Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence · Cross-Jurisdiction Domain Hub
Travel Rule & cross-border flows
Jurisdiction Readings (170 markets)
51 clear/open
97 conditional/active
22 restricted/elevated
| Jurisdiction | Region | Status | Regulatory Summary | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| African bloc (AFR) | Africa | Amber | FATF Recommendation 15 and its Interpretative Note apply globally, including to AU member states through the FATF-style regional bodies ESAAMLG (Eastern/Southern Africa), GIABA (West Africa), GABAC… | Profile →Brief |
| Alabama, USA (US-AL) | Americas | Green | Cross-border crypto transfers touching Alabama residents are governed exclusively by federal frameworks: FinCEN's Travel Rule and recordkeeping/reporting obligations for money transmitters (including… | Profile →Brief |
| Alaska, USA (US-AK) | Americas | Green | Alaska has no state-specific outbound-restriction or cross-border reporting regime for crypto assets. Cross-border transfer controls applicable to Alaska-based crypto businesses operate at the… | Profile →Brief |
| Alberta, Canada (CA-AB) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfers touching Alberta residents are governed federally by FinTRAC/PCMLTFA reporting thresholds and an extraterritorial registration reach over foreign virtual-currency… | Profile →Brief |
| Algeria (DZ) | Africa | Red | Algeria maintains stringent general foreign-exchange controls administered by the Banque d'Algérie, and the 2018 Finance Law's virtual-currency prohibition is understood to extend to cross-border… | Profile →Brief |
| Antigua and Barbuda (AG) | Caribbean | Amber | No digital-asset-specific outbound restriction, sanctions-nexus rule, reporting threshold, or cross-border travel-rule provision distinct from the general AML/CFT framework (excluded here per FIM… | Profile →Brief |
| Argentina (AR) | Americas | Amber | Argentina imposes broad currency-exchange controls ('cepo cambiario') on fiat FX flows but has no crypto-specific outbound-transfer restriction; cross-border crypto movements are not separately… | Profile →Brief |
| Arizona, USA (US-AZ) | Americas | Amber | Arizona imposes no state-specific cross-border crypto-transfer restrictions. Sanctions-nexus and cross-border reporting obligations applicable to Arizona-licensed money transmitters and any… | Profile →Brief |
| Arkansas, USA (US-AR) | Americas | Amber | No Arkansas-specific outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, or cross-border reporting regime for crypto assets exists. Federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN travel-rule requirements apply to money… | Profile →Brief |
| Asia-Pacific bloc (APAC) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | 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… | Profile →Brief |
| Australia (AU) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Cross-border crypto activity in Australia is governed principally through AUSTRAC's registration and reporting regime for digital currency exchanges under the AML/CTF Act 2006, rather than a… | Profile →Brief |
| Austria (AT) | Europe | Green | A single MiCA CASP authorisation obtained from Austria's FMA permits passporting of crypto-asset services across the whole EEA (27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), removing… | Profile →Brief |
| Bangladesh (BD) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Cross-border transactions to obtain, transfer or retain proceeds in virtual assets/currencies are explicitly barred under FERA-based FE circulars. Retention of export proceeds abroad in… | Profile →Brief |
| Belgium (BE) | Europe | Amber | As an EU Member State applying MiCA directly, Belgium participates in the CASP passporting regime allowing an authorisation granted by FSMA/NBB (or by another EU NCA) to be exercised across the EEA… | Profile →Brief |
| Belize (BZ) | Americas | Red | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer rule (passporting, reverse solicitation, or third-country access) exists in Belize, consistent with the absence of a licensed VASP population. Belize's… | Profile →Brief |
| Brazil (BR) | Americas | Amber | BCB Resolution 521 (effective February 2, 2026) brings international payments/transfers, settlement of international card obligations, self-custody wallet transfers, and fiat-referenced virtual-asset… | Profile →Brief |
| British Columbia, Canada (CA-BC) | Americas | Amber | Canada imposes no crypto-specific outbound capital control, but foreign crypto platforms serving Canadian residents (including BC) must meet the same registration/custody requirements as domestic… | Profile →Brief |
| Bulgaria (BG) | Europe | Green | Bulgaria's cross-border crypto-asset framework combines MiCA's single-market passporting regime for authorised CASPs, the crypto-asset 'travel rule' under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, and DAC8's… | Profile →Brief |
| Cambodia (KH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No domestic Cambodian statute imposing outbound crypto-asset transfer restrictions, cross-border reporting thresholds, or a cross-border travel-rule regime was identified. However, Cambodia-domiciled… | Profile →Brief |
