Year | 2015 |
---|---|
Author | Peggy Valcke , Niels Vandezande and Nathan Van de Velde |
Publisher | SSRN:SWIFT Institute Working Paper No. 2015-001 |
Link | View Research Paper |
Categories |
Cryptocurrencies / Regulation |
The research looked at which third party payment providers (TPP’s) are covered by the PSD2 and AMLD4 directives, the consequences thereof, as well as to what extent such coverage goes; and sought to analyse the potential for the regulation of cryptocurrency in terms of combatting money laundering and terrorist financing. TPP’s gain possession of a significant amount of sensitive information, for instance by providing a gateway from which consumers log in to their bank accounts using their unique identifiers and credentials. As a result, these entities are drawing increasingly more attention from legislators and regulators. Under the framework of the PSD2, TPP’s will be subject to stringent regulatory standards similar to those placed on traditional payment service providers under the PSD. In the US, regulation of TPP’s must be assessed on a state-by-state basis. In Florida, for instance, they can be considered as money transmitters, thus putting them under that regulation, as well as the federal Bank Secrecy Act. In Asia, the number of TPP’s has grown significantly over the past years. In China, these actors are regulated by the People’s Bank of China, and are subjected to a number of requirements similar to those found in the EU, such as minimum capital requirements and anti-money laundering rules. Another notable development is that of alternative payment methods – a prime example here are cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. The bitcoin ecosystem is decentralized, meaning that no single entity controls the system. Currently, there exists no convincing arguments to consider virtual currencies as regulated under the EU’s Payment Services Directive or the Second E-money Directive. While the PSD2 does introduce new terminology and significantly amended scope exemptions compared to the original Payment Services Directive, there is no wider inclusion of virtual currencies under its scope. A similar argument can be made for the recently adopted AMLD4, where virtual currencies have been omitted from its scope despite earlier signs that this development may be included. The researchers conclude their paper with several public and private sector recommendations.