---
title: "Bangladesh Crypto Regulation Monitor | cryptoassets.gi"
canonical: https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/bangladesh/
source_html: /jurisdictions/bangladesh/index.html
description: "Bangladesh crypto asset regulation: 9 categories, 35 sourced findings, updated 2026-11-04. Licensing, token classification, stablecoins, tax treatment."
generated_at: 2026-11-07T14:19:44Z
content_sha256: 3fe558505d82581f62f23de4e838863142eae05fa493f96c8bec4d3f30e253d5
generator: "fe-fleet/md-twin@1.0"
---
# Bangladesh Crypto & Digital Asset Regulation

schema crypto-v2.0.0
trajectory: not yet assessed prohibited overlaps: [Sentinel (AML/CFT)](https://sentinel.gi/jurisdictions/bangladesh/), [World Payments](https://payments.gi/jurisdictions/bangladesh/)

Last updated 2026-11-04 · 9 categories · 35 sourced
findings · 23 sources in the cumulative register

Download report (PDF) Expand all

Evidence re-verified: 2026-11-04 · Position last changed: 2026-11-04 · Record history & provenance ▾ Methodology & record provenance: Module confidence is derived from the underlying claims (source tier and primary excerpt retention), while statutory legal force is tracked independently.

Review status: AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified · As-of date: 2026-10-26

[Open in Co-Pilot ↗](/reports/?type=copilot&j=BANGLADESH)[Build Report](/reports/?j=BANGLADESH)[Compare](/compare/?j=BANGLADESH)

Framework posture Prohibited 8 of 9 modules populated · AI-synthesised · Tier-1/2 verified

Lead supervisory authority Bangladesh Bank Primary statutory & supervisory perimeter

Next milestone (> 2026-10-26) None scheduled No dated future statutory milestone on record

Module coverage & confidence 8 / 9 modules assessed 0 Confirmed · 8 Probable · 0 Uncertain · 1 Not yet assessed

9 Categories

0 Moved this cycle 0 Key judgments 2 Open gaps 35 Findings

4 Tier-1 sources

Confidence mix 9 unpopulated
(sums to 9 rendered categories; click to filter)

No categories moved this cycle.

## Jurisdiction lead brief

###### Latest update · 25 October 2026

#### Lead Signal

Bangladesh Bank's Foreign Exchange Policy Department circular of 31 July 2025 confirms that retention of export proceeds abroad in any form, including the purchase of virtual or crypto assets or the maintenance of crypto-denominated accounts, contravenes Section 5(1)(e)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and is cognisable as an offence under Section 23(1) of the same Act. This is a Tier-1 primary-source confirmation that Bangladesh's cross-border crypto prohibition extends specifically to the treatment of export proceeds, closing off a route by which exporters might otherwise hold foreign receivables in crypto form rather than repatriating them through authorised channels.

#### Other Developments

Gambling Prevention Act 2026 adds a laundering dimension to crypto-settled cross-border flows. Secondary legal commentary, corroborated across two independent sources, reports that the Act treats gambling-proceeds laundering via cryptocurrency as a predicate offence under the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012, layering an AML consequence onto crypto-settled flows that cross Bangladesh's borders in connection with gambling activity, in addition to the pre-existing foreign-exchange-control prohibition.

#### Cross-Monitor Connections

The cross-border crypto prohibition intersects directly with Bangladesh's financial-integrity architecture: the same Gambling Prevention Act 2026 predicate-offence expansion reported under the financial-integrity monitor's D5 and D7 domains names cryptocurrencies as a covered channel for cross-border gambling-proceeds laundering. The foreign-exchange-control prohibition on crypto transactions, confirmed by Bangladesh Bank's FEPD circular, and the money-laundering predicate-offence characterisation under the Gambling Prevention Act operate as two separate but overlapping legal bases restricting crypto-settled cross-border value transfer.

#### Outlook

No change to Bangladesh's underlying cross-border crypto prohibition is evident; the FEPD circular reaffirms rather than alters the standing Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 framework. Confirmation of the Gambling Prevention Act's exact predicate-offence wording against primary gazette text remains outstanding.

