Crypto & Digital Assets

What Changed

• - ESMA clarifies what constitutes a “defined ranking system” under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), including when rating scales, score bands or league tables will be regarded as a ranking...
• ESMA sets out transitional provisions for existing ESG rating providers active before ESGRR application, detailing conditions and timelines under which they may continue operating while completing...
• ESMA explains how ESG rating providers established after the ESGRR date of entry into force must comply, including the need to obtain authorisation/registration before commencing activity in the EU...
• ESMA defines what qualifies as “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers under ESGRR, indicating the types of changes (e.g.
• Under MAR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957, ESMA clarifies expectations regarding the annually conducted audit of market soundings arrangements, including scope, independence of the...

Suggested Considerations

• Map all existing and planned ESG rating products against ESMA’s clarified concept of a “defined ranking system” and update methodologies, scales, and disclosures to ensure they meet ESGRR and Q&A expectations.
• For ESG rating providers operating before 02 July 2026, develop and execute a documented transitional compliance plan that aligns governance, methodologies, data controls and transparency with ESGRR, ensuring timely notification to ESMA within one month from 02 July 2026.
• For entities intending to launch ESG rating activities after ESGRR entry into force, prepare and submit complete authorisation or registration files to ESMA before commencing rating activity, incorporating the Q&A guidance on initial registration requirements.
• Establish or enhance a formal process to identify, assess and record “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers, and implement controls to ensure ESMA is notified within required timelines before or immediately after such changes, as specified in the Q&A.
• Review and update MAR compliance frameworks, with particular focus on market soundings procedures, to incorporate ESMA’s expectations on the scope, independence, and documentation of the annually conducted audit required under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957.

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-26
• [2] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qa-tool-launched
• [3] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-19
• [4] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-new-qa...
• [5] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-23
• [6] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qa-available
• [7] esma.europa.eu/press-news/consultations
• [8] centralbank.ie/regulation/markets-update/esma-guidelines-...

What Changed

• - The Hong Kong Government and SFC have confirmed that dedicated regulatory regimes for VA advisory services and VA management services will be created under the Anti-Money Laundering and...
• The regulatory scope and standards of the VA advisory regime will be aligned with Type 4 “advising on securities” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, applying a “same...
• The regulatory scope and standards of the VA management regime will be aligned with Type 9 “asset management” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, implying broadly...
• The consultation received broad market support across 51 responding stakeholders, and the SFC has treated this as a mandate to proceed to finalisation of the detailed legislative proposals and...
• The new VA advisory and management regimes will sit alongside existing and proposed VA regimes for: VA trading platforms, stablecoin issuers, VA dealing and VA custody, forming an end-to-end...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct a gap analysis comparing current or planned virtual asset advisory and management activities against Type 4 and Type 9 requirements under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to identify where equivalent capabilities, controls and governance will be required under the new VA regimes.
• Map all group entities and business lines that provide VA-related advice, research, recommendations or portfolio management to clients in or from Hong Kong, and determine which entities will need licensing or authorisation under the forthcoming AMLO-based regimes.
• Initiate early engagement with the SFC (e.g. via pre-application meetings or WINGS enquiries) to clarify how existing licences, business models and cross-border arrangements will be treated under the new VA advisory and management regimes.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance AML/CTF frameworks, including customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening and ongoing review procedures, to ensure they are robust enough for VA-specific risks anticipated under AMLO-based regulation.
• Update internal policies and procedures on suitability, product due diligence, risk disclosure, conflicts of interest and best execution to explicitly cover VA advisory and VA management services in line with standards applied to traditional securities and funds.

