探討這種差異。
VASP 仍然不是 AML/CFT 制度中的定義術語。然而，DIA 在指南中表示，它認為 VASP 是「根據該法案，在正常業務過程中開展一項或多項指定金融活動且涉及虛擬資產的金融機構」。
這些活動特別包括代表任何人提供虛擬資產的保管或管理，這是 2023 年 7 月 31 日起監管的新內容。
交易和偶爾交易
該法案規定的關鍵活動觸發點之一是圍繞“交易”，該法案將其定義為存款、提款、兌換或資金轉移。該法規將這一定義擴展為包括“虛擬資產的存款、提款、兌換或轉讓”，因此涉及虛擬資產的交易將觸發這些要求。
該法規還宣布，業務關係之外價值 1,000 美元或以上的虛擬資產交易或虛擬資產與虛擬資產的交易（無論是在單一操作中，還是在多個操作中）為「偶爾交易」。這本質上意味著尋求進行此類交易的人將成為 VASP 的客戶，並接受客戶盡職調查，即使沒有業務關係也是如此。
DIA 希望 VASP 制定適當的程序、政策和控制措施，以便：
• “識別關聯交易”，共同滿足偶爾交易門檻；
• “確定某人何時間歇性地與您進行多項交易”，從而存在“持續時間因素”並開始建立業務關係 – 建議測試他們是否“合理地預期該人可能會回來”以便將來進行交易” 。
我們的觀點
虛擬資產佔據著一個特殊的空間，它不是金錢，但卻經常被視為類似的東西。法規和指南將這種準貨幣待遇正式化。 DIA 作為其主要的 AML/CFT 監管者，就其含義及其運作方式闡述其立場，應為 VASP 理解其在改革中的地位提供有用的指導。
該指南對電匯的重視也很有幫助。這些可能是 VASP 的最重大變化（除了那些新納入該制度的變化），但主要是從宣布虛擬資產轉移為電匯的簡短規定中隱含的。
從法規頁面的內容來看，必須建立資訊和報告基礎設施並遵守「旅行規則」（即在轉帳的同時發送身分資訊）的全部後續影響力，對於所有行業參與者來說可能並不明顯。
虛擬資產的模糊性質，既類似於貨幣又不同於貨幣，此前導致了交易開始和結束地點的不確定性。由於法定貨幣和非貨幣商品之間沒有明確的界限，因此對於一系列法定資產和虛擬資產的流動是否構成單一價值轉移或多重價值轉移存在不同看法。
該指南闡明了 DIA 的立場，即它們是單獨的傳輸，應如此對待。雖然我們同意單獨交易的方法是最一致的，但這裡重要的是採取一致的立場，以便產業在公平的競爭環境中運作。
虛擬資產有多種形式，並有多種用途。該指南並不打算涵蓋所有範圍，產業和反洗錢/打擊資助恐怖主義監管機構無疑需要逐步研究特定產品的實際影響。例如：
• 我們預期在某個階段會出現去中心化安排的問題，在這種情況下，VASP 可能與他們沒有實質的持續聯繫。
• 這些要求如何適用於從一方直接購買虛擬資產，而不是指示他們代表客戶進行購買（即指南中給出的第一個例子），仍然是不明確的，並且可能取決於賣方是否託管自己的錢包或與另一個VASP 一起持有。
• DIA 是否仍堅持其2020 年3 月VASP 指南中所述的立場，即「VASP 被視為『金融機構』」（請注意，這是否反映了嚴格的法律立場尚有爭議），或者該立場是否已被法規和指南取代尚不明確。將VASP 保管或管理虛擬資產納入監管範圍，並表明之前並未涵蓋所有內容，但是否還有其他 VASP 子集不滿足任何捕獲點，以及 DIA 將如何應對，仍有待觀察。
該指南應與 DIA 2020 年 3 月 VASP 指南和 2023 年 8 月 VASP 情況說明書一起閱讀，後者更詳細地介紹了 VASP 和 AML/CFT 制度（包括特定 VASP 活動的捕獲點範例）。
我們繼續支持這一重點領域。 VASP 和虛擬資產在全球 AML/CFT 領域仍然佔據主導地位 - 例如，本月早些時候，FATF 發布了有關司法管轄區遵守其標準的最新更新 - 我們的監管制度必須跟上。除其他原因外，FATF 關於紐西蘭合規情況的第三份後續報告已於 7 月 18 日發布，距離我們的下一次相互評估只有幾年時間了（目前預計在 2029 年）。
接下是什麼？
VASP 應已開始執行 2024 年 6 月 1 日的變更，無論是在其營運還是在 AML/CFT 合規文件方面。這些不僅包括指南中討論的特定於 VASP 的變更，還包括一般影響報告實體的其他變更範圍。
反洗錢/打擊資助恐怖主義監管機構在一份聯合聲明表示，在執行這些變革時，他們將採取“廣泛的教育性和建設性方法”，但他們希望報告實體能夠滿足要求並可用指導並在實現這些目標方面取得真正可信的進展。
如上所述，可能會持續不斷地根據 VASP 的具體情況，以改善其在 AML/CFT 制度內的運作方式。
目前的一系列修訂法規還有一個階段需要完成，將於 2025 年 6 月 1 日生效。已經討論過）將繼續解決。
如果您對指南、更廣泛的修訂法規、VASP 的義務或更一般的 AML/CFT 制度有任何疑問，請聯絡我們的專家。
AML/CFT: DIA releases guidance for VASPs
Today, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) released guidance (Guidance) for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) on the stage 2 amendment regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act 2009 (Act).