| Cameroon (CM) | Africa | Amber | Cross-border currency and capital movements affecting Cameroon are governed by the CEMAC Foreign Exchange Regulation (Règlement n° 02/18/CEMAC/UMAC/CM), administered by BEAC, which imposes… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada (CA) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto flows into Canada are governed principally through FINTRAC's foreign-MSB registration and cross-border/large-transaction reporting obligations for virtual currency dealers, with… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada — Kahnawake (CA-KAH) | Americas | Amber | Canada does not categorically prohibit foreign crypto platforms from serving Canadian clients; instead it channels them into registration/PRU compliance. <cite index="45-8">Platforms outside of… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada — Tobique First Nation (CA-TFN) | Americas | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border capital-control or passporting statute was identified for Canada in this pass. Cross-border virtual-currency transfer reporting and the travel rule are administered by… | Profile →Brief |
| Chile (CL) | Americas | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer, outbound-restriction, or reporting-threshold rule was located. Chile's general foreign-exchange reporting framework (administered by the Banco Central de… | Profile →Brief |
| China (CN) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Cross-border crypto activity involving mainland China is tightly restricted. The 2021 Notice extended the prohibition to offshore exchanges providing services to mainland residents, and the February… | Profile →Brief |
| Colombia (CO) | Americas | Amber | The clearest cross-border signal is DIAN's Resolution 000240, which extends CARF-aligned reporting obligations extraterritorially to foreign crypto-asset providers serving Colombian residents or… | Profile →Brief |
| Colorado, USA (US-CO) | Americas | Green | No Colorado-specific outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule overlay for cross-border crypto transfers was identified. Cross-border movement of convertible virtual currency to or… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros (KM) | Africa | Red | No Comorian law imposes a crypto-specific outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, reporting threshold or cross-border travel-rule obligation. GIABA's 2024 assessment states directly that Comoros is… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros — Anjouan (KM-A) | Africa | Red | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer rule (outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, reporting threshold, or cross-border travel rule) has been identified for Comoros/Anjouan. General… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros — Mohéli (KM-M) | Africa | Red | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer rule (outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, reporting threshold, or travel-rule cross-border requirement) has been identified for the Union of the Comoros or… | Profile →Brief |
| Connecticut, USA (US-CT) | Americas | Amber | Connecticut has no independent cross-border crypto-transfer regime. Federal sanctions/OFAC screening and FinCEN Travel Rule-style analysis of virtual-currency transmittals apply uniformly nationwide… | Profile →Brief |
| Costa Rica (CR) | Americas | Amber | Costa Rica imposes no crypto-specific outbound restriction on cross-border transfers of virtual assets; absent dedicated legislation, such transfers are governed by the same general civil-code… | Profile →Brief |
| Croatia (HR) | Europe | Amber | Croatia is directly subject to the EU Transfer of Funds Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the crypto 'travel rule'), which requires crypto-asset service providers to obtain, hold and transmit originator and… | Profile →Brief |
| Curaçao (CW) | Caribbean | Green | The Cayman Islands imposes no general exchange control or currency restrictions, which extends to the movement of crypto assets absent a specific statutory carve-out. No crypto-specific outbound… | Profile →Brief |
| Cyprus (CY) | Europe | Green | Cyprus-based CASPs are subject to EU Regulation 2023/1113 (the crypto Travel Rule), which extends FATF-style originator/beneficiary information requirements to crypto-asset transfers and treats EMTs… | Profile →Brief |
| Czech Republic (CZ) | Europe | Green | Crypto-asset transfers touching the Czech Republic are governed by EU Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the crypto 'travel rule'), requiring originator/beneficiary information to accompany transfers. From 1… | Profile →Brief |
| Delaware, USA (US-DE) | Americas | Amber | Delaware has no state-specific cross-border crypto-transfer restriction. The applicable baseline is the federal FinCEN Funds Travel Rule and OFAC sanctions-screening regime, which apply uniformly to… | Profile →Brief |
| Denmark (DK) | Europe | Green | Denmark's cross-border crypto-transfer regime is entirely EU-derived via Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the crypto travel rule), which requires originator/beneficiary information on transfers and imposes… | Profile →Brief |
| District of Columbia, USA (US-DC) | Americas | Amber | DC-based crypto money transmitters are subject to the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN cross-border recordkeeping and travel-rule framework applicable nationwide; no DC-specific outbound-restriction… | Profile →Brief |
| Dominican Republic (DO) | Americas | Amber | BCRD confirms virtual assets are not treated as foreign currency under the exchange-rate regime, meaning crypto conversion sits outside standard FX controls. No crypto-specific cross-border reporting… | Profile →Brief |
| Ecuador (EC) | Americas | Green | Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the 'Transfer of Funds/Crypto-assets Regulation') extends FATF Travel Rule information requirements to crypto-asset transfers where at least one CASP is EU-established, and… | Profile →Brief |