Key Dates

References

• [1] gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/hong-kong-sfc-p...
• [2] sfc.hk/en/
• [3] wings.sfc.hk
• [4] sfc.hk/TC/
• [5] ecp2.hkex.com.hk/landingsfc
• [6] apps.hkma.gov.hk/eng/index.php?c=search&m=search_by_name

What Changed

• - The CBI formally recognises tokenisation and shared, programmable ledgers as a likely core infrastructure of the future financial system and signals that regulation will evolve to treat tokenised...
• The speech confirms that CBI’s regulatory approach will be “technology‑neutral but not technology‑blind”, indicating that existing EU and Irish rules (e.g.
• The CBI emphasises the need to keep central bank money at the core of tokenised finance, aligning its stance with Eurosystem work on wholesale and retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) and...
• The speech reinforces that tokenised instruments representing traditional financial assets (securities, deposits, fund units) will generally be treated as regulated financial instruments, triggering...
• The CBI highlights operational resilience, cyber risk, interoperability and smart‑contract governance as critical supervisory focus areas for tokenised finance infrastructure and platforms.

Suggested Considerations

• Map all current and planned tokenisation and DLT initiatives (including pilots and proofs of concept) across the group and identify which EU and Irish regulatory regimes they fall under (MiFID II, UCITS, AIFMD, CRR/CRD, PSD2/PSR, Solvency II, MiCA, DORA, etc.).
• Perform a regulatory gap analysis to confirm that tokenised products and services are fully captured within existing licensing permissions and assess whether any variation of permission, new authorisation, or recognition as a market infrastructure is required.
• Review and update governance arrangements so that boards and senior management explicitly oversee tokenisation strategies, risk appetite, and the use of DLT, including ensuring clear allocation of responsibilities under the firm’s senior manager or fitness and probity framework.
• Integrate tokenisation‑specific risks into the firm’s risk management framework, covering legal enforceability of tokens, smart‑contract risk, cyber and operational resilience, data integrity, interoperability, concentration risk in technology providers, and settlement and counterparty risk.
• Review outsourcing and third‑party risk management frameworks to ensure that DLT platform providers, smart‑contract developers, node operators and custodians are treated as critical or important outsourced service providers where appropriate, with robust contractual, oversight and exit provisions.

Key Dates

References

• [1] centralbank.ie/news/article/press-release-discussion-pape...
• [2] youtube.com/watch?v=OuSFC9tp3r4
• [3] fsb.org/uploads/P221024-2.pdf
• [4] bis.org/speeches/sp251128.pdf
• [5] ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2026/html/ecb.sp260415~868b5...
• [6] moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/podcasts/credit-currents/to...
• [7] jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-ccaf-tokeni...
• [8] chainalysis.com/financial-institutions/

What Changed

• - OSFI is proposing targeted revisions to the existing Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline, rather than a wholesale rewrite, in order to better reflect...
• The draft changes would explicitly recognize cross‑exchange hedging for Group 2a crypto‑assets when the instruments are traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, allowing more...
• Under the proposal, banks’ market‑neutral strategies in Group 2a crypto‑assets would receive capital treatment that more closely reflects actual economic risk, reducing instances where only partial...
• No change is proposed to the risk weights applied to Group 2a crypto‑assets, meaning existing Group 2a capital charge levels remain intact under the draft revisions.
• No change is proposed to the eligibility of Group 2a crypto‑assets as collateral, so current collateral treatment and related haircuts remain unchanged by this consultation.

Suggested Considerations

• Assess whether your institution currently has, or plans to have, exposures to Group 2a crypto‑assets traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, and map all related positions, hedges, and trading strategies.
• Review existing market‑neutral and cross‑exchange hedging strategies for crypto‑asset exposures to determine how expanded recognition of cross‑exchange hedges could change risk‑weighted assets, leverage exposure, and liquidity metrics under OSFI’s proposed treatment.
• Perform an impact assessment and scenario analysis comparing existing capital and liquidity requirements for Group 2a exposures under the current guideline versus the proposed cross‑exchange hedge recognition, quantifying potential capital relief or shifts in capital allocation.
• Update internal capital policy documentation, trading desk procedures, and risk‑management standards to incorporate the proposed hedging recognition framework, including eligibility criteria for “regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets,” subject to final OSFI requirements.
• Prepare and submit a consultation response to OSFI by 20 July 2026, highlighting any operational, risk‑measurement, model, or documentation challenges with implementing cross‑exchange hedge recognition and recommending clarifications where needed.