3 earlier updates not shown here.

###### Standing brief · as of 25 August 2026

Written before the update above. Where they differ, the update is the more recent position.

#### Lead Signal

Bangladesh's cryptocurrency posture remains a blanket prohibition enforced entirely through ancillary financial-crime and foreign-exchange statutes rather than through any dedicated crypto law. Bangladesh Bank treats cryptocurrency transactions as unauthorised and in violation of existing financial regulations, and this prohibition is applied through the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 rather than through a bespoke crypto statute naming the prohibition directly. No dedicated crypto licensing regime exists, and none is indicated as under development this cycle. This finding is corroborated across two independent secondary sources — a crypto-education platform and a global regulatory-tracking service — though neither reaches primary-source confirmation of the specific enabling Bangladesh Bank circular or warning notice; the exact instrument number under which the prohibition is currently codified was not verified against bb.org.bd this cycle, and that sourcing gap is carried forward rather than resolved. The prohibition's legal architecture is itself notable: rather than a single named ban, Bangladesh Bank's position rests on the combined weight of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, which restricts foreign-currency-denominated transactions generally, and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012, which brings unregulated financial flows within reporting and enforcement scope. Financial institutions are directed not to facilitate cryptocurrency-related activity under this combined framework, meaning the practical prohibition operates at the level of the regulated financial system's gatekeepers rather than through direct criminalisation of individual possession or use. No indication of an exemption for foreign-currency-earning freelancers or remittance-adjacent crypto use, sometimes discussed informally in Bangladesh's outward-remittance context, was located this cycle, and the prohibition should be read as general rather than carrying any carved-out exception.

#### Other Developments

No bespoke statutory basis, persistent classification ambiguity. Because Bangladesh Bank's prohibition rests on general financial-crime and foreign-exchange law rather than on crypto-specific legislation, the underlying legal basis for the ban is itself somewhat indirect: cryptocurrency activity is captured by statutes that were not drafted with digital assets specifically in mind, a structural feature of the regime rather than a gap expected to close through crypto-specific rulemaking in the near term. This structural feature has a direct practical consequence: because there is no crypto-specific statute to amend or repeal, any future liberalisation would require either a new dedicated law or a reinterpretation of how the existing foreign-exchange and money-laundering statutes apply to digital assets, a materially higher institutional bar than amending a single crypto-specific provision would represent. This also means the prohibition's durability is tied to the durability of Bangladesh's broader foreign-exchange and anti-money-laundering architecture rather than to any crypto-specific political consensus.

#### Cross-Monitor Connections

This cycle's crypto_licensing finding intersects directly with material tracked elsewhere in the research fleet. The financial-integrity monitor is separately tracking a statutory contradiction in which Bangladesh's newly enacted Gambling Prevention Act 2026 and Cyber Security Act 2026 explicitly name cryptocurrency as a money-laundering vector within their own provisions, even as Bangladesh Bank's transaction prohibition, recorded here, remains in place; that AML/CTF-framed analysis is authored by financial-integrity, not duplicated here. Separately, the gambling-regulatory monitor is tracking the same underlying 2026 statutes from a gambling-market-entry perspective, including their explicit criminalisation of cryptocurrency-linked wagering; the crypto-licensing prohibition recorded here is the financial-regulatory backdrop against which that gambling-specific prohibition sits. Both of these adjacent findings reinforce rather than contradict the picture recorded here: Bangladesh's posture toward cryptocurrency is one of prohibition and prohibition-adjacent statutory naming, consistently, across three different legal instruments, with no instrument moving in a liberalising direction.

#### Outlook

The most likely near-term development is not liberalisation but further statutory layering: given that two newly enacted statutes now name cryptocurrency as a laundering vector while Bangladesh Bank's transaction prohibition remains unchanged, the more probable trajectory is additional enforcement or clarification activity attempting to reconcile the ban with the new vector-recognition language, rather than any move toward a licensing framework. A secondary indicator worth tracking is whether Bangladesh Bank issues a clarifying circular addressing this apparent tension; the absence of such a clarification to date, despite the new statutes already being in force, suggests the tension is not yet being treated as urgent by the regulator relative to the gambling-enforcement action driving most of this cycle's broader financial-integrity signal. No development this cycle points toward the emergence of a dedicated crypto statute or licensing regime.