| Egypt (EG) | Africa | Red | Egypt maintains strict foreign-exchange oversight under CBE authority; cross-border crypto-asset transfers conducted without CBE licensing fall within the general statutory prohibition on unlicensed… | Profile →Brief |
| Estonia (EE) | Europe | Amber | Cross-border crypto-asset transfers touching Estonia are governed by EU Regulation 2023/1113 (Transfer of Funds Regulation / 'Travel Rule'), transposed via MLTFPA amendments with dedicated sanctions… | Profile →Brief |
| European Economic Area (EEA) | Europe | Green | Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the recast Transfer of Funds Regulation, or crypto 'Travel Rule') requires full originator and beneficiary information to accompany every crypto-asset transfer within… | Profile →Brief |
| Finland (FI) | Europe | Amber | Cross-border crypto-asset transfers involving Finnish CASPs are subject to the EU Recast Transfer of Funds Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 ('crypto travel rule'), which requires originator/beneficiary… | Profile →Brief |
| Florida, USA (US-FL) | Americas | Green | No Florida-specific outbound restrictions or cross-border reporting thresholds for crypto transfers were identified beyond the generally applicable federal OFAC sanctions and FinCEN… | Profile →Brief |
| France (FR) | Europe | Green | Cross-border provision of crypto-asset services into or from France is governed primarily by MiCA's authorisation/passporting regime and by the DAC8 decree's cross-border tax-information exchange… | Profile →Brief |
| Georgia, USA (US-GA) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfers touching Georgia residents and businesses are governed by federal FinCEN funds-transfer/travel-rule recordkeeping requirements and federal OFAC sanctions-compliance… | Profile →Brief |
| Germany (DE) | Europe | Green | Germany, as an EU/EEA member, applies MiCA passporting allowing BaFin-authorised CASPs to operate across all EU/EEA member states without additional national approval, and applies the EU Travel Rule… | Profile →Brief |
| Ghana (GH) | Africa | Red | No Ghana-specific crypto cross-border transfer instrument (outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, reporting threshold, or crypto travel-rule-crossborder rule) was identified in Bank of Ghana or SEC… | Profile →Brief |
| Gibraltar (GI) | Europe | Confirmed | Cross-border virtual-asset transfers in or from Gibraltar are governed by the Funds (Transfer) Regulations 2026 (LN 2026/134), made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2015, which commenced on 15 July… | Profile →Brief |
| Greece (GR) | Europe | Green | As an EU/EEA Member State operating under MiCAR, Greece imposes no domestic outbound restriction on crypto-asset transfers within the EU passporting framework; a MiCA-authorised CASP in any Member… | Profile →Brief |
| Guernsey (GG) | Europe | Amber | Guernsey, as a Crown Dependency, is outside the EU (no MiCA passporting) and outside the UK's own cryptoasset regime (UK regime commencing 25 October 2027), so no mutual passporting arrangement for… | Profile →Brief |
| Guernsey — Alderney (GG-ALD) | Europe | Amber | The Bailiwick of Guernsey (including Alderney) is a British Crown Dependency, sitting outside both the EU's MiCA regulatory/passporting perimeter and the UK's FCA cryptoasset regulatory perimeter. No… | Profile →Brief |
| Hawaii, USA (US-HI) | Americas | Green | Hawaii imposes no identified state-level outbound restriction on crypto-asset transfers. Cross-border movement of virtual currency by Hawaii-licensed or Hawaii-based money-transmission businesses is… | Profile →Brief |
| Hong Kong (HK) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Hong Kong implements the FATF Travel Rule for virtual asset transfers via AMLO-based guidance since June 2023, requiring VASPs to exchange originator/beneficiary information; Travel Rule compliance… | Profile →Brief |
| Hungary (HU) | Europe | Amber | As an EU Member State, Hungary participates in MiCA's passporting mechanism (a CASP authorised in one EEA Member State can operate across the EEA), and MNB has confirmed compliance with ESMA's… | Profile →Brief |
| Iceland (IS) | Europe | Green | As an EEA/EFTA member, Iceland participates in the MiCA single-market passporting regime: a crypto-asset service provider authorised under MiCA in any EU member state (or, prospectively, in Iceland… | Profile →Brief |
| Idaho, USA (US-ID) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfers touching Idaho are governed by federal OFAC sanctions and FinCEN travel-rule obligations; no Idaho-specific outbound restriction was identified. Federal enforcement… | Profile →Brief |
| Illinois, USA (US-IL) | Americas | Amber | Illinois does not maintain a distinct state-level cross-border/international crypto-transfer regime; outbound and international transfer restrictions derive solely from federal OFAC sanctions and… | Profile →Brief |
| India (IN) | Asia-Pacific | Red | India extends its FIU-IND/PMLA registration and reporting obligations extraterritorially to offshore VDA platforms servicing Indian users on an activity basis. Separately, crypto transactions have… | Profile →Brief |
| Indiana, USA (US-IN) | Americas | Amber | Indiana has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus and cross-border reporting matters are governed federally. OFAC-administered sanctions… | Profile →Brief |
| Indonesia (ID) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Indonesia's principal documented cross-border-transfer control for crypto is fiscal rather than a dedicated transfer-restriction regime: transactions routed through foreign/overseas exchanges are… | Profile →Brief |