Key Dates

References

• [1] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/about-osfi/multimedia-library/osfis-ca...
• [2] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/guidance/guidance-library/capital-liqu...
• [3] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/news/osfi-launches-consultation-regula...
• [4] youtube.com/watch?v=TfnKz7h5RIc
• [5] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/about-osfi/progress-our-initiatives/mo...
• [6] mcmillan.ca/insights/publications/osfi-allows-greater-cry...
• [7] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/guidance/guidance-library/capital-liqu...
• [8] osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/guidance/guidance-library

What Changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

Key Dates

References

• [1] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-s-division-of-enforcement-issu...
• [2] cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2...
• [3] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2020/11/cftc-issue...
• [4] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/03/us-cftc-enforc...
• [5] cftc.gov/media/11821/EnfAdv_Resolutions022525/download
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [7] morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/03/cftc-enforcement-replaces-pr...
• [8] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrenforce...

What Changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested Considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9124-25
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9148-25
• [3] forkeylaw.com/blog/categories/cftc-enforcement-actions/
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases?c=1180800&page=105

What Changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Suggested Considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] tradeinformer.com/regulations/cftc-arizona-prediction-mar...
• [3] gamingintelligence.com/legal/228985-cftc-intervenes-in-ar...
• [4] news.bitcoin.com/cftc-seeks-injunction-restraining-order-...
• [5] complianceweek.com/regulatory-enforcement/cftc-sues-state...
• [6] grcreport.com/post/cftc-asks-court-to-step-in-as-arizona-...
• [7] mlex.com/articles/2463704/us-cftc-seeks-injunction-to-sto...

What Changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Suggested Considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/48379446/cftc-sues-arizo...
• [3] lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/fintech-five-apr...

What Changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Suggested Considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

Key Dates

References

• [1] wealthmanagement.com/regulation-compliance/sec_names_gibs...
• [2] news.bitcoin.com/david-woodcock-named-sec-enforcement-chi...
• [3] tradersmagazine.com/xtra/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-d...
• [4] blockonomi.com/sec-names-david-woodcock-as-enforcement-ch...
• [5] citybiz.co/article/829974/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-...
• [6] newsfilecorp.com/release/291656/SEC-Appoints-David-Woodco...
• [7] hklaw.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2026/04/us-sec-taps-gibs...
• [8] wmbdradio.com/2026/04/08/us-sec-taps-gibson-dunn-attorney...

What Changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

Key Dates

References

• [1] corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/01/21/sec-enforcement-2025-y...
• [2] whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-fy-2025-review-transforma...
• [3] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-26
• [4] brattle.com/insights-events/publications/sec-enforcement-...
• [5] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/sec-enforcemen...
• [6] gibsondunn.com/securities-enforcement-2025-year-end-update/
• [7] clearyenforcementwatch.com/2026/01/the-shifting-sec-enfor...
• [8] sec.gov/files/fy25-oiad-sar-activities.pdf

What Changed

• - Amendment to Annex 8 of SR 946.231.176.72 by the Federal Department for Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) on March 19, 2026, removing 7 natural persons from the sanctions list.
• Update to the official Swiss sanctions database SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management), published urgently on SECO's website.
• This delisting narrows the scope of asset freeze obligations under the ordinance, but core prohibitions on transactions, asset blocking, and reporting for remaining listed parties persist.

Suggested Considerations

• Screen client databases and transaction records against the updated SESAM database to identify and release any asset freezes or restrictions on the 7 delisted persons, confirming no residual sanctions apply.
• Report any affected business relationships to SECO as per ordinance requirements; conduct additional due diligence under Art. 6 GwG if suspicions remain, and file SARs with the Money Laundering Reporting Office Switzerland (MROS) under Art. 9 GwG if unresolved.
• Update internal sanctions screening tools, policies, and staff training to reflect the SESAM changes; document all reviews for audit trails.
• Monitor FINMA's news and MyFINMA for further updates, as lists are continuously revised.