Read full brief · 1021 words

Key regulatory facts for Bangladesh Regulatory Dimension Bangladesh Standing Position

Jurisdiction Bangladesh (BD)

Regulatory Scope Crypto & Digital Asset Regulation (9 modules, 35 sourced findings)

Crypto Licensing Bangladesh has no VASP licensing regime.

Token Classification Bangladesh has no statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets.

On-Chain Activity Regime Bangladesh Bank has issued no activity-specific rule addressing staking, DeFi, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validator activity or tokenisation.

Stablecoin Regime No stablecoin-specific legal category exists in Bangladesh — hence no issuance authorisation, reserve requirement, redemption right or systemic designation regime.

Primary Instruments Cited Bangladesh Bank, Bangladesh Bank, The Business Standard, ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and IT, Bangladesh Bank

Last Confirmed / Updated 2026-11-04 (23 sources in cumulative register)

9 of 9 categories

Signal
Moved
Judgment
Gap

Density
Comfortable
Compact

Expand all sources
Reset all

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

### Bangladesh: C1 Crypto LicensingRedEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

Bangladesh has no VASP licensing regime. Bangladesh Bank maintains a blanket prohibition on dealing in cryptocurrency, grounded in FERA 1947 s.23(1) and reaffirmed by FE Circular No. 24 (2022). The National Blockchain Policy of Bangladesh 2026 explicitly excludes cryptocurrency trading and exchange operation from its scope, confirming these remain exclusively under Bangladesh Bank's FX/AML jurisdiction.

Open gap — crypto-int-2 No exact dated circular number retrieved for the late-October 2026 unified BB FX circular consolidating crypto prohibition. no under-indexing note recorded

#### Crypto Licensing

Bangladesh maintains a blanket prohibition on cryptocurrency transactions, treating them as unauthorised and in violation of existing financial regulations. No dedicated crypto statute exists naming the prohibition directly; instead, Bangladesh Bank applies the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 to constrain crypto exchange, brokerage, and related activity, with financial institutions directed not to facilitate cryptocurrency-related transactions.

This ancillary-statute structure is the defining feature of Bangladesh's crypto-licensing landscape: there is no application process, no licence category, and no regulator-defined path to lawful crypto-asset activity of any kind. The absence of a dedicated statute also means the prohibition's specific enabling instrument — the exact Bangladesh Bank circular or warning notice presently in force — was not independently verified against bb.org.bd this cycle; the finding rests on secondary crypto-industry and regulatory-tracking commentary rather than on a primary regulatory citation, a sourcing gap that should be closed before this finding is treated as fully verified.

The practical effect of this structure is that Bangladesh Bank's enforcement lever operates against the regulated financial system's gatekeepers — banks and licensed payment intermediaries — rather than against individual crypto users or platforms directly, meaning enforcement visibility is likely to surface primarily through the banking sector's compliance behaviour rather than through direct regulatory action against crypto exchanges, which have no lawful presence in the jurisdiction to be acted against in the first instance. The two structured claims underpinning this module's assessment carried a confidence-tier value this cycle that fell outside the crypto monitor's controlled four-value enum and were held during composition pending Interpreter-side correction; the module-level characterisation above is retained at the module-summary level independent of those held claim records.

#### Outlook

The near-term outlook for Bangladesh's crypto-licensing landscape is stability rather than change: no licensing framework is under development, and the prohibition's ancillary-statute basis means any future shift would require either a new dedicated law or a reinterpretation of the existing foreign-exchange and anti-money-laundering framework. The single development most likely to alter this picture is independent verification of the specific enabling Bangladesh Bank instrument, which would upgrade this cycle's secondary-sourced finding to a primary-sourced one without changing its substance.

