The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

Published: 4 Feb 2026
Type: Insight

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets.  The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information.  For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.


Application of the CARF Regulations

The CARF Regulations reporting and due diligence requirements apply to Cayman “Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers” (RCASP) being any individual or entity that, as a business* (see further below) provide services effectuating “Exchange Transactions” for or on behalf of customers, including by acting as a counterparty, or as an intermediary, to such Exchange Transactions, or by making available a trading platform.  A RCASP will be subject to the reporting and due diligence requirements of the CARF Regulations if it is:

  •  resident in Cayman;
  • has a regular place of business or a place of effective management in Cayman; is subject to financial supervision in Cayman;
  •  is incorporated or organized under Cayman law and has legal personality in Cayman or an obligation to file tax or tax information returns in Cayman with respect to its income; or
  •   is managed from Cayman.

Non-Cayman RCASPs have reporting and due diligence requirements with respect to any Relevant Transactions effected through their branches based in Cayman.

The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework Commentary published by the OECD provides that “as a business” excludes individuals or entities who carry out a service on a very infrequent basis for non-commercial reasons.

A Cayman RCASP that is incorporated or registered in Cayman will, in addition to its obligations under the CARF Regulations, also be required to be registered or licensed as a virtual asset service provider under the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (Revised) (VASP).

Reporting Obligations

Cayman RCASPs are required to report on Relevant Transactions being the following types of Exchange Transactions and/or Transfers of Relevant Crypto-Assets:

  •  Exchanges between Relevant Crypto-Assets and Fiat Currencies;
  •  Exchanges between one or more forms of Relevant Crypto-Assets; and
  • Transfers of Relevant Crypto-Assets, including Reportable Retail Payment Transactions.

For the purposes of the CARF Regulations, the term “Crypto-Asset” means a digital representation of value that relies on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or a similar technology to validate and secure transactions.  “Relevant Crypto-Asset” means any Crypto-Asset that is not a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), a Specified Electronic Money Product (including prepaid cards and prepaid accounts in a single fiat currency used for third party payments) (SEMP) or any Crypto-Asset for which the RCASP has adequately determined that it cannot be used for payment or investment purposes.

“Fiat Currency” is the official currency of a jurisdiction, issued by a jurisdiction or by a jurisdiction’s designated Central Bank or monetary authority as represented by physical banknotes, coins, money in digital forms including CBDCs and electronic money products including SEMPs.

“Reportable Retail Payment Transactions” are transfers of Relevant Crypto-Assets in consideration of goods or services for a value exceeding US$50,000.

Do the CARF Regulations Apply to Investment Funds?

Investment funds are not subject to the CARF Regulations unless they undertake activities that would render them a RCASP – effectuating exchange transactions or making a trading platform available.

Typical fund investment activities are covered by the existing CRS framework, which was recently amended to bring Relevant Crypto Assets within its scope and to require investment funds holding any interest in Relevant Crypto Assets to report on the account balances of their relevant investors.  The introduction of the CARF Regulations alongside these amendments to CRS was, by design, to create a comprehensive information exchange framework in respect of Crypto-Assets while avoiding duplicative reporting under the two regimes.

Common crypto-related features of investment funds are considered below:

  • Tokenized funds: the issuance of tokenized interests would not classify a fund as a RCASP.
  •  Investing in Crypto-Assets: buying, selling or managing Crypto-Assets for the fund’s own account would fall outside the CARF Regulations reporting obligations.
  •  Accepting subscriptions or making redemptions in Crypto-Assets: the acceptance of subscriptions or the processing of redemptions of equity interests in exchange for one or more types of Crypto-Asset or Fiat Currency would not classify the fund as a RCASP.

It is important to note that the CARF Regulations include an anti-avoidance provision whereby any arrangement with a main purpose of avoiding any reporting obligation(s) set out under the CARF Regulations is deemed to be void. Any investment fund with a main purpose of exchanging Relevant Crypto Assets should therefore carefully consider its position (and report as appropriate) under the CARF Regulations; and be registered or licensed under VASP.

How We Can Help

Our Regulatory and Technology & Innovation teams are assisting clients across the financial services, investment management, fiduciary and crypto-asset sector in transaction structuring, classification advice and regulatory compliance.  For further information, please contact you usual Appleby attorney.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
16 Feb 2026

Preparing for and Managing a CIMA Onsite Inspection

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is empowered, under the Monetary Authority Act and certain other regulatory laws, to inspect regulated financial service providers (FSP) in the Cayman Islands such as banks, trust companies, administrators, investment managers and virtual asset service providers for compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. CIMA routinely conducts onsite inspections of such regulated entities – which can be full-scope (involving a review of all areas of a regulated entity's business operations) or thematically focused on specific areas such as corporate governance and/or internal controls, policies and procedures pertaining to AML/CFT/CPF. With the breadth and number of onsite inspections carried out by CIMA having increased through 2024 and 2025 we consider, in this briefing: (i) the CIMA onsite inspection process; (ii) the latest feedback available from CIMA in respect of inspections conducted to date; and (iii) some frequently asked questions in relation to CIMA onsite inspections.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
16 Feb 2026

Injunctive Relief in Another Form? Cayman Court's Jurisdiction to Appoint JPLs Despite Ongoing Arbitration

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [link],[1] the Grand Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators notwithstanding the fact that the company’s shareholders are engaged in an arbitration over its affairs, as mandated by a binding arbitration agreement. This article considers the decision and its implications.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
11 Feb 2026

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.