{ "jurisdiction_id": "APAC", "jurisdiction": "Asia-Pacific", "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/", "generator": "render_jid v13.3.0", "date_modified": "2026-08-17", "schema_version": "crypto-v2.0.0", "counts": { "modules": 8, "sourced_findings": 16, "source_register": 7 }, "modules": [ { "code": "crypto_licensing", "name": "Crypto Licensing", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#crypto-licensing-crypto-licensing", "standing_position": "APAC is a geographic label, not a unified regulatory bloc, so there is no single crypto-licensing regime for the region. Country regimes diverge radically: advanced licensed VASP frameworks exist in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan, while China maintains an outright prohibition and other jurisdictions (e.g. the Philippines) apply strict central-bank licensing to VASPs with active enforcement against unlicensed operators. Country-specific JIDs are where the actual binding regimes live; this module records the fragmentation pattern rather than a bloc-wide obligation.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "token_classification", "name": "Token Classification", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#token-classification-token-classification", "standing_position": "No unified APAC token taxonomy exists. Cross-country comparative work (BIS FSI) finds that jurisdictions across the region uniformly bring security-token issuance within securities regulation, but diverge on stablecoin and utility-token treatment. Japan is mid-transition toward classifying crypto assets as financial instruments under its Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "on_chain_activity_regime", "name": "On-Chain Activity Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#on-chain-activity-regime-on-chain-activity-regime", "standing_position": "On-chain activity treatment diverges sharply within APAC: China's reinforced prohibition extends to mining and tokenization activity, while Japan's low domestic yield environment has made institutional staking increasingly attractive to node operators, occurring against an evolving (not yet finalized) domestic regulatory backdrop.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "stablecoin_regime", "name": "Stablecoin Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#stablecoin-regime-stablecoin-regime", "standing_position": "No unified APAC stablecoin regime exists. Hong Kong enacted a dedicated fiat-referenced stablecoin licensing law in 2025; China reinforced its prohibition to explicitly cover stablecoins, including cross-border dimensions; and BIS financial-stability analysis flags cryptoasset (including stablecoin) transmission channels as an emerging-market risk across the wider region.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "consumer_protection", "name": "Consumer Protection", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#consumer-protection-consumer-protection", "standing_position": "Consumer protection obligations diverge by jurisdiction. Singapore tightened supervision, including custody segregation and external audit requirements, following the FTX collapse; Japan's pending crypto bill introduces stock-style disclosure obligations. No bloc-wide consumer-protection standard exists.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "tax_treatment", "name": "Tax Treatment", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#tax-treatment-tax-treatment", "standing_position": "No unified APAC crypto tax treatment was located; APG typology material and BIS financial-stability papers do not address tax. The only located tax-relevant development is Japan's pending reclassification bill, which is expected to lower crypto taxes once effective. Country-specific JIDs remain the correct venue for binding tax obligations.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "cross_border_transfer", "name": "Cross-Border Transfer", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#cross-border-transfer-cross-border-transfer", "standing_position": "This module carries the module's legitimate AML/CFT-adjacent coordination content for the APAC bloc: APG's regional typology reporting documents (non-binding) how member jurisdictions implement the FATF travel rule (R.15) for virtual assets, and China's 2026 notice explicitly extends its domestic prohibition to cross-border crypto and stablecoin activity by Chinese entities. Overlap with the financial_integrity FIM is expected and flagged.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "aml_cft_regime", "name": "AML/CFT Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/asia-pacific/#aml-cft-regime-aml-cft-regime", "standing_position": "Crypto subscribes to the Financial Integrity Module (FIM) for aml_ctf; no aml_cft_regime claims are produced in this baseline per the module-subscription rule. For disambiguation context only: the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) is the region's FATF-style body producing recurring typology and country VASP-status intelligence, but this is non-binding typology work, not a directly applicable AML/CFT regime for this module.", "findings": [] } ] }