Read full sub-brief · 359 words Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

#### Crypto Licensing

Bangladesh maintains a blanket prohibition on virtual currency and virtual asset transactions, standing on Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 of 15 September 2022. That circular states plainly that transactions made in, from, or to entities engaged in exchange, transfer or trading of virtual assets or virtual currencies are not permitted by Bangladesh Bank, on the basis that virtual currencies are not recognised as currency under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 s.2(b)(i). This is a Confirmed, Tier-1-sourced position and the primary framework governing crypto activity in the country: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 s.23(1), the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 sit behind Bangladesh Bank's enforcement authority.

The development this cycle is not a change to that prohibition but its explicit reaffirmation. The National Blockchain Policy of Bangladesh 2026 excludes cryptocurrency and virtual-currency trading, exchange operation, and legal-tender status from its own scope. Read against the standing FE Circular, this is a confirmation that jurisdiction over crypto activity remains exclusively with Bangladesh Bank rather than being liberalised or reassigned to a new blockchain-specific regulator. This is a Probable-confidence claim, sourced from The Business Standard's opinion coverage of the Policy, and it is a new instrument this cycle even though its substantive effect is continuity rather than change.

No statutory token-classification taxonomy exists in Bangladesh, and no regulator guidance addresses on-chain activity such as staking, DeFi participation, mining or validator operation specifically. Both of these adjacent gaps sit consistently with the broader FX-based prohibition: in the absence of any lawful crypto-trading activity, Bangladesh has had limited occasion to build out a classification or on-chain-activity rulebook, and none is evidenced this cycle.

#### Outlook

The 2026 National Blockchain Policy's framing — building sovereign permissioned blockchain infrastructure while explicitly carving crypto trading out of its own scope — suggests the government's institutional interest lies in state-controlled applications rather than any move toward licensing private virtual-asset activity. Nothing in the current record suggests Bangladesh Bank is preparing to relax the FE Circular No. 24 prohibition. The item to watch is whether the Blockchain Policy is followed by implementing rules that further specify the boundary between permitted sovereign blockchain infrastructure and the prohibited private-crypto space it explicitly excludes.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (9)
- T1[Bangladesh Bank](https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/financialactivity/capmarket_circulars) — Bangladesh Bank's 24 December 2017 circular criminalises transacting in virtual/digital currency under section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.
- T1[Bangladesh Bank](https://www.bb.org.bd/mediaroom/circulars/fepd/sep152022fepd24e.pdf) — Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 of 15 September 2022 reaffirmed that no individual, entity or institution operating in Bangladesh may deal in, exchange, transfer or trade virtual assets or virtual currencies, and ordered banks to refrain from facilitating such transactions.
- T1[Bangladesh Bank](https://www.bb.org.bd/mediaroom/circulars/fepd/sep152022fepd24e.pdf) — No Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) licensing, registration or notification regime exists in Bangladesh; the sole regulatory posture toward crypto activity is prohibition of dealing under foreign-exchange law.
- T4[The Business Standard](https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/how-crypto-thrives-bangladeshs-legal-grey-zone-1137576) — Bangladesh Bank has told the Criminal Investigation Department that mere possession/holding of cryptocurrency is not itself a punishable offence absent a nexus to FX, AML or terror-financing violations, creating an enforcement grey area distinct from the formal transaction ban.
- T2[ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and IT](https://objectstorage.ap-dcc-gazipur-1.oraclecloud15.com/n/axvjbnqprylg/b/V2Ministry/o/office-ictd/2026/0/cf2427a1-8b05-4d77-9903-9d3d6a007b69.pdf) — Bangladesh's National Blockchain Policy 2026 explicitly excludes cryptocurrency/virtual-currency trading, exchange operation and legal-tender status from its scope, confirming these remain exclusively under Bangladesh Bank's existing FX/AML jurisdiction rather than being liberalised by the blockchain policy.
- T2 · The Business Standard[Bangladesh Bank](https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/banking/bb-urges-banks-increase-monitoring-prevent-crypto-transactions-512650) — cryptocurrency transactions as unauthorised
- T3[Bangladesh Bank](https://en.banking.gurukul.edu.bd/bangladesh-bank-reaffirms-restrictions-on-cryptocurrency-trading/) — Transacting in, from, or to Bangladesh to obtain, exchange, transfer or trade virtual assets/virtual currencies is a contravention of FERA 1947 s.23(1), punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment, a fine, or both; consolidated into a unified FX circular (~29-31 Oct 2026).
- T3[Bangladesh Bank / BRPD Circular No. 40](https://www.datawallet.com/crypto/best-crypto-exchanges-bangladesh) — banks to tighten monitoring of customer accounts used by foreign crypto-asset service providers
- T1[Bangladesh Bank / Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947](https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/financialactivity/capmarket_circulars) — transacting in any virtual/digital currency, or a bank facilitating such a transaction, is an unauthorised foreign-exchange dealing punishable by up to 7 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both

