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-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.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
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.

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.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
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.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
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.

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

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.