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

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.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
23 Jun 2026

Important Cayman Islands Industry Advisory: Common Reporting Standard 2.0 and Economic Substance Updates

Further to the introduction of the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (the CRS Amendment Regulations or CRS 2.0), the Cayman Islands Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) has issued an Industry Advisory flagging certain key updates in respect of Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and Economic Substance (ES) reporting in the Cayman Islands. Cayman Financial Institutions will be required file 2025 CRS Returns and Declarations by 31 July 2026, ahead of the online DITC Portal’s closure to facilitate its transition to XML Schema v3.0. ES courtesy reminders (which have historically been sent by email to designated Responsible Persons in advance of annual ES reporting deadlines) will no longer be issued such that Relevant Entities will need to independently track such deadlines themselves. Updated Individual and Entity CRS Self-Certification forms, aligned with CRS 2.0, are now available online via the DITC website.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
18 Jun 2026

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

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [2026] CIGC (FSD) 22, the Grand Court clarified the scope of joint provisional liquidators' powers following their appointment. In particular, the Court confirmed that the appointment of provisional liquidators does not automatically displace existing directors.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
17 Jun 2026

Property, Fairness and the Constitution: The Grand Court Marks the Boundaries of Freedom of Information

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has overturned a decision of the Ombudsman in a successful judicial review brought by Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), represented by Appleby.