Key Dates

References

• [1] finma.ch/de/news/2026/03/20260323-sr-946-231-176-72/
• [2] finma.ch/news/2024/02/20240201-sr-946-231-176-72/
• [3] finma.ch/de/news/2025/08/20250813-sanktionsmeldung-ukraine/
• [4] finma.ch/en/news/2024/08/20240823-sr--946-231-176-72/
• [5] seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirts...
• [6] finma.ch/dokumentation/internationale-sanktionen-und-terr...
• [7] finma.ch/en/documentation/international-sanctions-and-com...
• [8] finma.ch/news/2025/04/20250422-sr-946-231-176-72/

What Changed

• - Adoption of ESMA Guidelines: CSSF mandates application of ESMA's criteria for evaluating staff knowledge and competence in crypto-asset services, including roles in custody, trading, portfolio...
• Assessment Framework: Firms must implement standardized tests and processes to verify staff qualifications, aligning with MiCA Article 62 on CASP authorization, focusing on technical crypto...
• No New Standalone Rules: This circular builds on prior CSSF MiCA circulars (e.g., 25/890 on crypto-asset classification), integrating competence checks into licensing dossiers and ongoing supervision.

Suggested Considerations

• Assess Staff Competence: Implement ESMA-guided evaluations (e.g., exams, certifications) for all relevant personnel handling crypto services; document results in governance frameworks.
• Update Policies and Training: Integrate competence criteria into HR, onboarding, and annual reviews; roll out MiCA-specific training on reporting, breaches, and governance.
• Licensing Dossier Enhancement: Include competence attestations in CSSF applications; appoint dedicated compliance/risk officers with verified qualifications.
• Ongoing Monitoring: Conduct regular audits, penetration tests, and incident planning; confirm compliance annually via management body statements.
• Early CSSF Engagement: Schedule dialogues and info sessions; create MiCA readiness scorecards for board and regulator discussions.

Key Dates

References

• [1] copla.com/blog/compliance-regulations/mica-regulation-in-...
• [2] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf25_890eng.pdf
• [3] cssf.lu/en/markets-in-crypto-assets-mica-micar/
• [4] loyensloeff.com/insights/news--events/news/circular-cssf-...
• [5] cssf.lu/en/Document/circular-cssf-25-890/
• [6] cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/PDFDocument...
• [7] cssf.lu/en/2023/07/regulation-on-markets-in-crypto-assets...
• [8] dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2023/1/initiatives-to-regul...

What Changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Suggested Considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

Key Dates

References

• [1] steel-eye.com/news/north-american-regulatory-priorities-f...
• [2] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/CFTC_FY2026_Presidents_Budge...
• [3] cohenmilstein.com/cftc-priorities-modernization-harmoniza...
• [4] beneschlaw.com/insight/ftc-enforcement-trends-in-2026-wha...
• [5] foley.com/insights/publications/2026/01/shifting-enforcem...
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [7] ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/enforcement-priorities-...

What Changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Suggested Considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/new-neuf/nr/2025-09-25-eng
• [2] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/EnforcementActions/index.htm
• [3] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8884-24
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [5] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/cftc-reengages-in-d...
• [6] usaherald.com/cftc-mek-global-settlement-nears-in-kucoin-...
• [7] opensanctions.org/entities/us-cftc-2ab1ed098a80f19db560f5...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/doj-and-cftc-bring-charges-against-...

What Changed

• The CFTC FAQs address implementation questions arising from two prior staff positions:
• Tokenized Collateral Guidance (CFTC Staff Letter 25-39): Established the framework allowing futures commission merchants (FCMs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) to accept digital assets as...
• No-Action Position (CFTC Staff Letter 26-05): Provided temporary relief permitting FCMs to accept payment stablecoins, Bitcoin, and Ether as customer margin collateral, subject to specific...
• How registered entities should operationalize tokenized collateral acceptance
• Compliance with notification and operational risk management requirements

Suggested Considerations

• *Immediate (0–30 days):
• *Asset Classification Audit: Map every crypto asset in your portfolios, products, or platforms against the five-category framework (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) established in the March 17 joint interpretation.
• *Investment Contract Review: Identify any assets subject to active issuer promises of essential managerial effort—those remain securities regardless of category and cannot be treated as digital commodities.
• *FAQ Implementation Review: Obtain and review the full CFTC FAQs (available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9200-26) to identify specific operational questions relevant to your entity type.
• *Notification Protocol Establishment: If relying on the no-action relief for tokenized collateral, establish procedures to notify the CFTC of significant operational, system, or cybersecurity issues affecting digital asset collateral use (required for first three months of relief).