| Iowa, USA (US-IA) | Americas | Green | No Iowa-specific cross-border crypto transfer restriction, sanctions nexus rule, or reporting threshold distinct from federal law was identified. Cross-border transfers of crypto by Iowa-based… | Profile →Brief |
| Ireland (IE) | Europe | Green | MiCA CASP authorisation obtained in Ireland can be 'passported' to offer crypto-asset services across the EEA without additional national licensing, per Irish-authorised CASPs (e.g., Kraken via CBI)… | Profile →Brief |
| Isle of Man (IM) | Europe | Amber | No Isle of Man-specific outbound restriction on cryptoasset transfers has been identified; cross-border movement of virtual currency is governed by the general Designated Business AML/CFT framework… | Profile →Brief |
| Italy (IT) | Europe | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfers into and out of Italy are governed by directly applicable EU law: Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (Transfer of Funds Regulation, the EU 'travel rule' instrument) and MiCA's… | Profile →Brief |
| Ivory Coast (CI) | Africa | Red | Côte d'Ivoire, as a WAEMU/UMOA member, is subject to the zone's foreign-exchange control regime administered by BCEAO, which governs cross-border capital movements in CFA francs; however, no… | Profile →Brief |
| Japan (JP) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Japan applies FATF travel-rule notification obligations to VASPs (Crypto-Asset Exchange Service Providers and Electronic Payment Instrument Service Providers) for cross-border transfers, limited to… | Profile →Brief |
| Jersey (JE) | Europe | Amber | Jersey imposes no general exchange-control regime affecting the import, export, or remittance of capital, which extends to crypto-related payment flows. Jersey adopted FATF 'Travel Rule' requirements… | Profile →Brief |
| Kansas, USA (US-KS) | Americas | Amber | Kansas imposes no state-specific outbound restriction on cross-border crypto asset transfers. Cross-border crypto activity is governed by federal frameworks: BSA/FinCEN Travel Rule obligations (with… | Profile →Brief |
| Kazakhstan (KZ) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | The clearest cross-border-adjacent control identified is the Travel Rule obligation imposed on AIFC-licensed VASPs as part of AFSA's regulatory-sandbox exit checklist, which must be embedded within a… | Profile →Brief |
| Kentucky, USA (US-KY) | Americas | Green | Kentucky imposes no identified state-specific restriction on outbound or cross-border crypto transfers beyond the federal Bank Secrecy Act framework, including FinCEN's money-transmitter/travel-rule… | Profile →Brief |
| Kenya (KE) | Africa | Red | No explicit cross-border transfer, outbound-restriction, or Travel-Rule cross-border threshold specific to VASPs has been located in the VASP Act 2025 or draft 2026 Regulations text reviewed. The… | Profile →Brief |
| Laos (LA) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No dedicated cross-border crypto transfer regime (outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or crypto-specific travel rule) was identified. Decision 777/BOL requires licensed trading platforms to… | Profile →Brief |
| Latin America bloc (LATAM) | Americas | Amber | GAFILAT's August 2023 regulatory guide addresses cross-border virtual-asset transfers through implementation guidance on the FATF travel rule and the associated 'sunrise issue' (uneven cross-border… | Profile →Brief |
| Latvia (LV) | Europe | Amber | Crypto-asset transfers to/from Latvia are governed by MiCA's EU passporting mechanism (no outbound restriction within the EU) and by Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, which extends 'travel rule' information… | Profile →Brief |
| Liechtenstein (LI) | Europe | Amber | MiCA-authorised CASPs, including those licensed by Liechtenstein's FMA, benefit from EEA-wide passporting (EU-27 plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein), removing the need for separate national… | Profile →Brief |
| Lithuania (LT) | Europe | Green | MiCA-authorised CASPs benefit from EU passporting once fully licensed by the Bank of Lithuania, whereas grandfathered/transitional entities do not. Reverse solicitation from third-country CASPs into… | Profile →Brief |
| Louisiana, USA (US-LA) | Americas | Amber | Louisiana has no identified state-level cross-border virtual-currency transfer restriction distinct from federal sanctions and Bank Secrecy Act frameworks. Federal OFAC sanctions screening and FinCEN… | Profile →Brief |
| Luxembourg (LU) | Europe | Green | MiCA's passporting regime allows a CASP authorised in Luxembourg by the CSSF to offer crypto-asset services across all EU member states and the broader 30-country European Economic Area without… | Profile →Brief |
| Macau SAR, China (MO) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No Macau-specific crypto cross-border transfer rule (outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, reporting threshold, or cross-border travel rule) was identified beyond the 2017 AMCM restriction on… | Profile →Brief |
| Maine, USA (US-ME) | Americas | Amber | No Maine-specific statute addresses cross-border crypto-asset transfers. The applicable framework is entirely federal: the BSA Funds Travel Rule and OFAC sanctions-screening obligations bind… | Profile →Brief |
| Malaysia (MY) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Digital asset intermediaries in Malaysia must comply with BNM's Foreign Exchange Notices (e.g. Notice 4, Payment and Receipt) in addition to SC's digital-asset licensing regime; BNM has collaborated… | Profile →Brief |