The Guidance should give useful direction to VASPs in understanding how to approach virtual assets, their quasi-money treatment, and the nature of transfers involving them. It also makes clear the implied consequences of virtual assets being pulled into the wire transfer regime – that short change of definitions actually represents what is likely the most substantive impact for VASPs, but may not have been understood by all from what is on the regulations’ pages.
We have previously discussed the amendment regulations more generally, and the stage 2 amendments in particular. This release follows the earlier batches of guidance released by the AML/CFT supervisors jointly and by the DIA alone in late April and early May.
Who needs to read it? Why?
The Guidance targets “any business that provides activities and services involving transactions or dealings in ‘virtual assets’”. These businesses should ensure they are across both the Guidance and the amended regulations they relate to, in order to comply with their AML/CFT obligations.
What does it cover?
The Guidance steps through the VASP-related changes in the amendment regulations and explains how the DIA intends to apply them. These can be broadly grouped into:
• those dealing specifically with wire transfer requirements – which make up roughly half of the Guidance;
• those defining the virtual asset and VASP concepts; and
• those explaining how they fit within the kinds of transactions covered by the regime.
The Guidance also calls out that VASPs must ensure that their AML/CFT compliance documents are “updated to reflect these new requirements”, and that they comply more broadly with the non-VASP-specific obligations under the AML/CFT regime.
Wire transfer requirements
The principal changes around how the wire transfer requirements apply to VASPs are that virtual asset to virtual asset, and virtual asset to fiat currency (or vice versa), transfers are declared to be wire transfers. They must also be treated as international wire transfers unless the VASP is satisfied all parties involved are in New Zealand.
This marks a shift from the previous position, where VASPs technically only had to comply with those requirements for transfers that touched fiat currency (such as on-ramp and off-ramp transactions) and otherwise met the wire transfer definition. However, also including virtual asset transactions was described as “best practice” in the DIA’s March 2020 VASPs Guideline. The presumption of an international wire transfers also reflects the DIA’s position in that previous guidance.
The Guidance sets out the DIA’s position and expectations on a range of matters.
• A virtual asset to virtual asset transfer is one where “the value is in the form of a virtual asset at each end” (whether the movement of one type of virtual asset, or conversion between multiple).
• Virtual assets are considered to be “funds” for the purpose of the wire transfer definition.
• A transfer of virtual assets to an un-hosted/self-hosted wallet where no other VASP is involved will not be a wire transfer.
• VASPs should review the virtual asset transactions they carry out and ensure they comply with the wire transfer requirements (including where those touch on third-party platforms or other financial institutions).
• VASPs should have “procedures, policies, and controls in place to determine the circumstances in which [they] can be satisfied that all the parties to [a] wire transfer are in New Zealand”, in order to not have to treat it as an international wire transfer. They should also keep records of that determination and the basis for it.
• If there is doubt as to whether any parties to a wire transfer are in New Zealand, a VASP should treat it as an international wire transfer.
• VASPs will “often have to comply with two sets of wire transfer requirements in relation to the same dealings with a customer”. The Guidance sets out three examples of transactions, and how VASPs will occupy different roles for different parts of them.
The Guidance steps through the requirements that apply to each role in a transfer – the entity instructed to make the payment (ordering institution), the entity receiving the payment for the recipient (beneficiary institution), or an entity in between (intermediary institution – which the DIA considers VASPs will only be in limited circumstances).
Additionally, for international wire transfers (including those treated as such under the VASPs’ presumption) of $1,000 or more, the Act’s prescribed transaction reporting requirements will apply.
Virtual asset and VASP definitions
The regulations introduced a definition of “virtual asset” on 31 July 2023, being a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred or used for payment or investment purposes but is not a financial product nor a digital representation of a fiat currency.
While this is the first use of this definition in AML/CFT legislation or regulations, it broadly aligns with how the DIA has previously considered virtual assets (for instance, in its March 2020 VASPs Guideline) and how the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) defines them (in its Recommendations).
However, this use of the definition notably has an “or” between the “digitally traded or transferred” and “used for payment or investment purposes” limbs, rather than the “and” in the FATF and earlier DIA materials. This gives New Zealand a wider scope of capture – in particular, a payment or investment purpose isn’t necessarily required – although the effects of this will be very fact-dependent, and the Guidance does not explore this difference.
VASP is still not a defined term in the AML/CFT regime. However, in the Guidance the DIA indicates that it considers a VASP to be “a financial institution under the Act that, in the ordinary course of business, carries out one or more of [specified] financial activities and this involves virtual assets”.