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-30-sec-clarifies-app...
• [2] consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2026/02/cftc-and-...
• [3] klgates.com/Crypto-in-2026-The-Democratization-of-Digital...
• [4] genfinity.io/2026/03/17/sec-cftc-final-rule-digital-commo...
• [5] compliance-risk.com/sec-cftc-joint-crypto-asset-interpret...
• [6] cftc.gov/csl/26-09/download
• [7] sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2026/33-11412.pdf
• [8] fintechweekly.com/news/sec-bitcoin-ether-solana-digital-c...

What Changed

• This ANPRM proposes no immediate changes, as it is an early-stage consultation seeking input on:
• Application of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) core principles and existing CFTC regulations to prediction markets.
• Criteria for prohibiting event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest (e.g., potentially sports, politics, or sensitive topics like government employee outcomes).
• Cost-benefit analyses for regulating prediction markets. It builds on prior actions, including withdrawal of a 2024 proposed ban on certain event contracts and a 2025 staff advisory on sports-related...

Suggested Considerations

• Submit comments: Affected parties should prepare and file written comments within 45 days via the CFTC Public Comments Portal, addressing ANPRM questions on CEA principles, prohibited contracts, and costs/benefits.
• Monitor developments: Track Federal Register publication, related litigation (e.g., state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction), and CFTC Enforcement Division advisories. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26)

Key Dates

References

• [1] bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2026/02/united-...
• [2] paulweiss.com/insights/client-memos/cftc-chairman-outline...
• [3] corporatecomplianceinsights.com/cftc-withdraws-proposed-r...
• [4] quickreads.ext.katten.com/post/102mkjy/know-the-outcome-d...
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [7] next.io/news/regulation/cftc-chief-signals-imminent-predi...

What Changed

This is a non-binding discussion paper, not a regulatory change or new requirement; it poses 16 questions on topics including legal recognition of tokenised instruments, governance, infrastructure, funds (e.g., tokenised MMFs and ETFs), payments, and risks like operational resilience and interoperability. It highlights needs for policy intervention to avoid fragmented "walled gardens," ensure central bank money's role, and address challenges in fractionalisation, transparency, and settlement finality, but no mandates are imposed yet.

Suggested Considerations

• Review DP12 (PDF available via CBI site) and prepare/ submit responses to the 16 questions by 5 June 2026, focusing on legal clarity, risks, funds tokenisation, and enablers like interoperability.
• Engage in CBI's structured stakeholder dialogues to influence future frameworks.
• Assess internal DLT/tokenisation pilots or plans against discussed risks (e.g., operational resilience, scalability) and opportunities (e.g., fractional ownership, 24/7 liquidity).

Key Dates

References

• [1] arthurcox.com/insights/central-bank-issues-discussion-pap...
• [2] fireblocks.com/report/executive-tokenization-reading-list
• [3] ogier.com/news-and-insights/insights/a-comprehensive-revi...
• [4] centralbank.ie/news/article/press-release-building-econom...
• [5] centralbank.ie/publication/discussion-papers
• [6] centralbank.ie/news/article/press-release-central-bank-se...
• [7] lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2026/feb/global-tension...

What Changed

This announcement introduces no new regulatory rules, requirements, or statutory changes; it is a personnel appointment reshaping enforcement leadership. Chairman Selig highlighted Miller's role in refocusing the Enforcement Division on "policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy," potentially signaling reduced pursuit of novel legal theories and a narrower enforcement scope.