| Malta (MT) | Europe | Green | Malta applies the standard MiCA passporting mechanism: a CASP authorisation granted by MFSA is valid for providing crypto-asset services across all EU/EEA Member States without need for separate… | Profile →Brief |
| Marshall Islands (MH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer regime was identified. A general corporate-law position is well-evidenced: the Marshall Islands imposes no exchange controls on non-resident corporations.… | Profile →Brief |
| Maryland, USA (US-MD) | Americas | Green | Maryland imposes no state-specific outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule overlay on cross-border crypto transfers beyond the federal baseline. Cross-border virtual-currency… | Profile →Brief |
| Massachusetts, USA (US-MA) | Americas | Amber | No Massachusetts-specific outbound restriction on crypto-asset transfers exists. Cross-border crypto transfers by MA-based money transmitters and exchanges are governed by federal sanctions and AML… | Profile →Brief |
| Mexico (MX) | Americas | Amber | Following the Ley Fintech's entry into force, virtual-asset exchanges operating in Mexico became subject to reporting-threshold obligations to the UIF, and Mexico's cross-border financial channels… | Profile →Brief |
| Michigan, USA (US-MI) | Americas | Amber | Michigan has no independent state statute governing cross-border crypto transfers. Cross-border movement of virtual currency by Michigan-based money transmitters is governed by federal frameworks… | Profile →Brief |
| Minnesota, USA (US-MN) | Americas | Green | No Minnesota-specific cross-border virtual-currency transfer restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule provision was identified. Cross-border crypto transmission by Minnesota-licensed money… | Profile →Brief |
| Mississippi, USA (US-MS) | Americas | Green | No Mississippi-specific outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, or cross-border reporting threshold for crypto transfers was identified. Cross-border virtual-currency money transmission is governed at… | Profile →Brief |
| Missouri, USA (US-MO) | Americas | Green | Missouri imposes no identified state-specific restriction on cross-border transfer of virtual currency. Applicable controls derive from the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN framework, including the… | Profile →Brief |
| Montana, USA (US-MT) | Americas | Green | Montana has no state-level cross-border crypto transfer restriction, sanctions-nexus rule, reporting threshold, or travel-rule regime distinct from the federal framework. Cross-border crypto… | Profile →Brief |
| Morocco (MA) | Africa | Red | Morocco's binding-adjacent position frames virtual-currency risk partly through the country's general exchange-control regime, as reflected in the 2017 BAM/AMMC/MEF communiqué's unregulated-activity… | Profile →Brief |
| Mozambique (MZ) | Africa | Amber | Cross-border crypto-asset flows are addressed only indirectly through Mozambique's general foreign exchange and capital-control framework. The current Foreign Exchange Law (Law No. 28/2022, of… | Profile →Brief |
| Myanmar (MM) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Myanmar has no crypto-specific cross-border transfer framework; cross-border exposure is instead governed by (a) the general CBM/Foreign Exchange Management Law regime restricting dealing in foreign… | Profile →Brief |
| Nebraska, USA (US-NE) | Americas | Green | Nebraska imposes no state-specific outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or cross-border travel-rule requirement on crypto-asset transfers beyond what is already required federally. Cross-border… | Profile →Brief |
| Nepal (NP) | Asia-Pacific | Red | NRB frames the cryptocurrency prohibition explicitly under the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1962, treating virtual-currency transactions as unauthorized foreign-exchange dealings and a channel… | Profile →Brief |
| Netherlands (NL) | Europe | Green | CASPs authorised in the Netherlands benefit from MiCA passporting, allowing cross-border service provision across the EEA without additional national licences; conversely, ESMA has reiterated that… | Profile →Brief |
| Nevada, USA (US-NV) | Americas | Amber | Nevada money-transmitter licensees register through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), which supports cross-state licensee verification, but Nevada does not appear to impose… | Profile →Brief |
| New Brunswick, Canada (CA-NB) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto activity affecting New Brunswick residents is governed by the same CSA registration/PRU regime applied to domestic platforms: foreign-based platforms serving Canadian clients must… | Profile →Brief |
| New Hampshire, USA (US-NH) | Americas | Green | No New Hampshire-specific cross-border crypto transfer restriction, sanctions nexus rule, or reporting threshold distinct from federal requirements was identified. Cross-border virtual currency… | Profile →Brief |
| New Jersey, USA (US-NJ) | Americas | Green | No New Jersey-specific outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule requirement distinct from federal law was identified for cross-border virtual-currency transfers. New Jersey-licensed… | Profile →Brief |
| New Mexico, USA (US-NM) | Americas | Amber | New Mexico has no state-specific outbound restriction on crypto asset transfers. Federal Bank Secrecy Act obligations, including OFAC sanctions screening and the FinCEN funds/CVC travel rule, apply… | Profile →Brief |