These activities notably include providing safekeeping or administration of virtual assets on behalf of any person, which is a new inclusion by regulation from 31 July 2023.
Transactions and occasional transactions
One of the key activity triggers under the Act is around “transactions”, which the Act defines as deposits, withdrawals, exchanges, or transfers of funds. The regulations expand this definition to include “the deposit, withdrawal, exchange, or transfer of a virtual asset”, so that dealings involving virtual assets will trigger those requirements.
The regulations also declare virtual asset transactions, or virtual asset to virtual asset transactions, of $1,000 or more (whether in a single operation, or several that are linked) outside of a business relationship to be “occasional transactions”. This essentially means that a person seeking to conduct such a transaction will be a VASP’s customer and subject to customer due diligence, even in the absence of a business relationship.The
DIA expects VASPs to have procedures, policies, and controls in place to:
• “identify linked transactions” that together meet the occasional transaction threshold; and
• “determine when a person has undertaken a number of transactions with you intermittently” such that there is “an element of duration” and a business relationship is commenced – with a suggested test being whether they “reasonably expect that the person is likely to return to conduct transactions in the future”.
Our view
Virtual assets occupy an unusual space, not money yet often treated as something akin to it. The regulations and Guidance formalise this quasi-money treatment. The DIA, as their principal AML/CFT supervisor, setting out its position on what this means and how it will operate should give useful direction to VASPs in understanding their place under the reforms.
The Guidance's emphasis on wire transfers is also helpful. Those are likely the most material changes for VASPs (other than those newly brought under the regime), and yet are mostly implied from a short regulation declaring virtual asset transfers to be wire transfers.
The full weight of the consequences, of having to build up information and reporting infrastructure and comply with the "travel rule" (i.e. sending identification information alongside transfers), may not have been apparent to all industry participants from what is on the regulations' pages.
The ambiguous nature of virtual assets, as both alike and unlike money, has previously led to uncertainty around where transactions begin and end. Without a clear divide, as between fiat currency and non-money goods, there had been differing views on whether a chain of fiat and virtual asset movements constituted a single transfer of value or multiple.
The Guideline sets out the DIA's position that they are separate transfers and should be treated as such. While we agree that the separate-transaction approach is the most coherent, the important thing here is for a consistent position to be taken, so that the industry operates on a level playing field.
Virtual assets come in many forms and are used in many ways. The Guidance does not purport to cover that full range, and the industry and AML/CFT supervisors will no doubt need to progressively work through the practical implications for particular offerings. For example:
• We expect the question of decentralised arrangements, where VASPs may not have a substantive ongoing connection with them, to arise at some stage.
• How the requirements apply to a direct purchase of virtual assets from a party, rather than instructing them to make a purchase on behalf of the customer (i.e. the first example given in the Guidance), remains ambiguous, and may depend on whether the seller hosts its own wallet or holds it with another VASP.
• Whether the DIA still holds the position, as stated in its March 2020 VASPs Guideline, that “VASPs are considered ‘financial institutions’” (noting that whether this reflected the strict legal position is debated), or if that has been superseded by the regulations and Guidance, is not clear. The inclusion by regulation of VASPs safekeeping or administering virtual assets indicates that not all were covered before, but whether there is another subset of VASPs that do not meet any of the capture points, and how the DIA would react to them, remains to be seen.
The Guideline should be read alongside the DIA’s March 2020 VASPs Guideline and August 2023 VASPs Factsheet, which deal in more detail with VASPs and the AML/CFT regime (including examples of capture points for particular VASP activities).
We continue to support this being an area of focus. VASPs and virtual assets remain prominent in the global AML/CFT space – for instance, just earlier this month the FATF released its latest update on jurisdictions’ compliance with its standards on them – and it is important that our regulatory regime keeps up. Among other reasons, the FATF’s third follow-up report on New Zealand’s compliance was released on 18 July, and our next Mutual Evaluation is only a few years away (currently expected in 2029).
What next?
VASPs should already be in the process of complying with the 1 June 2024 changes, both in terms of their operations and their AML/CFT compliance documentation. These include not only the VASP-specific changes discussed in the Guidance, but also the range of other changes affecting reporting entities generally.
The AML/CFT supervisors have indicated in a joint statement (which we have discussed) that they will take a “broadly educative and constructive approach” when it comes to enforcing those changes, but they will expect reporting entities to be across the requirements and available guidance and making genuine and credible progress towards meeting them.
As raised above, there is likely to be an ongoing process of refining how VASPs operate within the AML/CFT regime, depending on their particular facts.
The current suite of amendment regulations still has one more stage to go, coming into force on 1 June 2025. There are also expected to be additional changes to legislation, regulations, and guidance in the future as the recommendations of the 2021-2022 Statutory Review (which we have previously discussed) continue to be worked through.
If you have any questions in relation to the Guidance, the wider amendment regulations, VASPs’ obligations, or the AML/CFT regime more generally, please contact one of our experts.
Source:
MinterEllisonRuddWatts.