Suggested Considerations

• Review internal controls for fraud, manipulation, and abusive trading, prioritizing digital asset activities (e.g., derivatives, prediction markets).
• Assess exposure from Miller's past cases (e.g., BitMEX, ICOs, Ooki DAO) and strengthen defenses against similar enforcement theories.
• Monitor CFTC enforcement dockets and coordinate with counsel experienced in CFTC/SEC/DOJ matters for upcoming investigations.
• Update training on "core" violations (fraud, abuse, manipulation) to align with stated enforcement focus.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9187-26
• [2] mexc.com/news/837224
• [3] cryptorank.io/news/feed/8787a-cftc-enforcement-director-d...
• [4] gtlaw.com/en/professionals/m/miller-david-i
• [5] mexc.co/en-NG/news/836686
• [6] hoodline.com/2026/03/ex-cia-prosecutor-to-run-cftc-s-cryp...

What Changed

• - Crowdfunding: New Q&A (2601) on use of fiduciary (nominee) structures in equity crowdfunding, clarifying permissible structures for service providers.
• MiCA (CASPs): Updates include clarification on withdrawal requirements under Article 75 (2320); fixed overheads calculation (2349); interests from client funds at credit institutions (2486); fiat...
• EMIR (CCPs): New Q&As on AAR threshold calculation (2418, 2779), AAR representativeness obligation (2776, 2777), and AAR stress testing (2778), building on ESMA's supervisory briefing for...
• Transparency Directive: New Q&A (2775, effective 1 January 2027) on IFRS 18 and APMs interaction; updated Q&As (effective 1 January 2027) on measures in/outside financial statements (1868), interim...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update policies: CASPs must align withdrawal processes (Art. 75), overhead calculations, client fund interest handling, fiat payout mechanisms, offer/placing distinctions, and trading platform compliance with Title II.
• Crowdfunding firms: Assess and document use of nominee structures per Q&A 2601.
• CCPs/counterparties: Implement AAR reporting for thresholds, representativeness (with subcategory identification and trade reporting examples), and stress testing; reference ESMA's supervisory briefing for compliance models.
• Issuers/reporters: Revise APM disclosures for IFRS 18 compatibility, ensuring prominence, clear definitions, and consistent presentation inside/outside statements effective 1 January 2027.
• General: Integrate Q&As into compliance training, internal audits, and NCA reporting; monitor ESMA's Questions and Answers section for full texts.

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-02/Newsletter_Jan...
• [2] regulationtomorrow.com/2025/10/esma-publishes-new-micar-q...
• [3] natlawreview.com/article/investment-management-client-ale...
• [4] practicalesg.com/2026/01/esma-issues-guidance-on-avoiding...
• [5] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-simplifies-mifid...
• [6] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-superv...
• [7] funds-europe.com/one-size-fits-none-supervision/
• [8] cryptoadventure.com/esma-warns-crypto-perpetual-derivativ...

What Changed

• - Crypto Restrictions: Complete ban on providing any crypto services to Russian nationals and companies; prohibition on transactions involving specific ruble-backed crypto assets, such as the...
• Payment Systems: Expansion of bans on using certain specialized messaging services for payment traffic.
• Trade/Goods Bans: Expanded list of goods contributing to Russia's military/technological strengthening, including metals for weapon systems, fuel production products, and acyclic hydrocarbons (key...
• Sanctions List Expansion: Builds on December 12, 2025 addition of 64 persons/organizations; Swiss list now aligns fully with EU's, covering ~2,600 targets subject to asset freezes related to Ukraine...
• Related EU 19th package details (adopted by Switzerland) include sanctions on Rosneft/Gazprom Neft, shadow fleet ships, new banks, payment systems like Mir/SPFS, and import bans on LNG/acyclic...

Suggested Considerations

• Implement all prohibitions immediately: Block crypto services to Russian nationals/companies; halt transactions with ruble-pegged stablecoins like A7A5; cease use of banned messaging services for payments.
• Screen and freeze assets of sanctioned persons/entities (~2,600 total); report affected business relationships to SECO.
• Conduct additional due diligence under Art. 6 GwG on suspicions; if unresolved, file immediate suspicious activity report to money laundering reporting office under Art. 9 GwG (SECO report does not exempt this).
• Update sanctions screening tools, client onboarding, and transaction monitoring for new crypto/trade restrictions; review exposures to energy/finance goods listed.

