Snapshot of Recent Updates to the Virtual Assets Regime in the Cayman Islands

Published: 14 Mar 2025
Type: Insight

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) – the regulatory authority for virtual assets – has recently published new legislation and guidance enhancing the virtual assets regulatory regime in the Cayman Islands. In this snapshot, we summarise the key changes.


Implementation of the ‘Phase 2’ licensing regime

The Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act, 2020 (Commencement) Order, 2025 enacts the long-awaited Phase 2 licensing regime, which commenced on 1 April 2025.

Phase 2 implements a licensing regime for virtual asset trading platforms and virtual asset custodians, as set out in the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (Revised) (VASPA).  All entities  carrying on the provision of virtual asset custody services or the operation of a virtual asset trading platform in or from within the Cayman Islands will require a licence from CIMA.

Any current CIMA registered person (e.g. a current virtual assets service provider (VASP)) who at 1 April 2025 was providing virtual asset custody services and/or operating a virtual asset trading platform must apply to CIMA for a virtual assets service licence within 90 days (i.e. by the end of June 2025). Existing registrations will be cancelled if a licence is granted.

Any new applicants with in-progress applications to CIMA whose application relates to services requiring a licence will be contacted by CIMA to provide additional application paperwork and make payment of the full licence application fee (minus any initial application fee already paid).

Importantly, the licensing regime is not a new requirement. The Phase 2 licensing provisions were included in previous iterations of the VASPA but without a commencement date while the first phase of the virtual assets regime was implemented in 2020 and refined.

Other changes under the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment) Act, 2024 (the “VASP (Amendment) Act”)

The VASP Amendment Act has introduced a number of clarifications and new or enhanced requirements to bolster CIMA’s oversight and consumer protection in the sector.  Such changes also came into effect on 1 April 2025 and apply to all VASPs.  The key amendments include:

  • definitions – clearer definitions, including new definitions for ‘convertible virtual asset’, ‘originator’ and ‘owner’, and the removal of redundant terms;
  • audited accounts – in addition to the existing requirement to prepare annual accounts, CIMA has discretion to require a VASP to provide audited financial statements if CIMA determines it necessary due to the nature, size or complexity of the business or where it has reasonable grounds for believing that the VASP has provided false or misleading accounts;
  • directors – a minimum requirement for VASPs to appoint at least three ‘fit and proper’ directors, one of whom must be an independent director with no vested interest in the company;
  • accuracy of disclosures – VASPs must ensure the accuracy of all disclosures, advertising materials and communications relating to its virtual asset services with clients and members of the public. Knowingly making, issuing or permitting any misleading representation to the public about the VASP’s activities in any way will amount to an offence;
  • business plan changes – a VASP must seek the prior written approval of CIMA to (i) make a change to its approved business plan that modifies the provision of the virtual asset service for which its licence or registration was granted or (ii) provide additional virtual asset services not included in its approved application or business plan;
  • notifications to CIMA – CIMA has expanded the list of circumstances which must be notified to it to include commencement of any litigation proceedings against the VASP, and introduced a 30-day deadline in respect of all notifications to be made to CIMA under section 9(4)(c) of VASPA;
  • custody disclosures – CIMA can require custodians to make more extensive disclosures to clients, including concerning the transparency of operations, internal safeguards, methods of access to virtual assets held, insurance, its regulatory obligations, grievance procedures, sharing of clients’ information with third parties and its internal custodial governance arrangements;
  • custody and safeguarding – CIMA can also impose additional requirements on custodians relating to its safe custody of client assets, including relating to adequate safeguards against theft and loss, segregation of proprietary and client assets, and detailed record-keeping;
  • fiat holdings – CIMA can require custodians to hold fiat currency in a bank regulated by CIMA or another regulator in a non high-risk jurisdiction, to be kept segregated from any fiat currency owned by the custodian; and
  • regulator powers – CIMA has expanded oversight and enforcement powers against VASPs, including enhanced information and inspection powers as well as powers to revoke licences or waivers, impose conditions, and cancel registrations.

The new Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (the “Regulations”)

The Regulations revise the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Regulations, 2020 and came into force immediately following the VASP Amendment Act (i.e. on 1 April 2025). The Regulations primarily deal with the form of application documentation for registration or licence under the VASPA and the applicable fees.

The Regulations introduce a new Schedule 1A listing information to be provided to CIMA together with a completed application form.  All applicants must complete the general information in Part A.  Applicants who intend to provide virtual asset custodian services must complete Part B and applicants who intend to operate a virtual asset trading platform must complete Part C – these are new sections requiring more extensive documentation than under the 2020 Regulations.

As noted above, we understand that applicants with in-progress applications will be contacted by CIMA to provide additional application paperwork (being all documents required under the new Regulations not already submitted as part of the applicant’s initial application).

As previously, for all applications, two senior officers of the applicant must sign the declaration confirming that (i) they have read and understand the VASPA and the Regulations as well as the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations 2025 and (ii) all information contained in the application is accurate in all material aspects to the best of their knowledge and belief.  Applicants should ensure they are well-briefed ahead of making such declaration.

Schedule 2 sets out the revised fees for registration and licensing under the VASPA, as set out below. This includes new fees in respect of virtual asset services licences under the Phase 2 licensing regime:

  • a non-refundable application fee payable at the time of submitting an application;
  • a registration fee (varying depending on the type and scale of virtual asset services to be provided by registered persons, including the issuance of virtual assets);
  • a licensing fee for the provision of virtual asset custody services only;
  • a licensing fee for the operation of a virtual asset trading platform; and
  • annual renewal fees (varying depending on the revenue projected or generated in the prior year from the provision of the relevant virtual asset services).

Reduced fees calculated at 10% of the standard fees apply if the applicant, registered person or licensee is a local company as defined under the Local Companies (Control) Act (2025 Revision) offering services in the Cayman Islands.

Expansion of CIMA fees

The Monetary Authority (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2024 came into force on 1 January 2025.  The Act extends certain CIMA administrative fees to include all licensees and registered persons (i.e. including all registered and licensed VASPs).

Schedule 2 to the Act sets out the fees applicable to relevant activities, which include applications for a change of business plan, a certified copy of a licence, a change of company name and various other circumstances.

Our virtual assets practice

Our Band 1-ranked FinTech team in the Cayman Islands regularly advises businesses on the regulatory scope of the virtual assets regime and potential exemptions, steering clients through the CIMA application process and their ongoing regulatory obligations.  We work with first-time founders through to some of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, together with our global team of technology and digital assets experts in all major offshore centres.  Our work spans initial structuring, company set-up, establishing by-laws and governance structures, regulatory applications, token launches and other fundraising and investments, services agreements, software development and IP licensing arrangements, through to partnerships, acquisitions and exits (including SPACs/deSPACs and IPOs).  We also work with crypto-focused investment funds and other investors on their digital assets investments.

Share
More publications
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).