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

Published: 14 Mar 2025

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.

Primary Contact

Peter Colegate

Partner
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2745 | +1 345 324 0504
E [email protected]

Peter Colegate, Dean Bennett, Menelik Miller, Marsha Williamson

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.

More publications

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring

13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan V Mansimov Abstract

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Alan Bercow, William Spence

7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

Martin Byers, Maree Martin, Miriam Smyth, Menelik Miller

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers

5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial. The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Susan Fallan, Daniel Coelho, Hannah Oh

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring-562x340

14 Jul 2026

Directors Cannot Delay Shareholder Votes: Cayman Court Limits Postponement Powers

Eliot Simpson, Ray Leung, Steven Yuen

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance

13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.