Key Dates

References

• [1] finma.ch/de/news/2026/02/20260226-sanktionsmeldung-russla...
• [2] tangens-akademie.de/export-import-zoll/russland-belarus-s...
• [3] finma.ch/de/news/2025/12/20251212-sanktionsmeldung-russla...
• [4] seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirts...
• [5] finma.ch/de/news/
• [6] finma.ch/de/dokumentation/internationale-sanktionen-und-t...
• [7] finma.ch/en/news/

What Changed

• No immediate binding regulatory changes are imposed by the Plan itself; it is a forward-looking roadmap outlining planned initiatives rather than new rules. Key elements include:
• Modernisation of payments framework: Consolidation of PSR into FCA, with HMT consultation response in Q1 2026; data/operational enhancements to Faster Payments and Bacs by end-2026.
• Infrastructure upgrades: Short-term resilience improvements to Faster Payments and Bacs (end-2026); exploration of regulated stablecoins for on-chain settlement (H1 2026).
• Safeguarding enhancements: FCA Supplementary Regime effective May 2026, with engagement Jan-Apr 2026.
• Standards and open banking: Industry input on standards body (Feb-Mar 2026 assessment); HMT Data (Use and Access) Act SI in Q4 2026.

Suggested Considerations

• Review the full Plan on GOV.UK (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699f2bc6c497bac082bc76bc/Payments_Forward_Plan_.pdf) and map initiatives to your firm's operations, prioritizing safeguarding, infrastructure, and stablecoins.
• Engage proactively: Provide FCA views on standards body (by Feb 2026); participate in Jan-Apr 2026 safeguarding engagement; prepare for VRP rollout (live payments expected Q1 2026).
• Stablecoin firms: Submit sandbox applications by 18 Jan 2026.
• Monitor and plan: Track Regulatory Initiatives Grid for 2027; assess capacity for sequenced initiatives; ensure compliance readiness for May 2026 safeguarding rules and end-2026 infrastructure changes.
• Internal audit: Evaluate current adherence to PSRs/EMRs, especially safeguarding, ahead of consolidation.

Key Dates

References

• [1] aoshearman.com/en/insights/financial-services-horizon-rep...
• [2] assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699f2bc6c497bac082...
• [3] fca.org.uk/news/speeches/role-fca-and-psr-delivering-nati...
• [4] taylorwessing.com/de/insights-and-events/insights/2026/01...
• [5] fintechfutures.com/regulations-compliance/fca-pushes-stab...
• [6] twobirds.com/en/insights/2026/uk/uk-payments-and-cryptoas...
• [7] hoganlovells.com/en/publications/the-payments-newsletter-...
• [8] pwc.co.uk/industries/financial-services/understanding-reg...

What Changed

• The advisory does not introduce new rules but rather reaffirms existing CFTC enforcement authority over prediction markets and clarifies the scope of prohibited conduct:
• Insider trading/misappropriation: Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty or pre-existing duty of trust and confidence (Section 6(c)(1) of the...
• Fraud and manipulation: Use of manipulative schemes or artifices to defraud, including trading in contracts where the trader has direct or indirect influence over the outcome
• Pre-arranged and wash trades: Noncompetitive trading under Section 4c(a)(1) and (2)(A) and Regulation 1.38(a)
• Disruptive trading practices: Violations under Section 4c(a)(5) The advisory demonstrates the CFTC's commitment to enforce these prohibitions on prediction market platforms, reinforcing that...

Suggested Considerations

• *For Prediction Market Platforms (DCMs):
• *Implement robust surveillance systems to detect trading by individuals with material nonpublic information or direct/indirect influence over contract outcomes
• *Establish clear trading prohibitions in exchange rules addressing:
• Trading in contracts where the trader has influence over the outcome
• Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through breach of duty

Key Dates

References

• [1] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-files-amicus-brief-urging-3494...
• [2] mlex.com/mlex/articles/2446145/us-cftc-issues-prediction-...
• [3] gibsondunn.com/derivatives-legislative-and-regulatory-wee...
• [4] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/prediction-mar...
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9158-26
• [7] heinrich.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/heinrich-urge...