| New Zealand (NZ) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | New Zealand has no crypto-specific cross-border transfer statute currently in force. As part of the 2025 AML/CFT Amendment Bill package, the government proposed a NZD 5,000 (~USD 3,000) cap on… | Profile →Brief |
| Nigeria (NG) | Africa | Amber | The CBN's December 2023 Guidelines impose Naira-only settlement and NUBAN-account restrictions on designated VASP bank accounts, functionally limiting cross-border fiat flows through the regulated… | Profile →Brief |
| North Carolina, USA (US-NC) | Americas | Amber | North Carolina imposes no independent state-specific cross-border transfer restriction on virtual currency; cross-border obligations applicable to NC-licensed virtual currency money transmitters flow… | Profile →Brief |
| North Dakota, USA (US-ND) | Americas | Green | No North Dakota-specific cross-border crypto transfer restrictions were identified; cross-border crypto transfers are governed by federal sanctions screening and BSA/FinCEN rules (subscribed via FIM… | Profile →Brief |
| Norway (NO) | Europe | Amber | Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 extends 'travel rule' originator/beneficiary information requirements to crypto-asset transfers involving an EU/EEA PSP or CASP, with EBA travel-rule guidelines detailing… | Profile →Brief |
| Ohio, USA (US-OH) | Americas | Green | Ohio has no distinct state-level cross-border crypto-transfer regime. Cross-border transfers conducted by Ohio-based money transmitters and virtual-currency businesses are governed by the federal… | Profile →Brief |
| Oklahoma, USA (US-OK) | Americas | Amber | Oklahoma imposes no identified state-specific outbound restriction or cross-border reporting threshold on crypto transfers. Cross-border crypto movement in Oklahoma is governed by federal FinCEN… | Profile →Brief |
| Ontario, Canada (CA-ON) | Americas | Amber | Canada applies extraterritorial reach to its crypto securities registration regime: foreign platforms serving Canadian (including Ontario) residents are subject to the same CSA/OSC registration… | Profile →Brief |
| Oregon, USA (US-OR) | Americas | Green | Oregon imposes no identified state-specific outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, or cross-border reporting threshold for crypto-asset transfers beyond the federal Bank Secrecy Act/FinCEN framework.… | Profile →Brief |
| Pakistan (PK) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Pakistan's cross-border virtual-asset transfer regime is nascent. SBP's 2018-era restriction on outward remittance to overseas crypto/forex trading platforms remains a historical reference point of… | Profile →Brief |
| Palau (PW) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer restriction, sanctions-nexus rule, or VASP-specific Travel Rule has been identified in Palau law. Palau uses the US dollar and has no central bank. FATF's… | Profile →Brief |
| Panama (PA) | Americas | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer restrictions, outbound limits, or crypto-specific reporting thresholds have been identified in Panamanian law. Cross-border crypto transfers appear to be… | Profile →Brief |
| Pennsylvania, USA (US-PA) | Americas | Green | Pennsylvania imposes no state-specific outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or cross-border travel-rule regime on crypto transfers. Cross-border crypto transfers originating from or destined to… | Profile →Brief |
| Peru (PE) | Americas | Amber | No crypto-specific outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, or cross-border reporting-threshold regime was identified for virtual assets in Peru beyond the general AML sanctions-list screening embedded… | Profile →Brief |
| Philippines (PH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No PH-specific outbound-restriction statute or crypto-specific cross-border reporting threshold was located. However, BSP's June 2026 position on Binance/BlockShoals establishes a de facto… | Profile →Brief |
| Poland (PL) | Europe | Amber | MiCA passporting allows a CASP license issued in any EU/EEA state (including Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to serve the entire bloc; lacking domestic authorisation, Polish firms are seeking… | Profile →Brief |
| Portugal (PT) | Europe | Green | Cross-border crypto-asset transfers involving Portugal are governed by EU-wide instruments: Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the crypto 'Travel Rule'), requiring CASPs to accompany transfers with… | Profile →Brief |
| Qatar (QA) | Middle East | Red | The mainland prohibition effectively forecloses regulated outbound crypto transfer activity by QCB-supervised entities outside the QFC. No Qatar-specific Travel Rule instrument or cross-border… | Profile →Brief |
| Quebec, Canada (CA-QC) | Americas | Amber | Canada's registration and custody regime is applied extraterritorially: platforms based outside Canada that serve Canadian (including Quebec) clients fall under the same CSA/CIRO/PRU requirements as… | Profile →Brief |
| Rhode Island, USA (US-RI) | Americas | Green | Rhode Island has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer restrictions, outbound-transfer rules, or state-level reporting thresholds. Cross-border crypto activity involving RI-based persons is… | Profile →Brief |
| Romania (RO) | Europe | Green | EU Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers of funds and crypto-assets (the crypto 'travel rule') applies directly in Romania, and Romania's national measures implementing its… | Profile →Brief |
| Russia (RU) | Europe | Red | Russia's cross-border crypto posture is bifurcated and must be read against the seed's mandatory caution: domestically, exporters/importers are permitted to use cryptocurrency in foreign-trade… | Profile →Brief |
