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
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).