What Changed

• - CDD RTS: Builds on EBA's prior draft with AMLA refinements for legal clarity, proportionality, and risk adaptation; specifies information/sources for identity verification of natural persons/legal...
• Business Relationships/Occasional/Linked Transactions RTS: Defines criteria under AMLR Article 19(9) to harmonize identification, ensuring consistent EU-wide application beyond basic...
• Enforcement RTS (Pecuniary Sanctions/Administrative Measures): Under AMLD6 Article 53(10), standardizes supervisor assessment/categorization of breaches for proportionate, effective, dissuasive...

Suggested Considerations

• Gap analysis and preparation: Assess current CDD/business identification/enforcement processes against drafts; identify changes for remote onboarding, PEPs, sectoral measures (e.g., asset manager Article 17 scenarios), and sanctions screening; set milestones for policy/system updates by July 2027.
• Engage hearings: Attend 24 March 2026 public hearing for CDD/business RTS.
• Monitor post-consultation: Track AMLA/EC adoption (expected Q1 2026 for some related RTS) and national implementations (e.g., CSSF data reporting).

Key Dates

References

• [1] anti-money-laundering.eu/amla-work-programme-2026-2027/
• [2] algoodbody.com/insights-publications/amla-consults-on-dra...
• [3] lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2026/feb/amla-seeks-vie...
• [4] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/circular_letter_120226_AML_CFT...
• [5] aoshearman.com/en/insights/financial-services-horizon-rep...
• [6] amla.europa.eu/amla-consults-key-mandates-private-sector-...
• [7] amla.europa.eu/policy/regulatory-instruments_en
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/eu-amla-launches-suite-of-consultat...

What Changed

• - Authorisation Requirements: UCIs require CSSF approval of constitutive documents (articles, management regulations), depositary selection, and management company/AIFM applications for contractual...
• Crypto-Asset Updates (aligned with separate but related FAQ Version 7): Replaces "virtual assets" with "crypto-assets" per MiCAR (EU 2023/1114); UCITS and retail AIFs (non-well-informed investors)...
• Investment Policies and Liquidity Management: Funds must detail objectives, strategies, asset classes, restrictions, borrowing, and conflicts; look-through for intermediary vehicles per ESMA/AIFMD...
• Risk Spreading Exemptions: Limits do not apply to OECD/EU-guaranteed securities or UCIs with comparable risk-spreading.
• Depositary Role in Crypto: Luxembourg depositaries can custody crypto-assets with safeguards and CSSF notification; responsibility varies by model (depositary or MiCAR provider).

Suggested Considerations

• Review and Update Documents: Align UCI constitutive documents, investment policies, and sales documents with clarified rules on strategies, LMTs, conflicts, and risk-spreading; apply look-through for intermediaries.
• Crypto-Specific: For >10% NAV exposure, apply for "Other-Other Fund-Crypto-assets" extension (custody, valuation, AML/CFT plans, expertise); notify CSSF for depositary crypto custody; implement heightened AML/CFT due diligence per FATF/Luxembourg assessments.
• Authorisation/Amendments: Submit for CSSF approval on new setups, manager changes, or sub-funds (esp. SICAV multi-sub-funds with EU cross-border services).
• Governance and Reporting: Ensure RC/RR demonstrate crypto risk understanding; update disclosures for investors on risks, LMTs, and fair treatment.
• Ongoing Compliance: Use FAQ/Compilation for RAIFs/SIFs/SICARs/Part II UCIs; auditors/managers confirm tax-exempt status for SICARs.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cssf.lu/en/authorisation-of-a-uci/
• [2] linari-law.lu/cssf-updates-its-faq-on-crypto-assets-for-u...
• [3] dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2026/1/cssf-is-streamlining...
• [4] cssf.lu/en/2026/02/the-cssf-has-updated-its-faq-crypto-as...
• [5] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/FAQ_Crypto_assets_UCI.pdf
• [6] cssf.lu/en/regulatory-framework-for-ucis/
• [7] cssf.lu/en/Document/faq-crypto-assets-undertakings-for-co...
• [8] simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cmlksxdud00dqu43ge0sl...