| Rwanda (RW) | Africa | Amber | Virtual assets remain non-legal-tender in Rwanda under Law N° 023/2026 and cannot be used as a direct means of payment — including for cross-border payment purposes — unless specifically authorised… | Profile →Brief |
| Saudi Arabia (SA) | Middle East | Red | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer framework exists. Because virtual-currency trading is treated as unauthorized/illegal domestically, cross-border movement of crypto assets by Saudi-based… | Profile →Brief |
| Senegal (SN) | Africa | Amber | UEMOA Règlement N°06/2024/CM/UEMOA (adopted 20 December 2024, superseding Règlement n°09/2010/CM/UEMOA) governs external financial relations for WAEMU member states including Senegal — covering… | Profile →Brief |
| Serbia (RS) | Europe | Amber | Serbia restricts foreign digital-asset service providers from targeting Serbian residents absent local incorporation and NBS licensing, functioning as a de facto market-entry/cross-border-service… | Profile →Brief |
| Seychelles (SC) | Africa | Red | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer, passporting, or reverse-solicitation regime was identified for Seychelles. In practice, the International Business Companies Act 2016 is used by multiple… | Profile →Brief |
| Singapore (SG) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Singapore does not impose general outbound capital controls on DPT transfers; instead, the 2024 PS Act amendments extended licensing (rather than restriction) to facilitation of cross-border… | Profile →Brief |
| Slovakia (SK) | Europe | Green | A CASP authorised by NBS under MiCA benefits from the EU-wide passporting regime, permitting cross-border service provision to clients in other EEA Member States without separate host-state… | Profile →Brief |
| Slovenia (SI) | Europe | Green | Cross-border crypto-asset transfers to/from Slovenia are governed by EU Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the crypto Travel Rule), requiring CASPs to attach originator and beneficiary information to… | Profile →Brief |
| South Africa (ZA) | Africa | Amber | Cross-border crypto movement currently rides on general exchange control allowances (single discretionary allowance and foreign capital allowance), which SARB has confirmed may be used to purchase… | Profile →Brief |
| South Carolina, USA (US-SC) | Americas | Amber | South Carolina has not enacted state-specific outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, or cross-border reporting rules for crypto transfers. Cross-border movement of digital assets by SC-based persons… | Profile →Brief |
| South Dakota, USA (US-SD) | Americas | Amber | South Dakota imposes no state-specific restrictions on cross-border crypto transfers. Cross-border transfer obligations for South Dakota-licensed money transmitters and trust companies derive from… | Profile →Brief |
| South Korea (KR) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Korea implemented the FATF Travel Rule on March 25, 2022, requiring VASPs to collect sender/recipient data for transfers exceeding 1,000,000 won; the FSC has signaled plans to expand Travel Rule… | Profile →Brief |
| Spain (ES) | Europe | Green | Cross-border crypto-asset transfers to/from Spain are governed by the EU 'travel rule' (Regulation (EU) 2023/1113), which applies directly and is enforced in coordination with Banco de… | Profile →Brief |
| Sri Lanka (LK) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Cross-border crypto flows are constrained indirectly through Foreign Exchange Act mechanisms rather than a crypto-specific cross-border regime. Purchasing virtual currencies from abroad is treated by… | Profile →Brief |
| Sweden (SE) | Europe | Green | As an EU/EEA Member State, Sweden applies Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (the Transfer of Funds Regulation, TFR), which extends FATF-aligned travel-rule, traceability and sanctions-screening obligations… | Profile →Brief |
| Switzerland (CH) | Europe | Amber | Switzerland's travel-rule implementation requires FINMA-regulated VASPs to verify the identity of the beneficial owner behind a self-hosted ('unhosted') wallet before permitting crypto transfers… | Profile →Brief |
| Taiwan (TW) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Overseas virtual-asset service providers soliciting business in Taiwan have been required to establish a locally incorporated company or branch under the Company Act and complete AML registration… | Profile →Brief |
| Tanzania (TZ) | Africa | Amber | Tanzania has no crypto-specific cross-border transfer rule. Crypto flows are instead captured within the general foreign-exchange control perimeter: BOT's 2019 notice characterised virtual-currency… | Profile →Brief |
| Tennessee, USA (US-TN) | Americas | Green | No Tennessee-specific statute restricting outbound crypto-asset transfers, imposing state-level cross-border reporting thresholds, or extending the travel rule beyond federal requirements has been… | Profile →Brief |
| Texas, USA (US-TX) | Americas | Amber | No Texas-specific statute establishing a distinct cross-border transfer regime for virtual currency was identified. Money transmitters conducting virtual-currency business with Texas residents remain… | Profile →Brief |
| Thailand (TH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Thailand actively restricts outbound access to unlicensed foreign crypto platforms (blocking OKX, Bybit, CoinEx, 1000X and XT.com in 2025, following a 2024 precedent) for Digital Asset Business Act… | Profile →Brief |