### Bangladesh: C2 Token ClassificationRedEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

Bangladesh has no statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets. FERA 1947's definition of 'currency' does not recognise virtual currencies, and virtual assets are not an approved form of foreign exchange or investment. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 assigns tokenised securities and security-token offerings to BSEC under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969, while explicitly excluding cryptocurrency trading. Stablecoins are grouped with broader private crypto assets rather than given a distinct classification.

C2 · Token Classification — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 7 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Red), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login) [View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C3 On-Chain Activity RegimeAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

Bangladesh Bank has issued no activity-specific rule addressing staking, DeFi, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validator activity or tokenisation. The general prohibition on dealing in and facilitating virtual-asset/virtual-currency exchange, transfer or trading is broad enough in wording to sweep up any means of acquiring or transacting in virtual currency, but no bespoke guidance exists. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 promotes permissioned enterprise tokenisation for trade/government use cases while explicitly excluding cryptocurrency-linked tokenisation.

C3 · On-Chain Activity — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 2 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Amber), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C4 Stablecoin RegimeRedEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

No stablecoin-specific legal category exists in Bangladesh — hence no issuance authorisation, reserve requirement, redemption right or systemic designation regime. Despite the general FX prohibition on virtual-currency dealing, unofficial inflows of USDT and USDC are reported to circulate outside regulatory scrutiny, particularly in remittance-adjacent use. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 references CBDC development but treats private stablecoins as a subset of the broader crypto-asset category it excludes from scope.

Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

#### Stablecoin Regime

Bangladesh has no enacted stablecoin-specific regulatory framework. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 is the only instrument to address stablecoins at all, and it does so by grouping them together with broader private crypto assets rather than establishing any distinct authorisation, reserve, or redemption regime for them. The Business Standard's opinion coverage of the Policy states that this approach currently prioritises risk framing over the opportunity such instruments might represent, which is a Uncertain-confidence characterisation given that it comes from opinion commentary on the Policy rather than a directly retrieved policy-text provision addressing stablecoins by name.

Because stablecoins are not distinguished from the general private-crypto category, the practical regulatory treatment of a stablecoin transaction in Bangladesh is identical to the treatment of any other virtual-asset transaction under Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 of 2022: not permitted, on the basis that virtual currencies are not recognised as currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. There is no separate reserve-backing requirement, no distinct issuer-licensing track, and no differentiated consumer-disclosure regime for stablecoins as such — because there is no distinct regulatory category for them to sit within.

#### Outlook

The Business Standard commentary frames the current grouping of stablecoins with broader crypto assets as a starting point rather than a permanent settlement, arguing the Policy's foundation for sovereign permissioned infrastructure could in principle be extended to a distinct stablecoin treatment. Nothing in this cycle's evidence base confirms that any such extension is underway. The item to watch is whether a future iteration of blockchain policy, or a dedicated Bangladesh Bank circular, carves stablecoins out of the general private-crypto prohibition into a distinct authorisation track; there is no signal in the current record that this is imminent.

C4 · Stablecoins & EMTs — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 4 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Red), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C5 Consumer ProtectionAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

Bangladesh Bank has issued repeated public warnings on the volatility, lack of legal backing, and financial/legal risk of dealing in virtual currencies, and has directed banks to post branch-level warning notices and increase monitoring. However, there is no bespoke consumer-protection statute for crypto-asset service providers covering custody segregation, complaint handling, or suitability/appropriateness — these categories are not applicable because no licensed VASP category is recognised.