| Trinidad and Tobago (TT) | Caribbean | Amber | No TT-specific crypto-asset cross-border transfer rule (reporting threshold, passporting, reverse solicitation) was located. TT has operated a flexible exchange-rate regime without controls on… | Profile →Brief |
| Tunisia (TN) | Africa | Red | Cross-border transfers of value connected to crypto-asset transactions are captured by Tunisia's general capital and current-account exchange controls, which require BCT authorisation for most… | Profile →Brief |
| Turkey (TR) | Europe | Amber | Confirmed Turkey-specific cross-border transfer restrictions or travel-rule thresholds for crypto assets were not retrieved via primary sources in this pass. MASAK's 2021 designation of crypto… | Profile →Brief |
| Uganda (UG) | Africa | Amber | Beyond the BOU circular barring licensed entities from converting crypto to mobile money, Uganda has not published a crypto-specific cross-border transfer restriction. Legal commentary notes that… | Profile →Brief |
| Ukraine (UA) | Europe | Amber | Ukraine maintains wartime currency-control restrictions administered by the NBU that directly and explicitly restrict cross-border 'quasi-cash' transactions, including virtual-asset purchases, as… | Profile →Brief |
| United Arab Emirates (AE) | Middle East | Amber | Cross-border virtual-asset transfers in AE are governed principally through the FATF Travel Rule as codified in the UAE Virtual Assets Travel Rule (Cabinet Resolution No. (134) of 2025) and VARA's… | Profile →Brief |
| United Kingdom (UK) | Europe | Amber | The Travel Rule has been in force since 1 Sept 2023, requiring collection, verification, and sharing of cryptoasset transfer information, with risk-based procedures for non-implementing… | Profile →Brief |
| United States (US) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfers involving the US are shaped primarily by OFAC sanctions designations of wallets and, increasingly, entire foreign exchanges, and by the GENIUS Act's restriction of the… | Profile →Brief |
| United States — California (US-CA) | Americas | Amber | Cross-border crypto transfer controls affecting California operate almost entirely through federal law: OFAC sanctions and FinCEN BSA/AML obligations apply uniformly nationwide, and the GENIUS Act… | Profile →Brief |
| United States — New York (US-NY) | Americas | Green | New York does not operate a bespoke cross-border virtual-currency transfer-restriction regime distinct from federal sanctions law, but NYDFS actively supervises DFS-regulated entities' (including… | Profile →Brief |
| Uruguay (UY) | Americas | Amber | No Uruguay-specific crypto cross-border transfer restriction, sanctions nexus rule, reporting threshold, or crypto travel-rule cross-border regime was identified in this research pass. Uruguay… | Profile →Brief |
| Utah, USA (US-UT) | Americas | Green | Utah imposes no state restriction on transferring digital assets across borders; Utah Code 7-29-103 affirmatively protects a person's right to transfer digital assets to another person or business… | Profile →Brief |
| Vanuatu (VU) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Vanuatu has no crypto-specific passporting regime, reverse-solicitation rule, or outbound-restriction specific to virtual-asset transfers. General AML/CTF Act registration and VFIU… | Profile →Brief |
| Venezuela (VE) | Americas | Red | Cross-border crypto activity involving Venezuela is dominated by the U.S. sanctions regime rather than by domestic Venezuelan law. U.S. Executive Order 13827 (March 19, 2018) prohibits U.S. persons… | Profile →Brief |
| Vermont, USA (US-VT) | Americas | Amber | Vermont imposes no state-specific cross-border restriction on virtual-currency transfers; cross-border transmission by Vermont-licensed money-transmitter/virtual-currency businesses is governed by… | Profile →Brief |
| Vietnam (VN) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Vietnam is actively restricting cross-border/offshore crypto platform use as part of the licensing pilot: Decree 284/2026/NĐ-CP penalizes domestic investors trading via unlicensed (including… | Profile →Brief |
| Virginia, USA (US-VA) | Americas | Amber | Virginia imposes no independent state-level restriction on outbound or cross-border crypto transfers beyond federal frameworks. Federal OFAC sanctions screening obligations and FinCEN's Funds Travel… | Profile →Brief |
| Washington State, USA (US-WA) | Americas | Green | No Washington-specific restriction on outbound or cross-border cryptocurrency transfers was identified. Cross-border transmission is governed by the same state money-transmission licensing framework… | Profile →Brief |
| West Virginia, USA (US-WV) | Americas | Green | No West Virginia-specific cross-border crypto transfer restriction has been identified. Federal Bank Secrecy Act obligations (FinCEN Funds Travel Rule, sanctions screening) apply to state-licensed… | Profile →Brief |
| Wisconsin, USA (US-WI) | Americas | Green | Wisconsin has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, and travel-rule obligations affecting cross-border crypto transfers are governed… | Profile →Brief |
| Wyoming, USA (US-WY) | Americas | Green | Wyoming state law does not impose any distinct cross-border restriction, sanctions nexus, or reporting-threshold regime on cryptocurrency transfers; cross-border movement of digital assets by… | Profile →Brief |
| Zambia (ZM) | Africa | Amber | No crypto-specific cross-border transfer rule, outbound restriction, reporting threshold, or crypto-adapted travel-rule provision was identified for Zambia. General foreign-exchange control… | Profile →Brief |