Absence reason not determinable No sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded in this cycle

Sources and findings (3)
- T1[Bangladesh Bank](https://www.bb.org.bd/mediaroom/circulars/fepd/sep152022fepd24e.pdf) — Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 (2022) and its 29 July 2021 public notice DCP(PR)1/2021-7/5 repeatedly cautioned the public about the volatility and financial risk of dealing in virtual currencies, noting such instruments have no financial claim and are not guaranteed by any sovereign.
- T4[The Business Standard](https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/banking/bb-urges-banks-increase-monitoring-prevent-crypto-transactions-512650) — Bangladesh Bank's Banking Regulation and Policy Department issued BRPD Circular No. 40 (12 October 2022) directing banks to display public notices at branches, sub-branches and agent-banking outlets warning customers against involvement in cryptocurrency transactions and to increase monitoring of related activity.

### Bangladesh: C6 Tax TreatmentAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

No dedicated crypto tax legislation or verifiable primary NBR ruling on the tax treatment of cryptocurrency income or gains was located in this pass. General income-tax principles under Bangladesh's Income-tax Act would presumptively apply to any realised gains as unexplained/other income, but this is unconfirmed against a primary NBR circular or ruling and requires escalation.

C6 · Tax Treatment — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 3 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Amber), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C7 Cross-Border TransferRedEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

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 cryptocurrencies is a contravention of FERA s.5(1)(e)(i), cognisable under s.23(1). Because cross-border crypto transfers are themselves prohibited outright, no separate crypto travel-rule or cross-border reporting framework exists — the restriction operates as an outright ban rather than a regulated/reported channel.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-25

#### Cross-Border Transfer

Bangladesh Bank's Foreign Exchange Policy Department (FEPD) circular dated 31 July 2025 is the operative Tier-1 primary source confirming that the retention of export proceeds abroad in any form, including the purchase of physical or virtual assets and the maintenance of accounts denominated in any currency including cryptocurrencies, constitutes a contravention of Section 5(1)(e)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Such contravention is cognisable under Section 23(1) of the same Act, citing SRO No. 59-LAW/2021 of 8 March 2021 as the underlying statutory instrument. This confirms, with confidence from a primary regulator document, that Bangladesh's cross-border crypto prohibition reaches beyond domestic transactions to cover the specific scenario of exporters attempting to hold foreign receivables in crypto form rather than repatriating them through authorised banking channels. There is no licence, registration or exemption route by which an exporter could lawfully retain export proceeds in crypto form; the prohibition is categorical.

A second, lower-confidence development concerns the interaction between crypto-settled cross-border flows and Bangladesh's newly reported predicate-offence expansion under the Gambling Prevention Act, 2026. Two independent Tier-3 legal-commentary sources report that the Act treats the transfer, concealment or conversion of gambling proceeds through cryptocurrencies or digital assets as a predicate offence under the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012. Where such gambling proceeds cross Bangladesh's borders via crypto rails, this adds a money-laundering consequence layered on top of the pre-existing foreign-exchange-control prohibition on the underlying crypto transaction itself. This characterisation is assessed as probable rather than confirmed, since no primary gazette text of the Gambling Prevention Act has been retrieved to verify the precise wording of the relevant provision.

Taken together, the FEPD circular and the Gambling Prevention Act commentary indicate that Bangladesh addresses cross-border crypto transfer through at least two distinct legal bases: the long-standing foreign-exchange-control prohibition applicable to all crypto transactions regardless of purpose, and a newly reported money-laundering predicate-offence basis specific to gambling-proceeds flows. Both operate without any licensing or registration pathway, consistent with the broader jurisdiction-wide prohibition on crypto activity under Bangladeshi law.

#### Outlook

No indication exists that Bangladesh Bank intends to create any exemption or licensing pathway for cross-border crypto transfer; the FEPD circular reaffirms the categorical prohibition rather than signalling any loosening. Confirmation of the Gambling Prevention Act's predicate-offence wording against primary gazette text remains an open item that would, if confirmed, solidify the money-laundering dimension of crypto-settled cross-border gambling proceeds as a durable feature of the legal landscape rather than a probable one.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

#### Cross-Border Transfer

Bangladesh Bank's Foreign Exchange Policy Department (FEPD) circular dated 31 July 2025 is the operative Tier-1 primary source confirming that the retention of export proceeds abroad in any form, including the purchase of physical or virtual assets and the maintenance of accounts denominated in any currency including cryptocurrencies, constitutes a contravention of Section 5(1)(e)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Such contravention is cognisable under Section 23(1) of the same Act, citing SRO No. 59-LAW/2021 of 8 March 2021 as the underlying statutory instrument. This confirms, with Confirmed-tier confidence from a primary regulator document, that Bangladesh's cross-border crypto prohibition reaches beyond domestic transactions to cover the specific scenario of exporters attempting to hold foreign receivables in crypto form rather than repatriating them through authorised banking channels. There is no licence, registration or exemption route by which an exporter could lawfully retain export proceeds in crypto form; the prohibition is categorical.

A second, lower-confidence development this cycle concerns the interaction between crypto-settled cross-border flows and Bangladesh's newly reported predicate-offence expansion under the Gambling Prevention Act, 2026. Two independent Tier-3 legal-commentary sources report that the Act treats the transfer, concealment or conversion of gambling proceeds through cryptocurrencies or digital assets as a predicate offence under the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012. Where such gambling proceeds cross Bangladesh's borders via crypto rails, this adds a money-laundering consequence layered on top of the pre-existing foreign-exchange-control prohibition on the underlying crypto transaction itself. This characterisation is assessed as probable rather than confirmed, since no primary gazette text of the Gambling Prevention Act has been retrieved to verify the precise wording of the relevant provision.

Taken together, the FEPD circular and the Gambling Prevention Act commentary indicate that Bangladesh addresses cross-border crypto transfer through at least two distinct legal bases: the long-standing foreign-exchange-control prohibition applicable to all crypto transactions regardless of purpose, and a newly reported money-laundering predicate-offence basis specific to gambling-proceeds flows. Both operate without any licensing or registration pathway, consistent with the broader jurisdiction-wide prohibition on crypto activity under Bangladeshi law.

#### Outlook

No indication exists that Bangladesh Bank intends to create any exemption or licensing pathway for cross-border crypto transfer; the FEPD circular reaffirms the categorical prohibition rather than signalling any loosening. Confirmation of the Gambling Prevention Act's predicate-offence wording against primary gazette text remains an open item that would, if confirmed, solidify the money-laundering dimension of crypto-settled cross-border gambling proceeds as a durable feature of the legal landscape rather than a probable one.

C7 · Cross-Border & Travel Rule — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 6 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Red), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C8 AML/CFT RegimeAmberEnacted in forceModule confidence: Probable▾

Crypto AML/CFT obligations are subscribed from the FIM aml_ctf module per fleet doctrine; this baseline does not restate AML/CFT claims. For disambiguation context only: Bangladesh Bank has historically invoked the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 as part of its rationale for treating cryptocurrency transactions as punishable, meaning AML exposure for crypto in Bangladesh is bound up with the general prohibition rather than a bespoke crypto-AML regime.

C8 · AML/CFT Regime — Full Module Record 0 sub-modules · 180 words · 4 traced claims · Re-verified 2026-11-04

The decision headline, regulatory posture (Amber), primary framework, and supervisory authority above are open on the Free Explore layer. Register free with a business email for 3 full-record passes a month , or unlock all 170 jurisdictions with Pro (£39/mo · £99/mo all products) or Firm (£199/mo · £449/mo all products) .

[Unlock with Free Pass / Sign In](https://a-i.gi/auth/login)[View Pro & Firm Plans (£39 / £199)](https://a-i.gi/licensing/#plans)[View Open Exemplar (Gibraltar)](/jurisdictions/gi/)

### Bangladesh: C9 Commercial Activity ▾

No standing position recorded for this category.

Absence reason not determinable No sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded in this cycle

Sources and findings (1)
- UnsourcedBangladesh crypto-sector commercial activity — No disclosed crypto-sector M&A, investment round, licensing agreement or market entry/exit involving a BD-incorporated or BD-headquartered party in the window since 2025-10-11.