Initial meeting

Jul 20, 2020

Acceptance Feature for Security Tokens – What is it and Why is it Important?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_button button_text=”for German version click here” _builder_version=”4.10.8″ _module_preset=”default” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”13px” button_border_width=”1px” button_border_radius=”0px” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” button_url=”/acceptance-funktion-bei-security-token-was-ist-das-und-warum-ist-sie-wichtig/” sticky_enabled=”0″][/et_pb_button][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]

Since the approval of the first security prospectus for a security token offering on the German market, the issuance of tokenized securities has become an interesting alternative to the issuance of traditional, paper-based securities. Security token offerings are a technical milestone for the capital markets. They eliminate e.g. the need for depository banks, which are a mandatory requirement for traditional security offerings in Germany. Furthermore, they bring the investment product closer to the investor by allowing him or her to directly take custody of the tokens by storing them in a self-controlled wallet. In addition, security token offerings also allow trading and transferring the tokenized investment product without the need of an intermediary. The needs of investors that either prefer their tokens being safeguarded in professional custody or that are obligated to take that route are also satisfied since the introduction of crypto custody services as a financial service at the beginning of this year. Nevertheless, tokenization in general is still in its early stages in Germany. It will take time and pioneering projects until the infrastructure of the capital markets truly open up to adopt these new products. For example, there is still no regulated trading segment for tokenized securities at an authorized security exchange. Security token trading therefore takes place outside of security exchanges. This circumstance potentially leads to massive problems with regards to trading security tokens which can be solved by an acceptance feature.

 

WHAT IS THE ACCEPTANCE FEATURE?

The long-established, Hamburg based shipping company Vogemann issued the Greenshiptoken (GST) this month. GST is a security token that includes an acceptance feature according to its token terms. The acceptance feature solves the problem that arises from the fact that GST tokens will not be transferred on the secondary market via a security exchange or any other centralized marketplace, but instead immediately and directly between investors. The problem with this arrangement from a civil law point of view is that rights that stem from the security, especially the repayment and interest claims, will always have to be transferred collectively with the tokens. The German civil law ensures for paper-based debt securities that the right from the paper follows the right at the paper. The owner of a debt security in paper form is therefore legally always the owner of the claims that stem from that security as well. The German civil law currently does not allow a comparable legal fiction for tokenized debt securities.

 

HOW ARE CLAIMS THAT STEM FROM SECURITY TOKENS TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASER OF THE TOKENS?

Therefore, the transfer of security tokens and of rights that are connected to them has to be specifically regulated by the underlying token terms. Since the rights in question are claims, they can legally only be passed on from the seller to the purchaser via assignment to the purchaser. Legally this requires an assignment contract. According to German law, an effective contract requires two components, an offer and an acceptance related to the offer. At this point the decentral nature of blockchain solutions results in a technical problem. Even though the transfer of a blockchain token is actively initiated by the owner – in this case the seller – of the token, the recipient – the purchaser of the token – normally has no option to actively confirm the acceptance of the token. Blockchain tokens are simply added to the blockchain address of the recipient without the recipient being required to take any action whatsoever. Therefore, the offer to transfer a token and the rights connected to the token can be seen in the initiation of the blockchain transaction by the owner, but there is no visible action of the recipient that could legally be qualified as an acceptance of that offer. The acceptance feature solves this problem and ensures that the transfer of a security token will only be included in the underlying blockchain, if the recipient actively confirms the acceptance of the token and the connected rights.

 

WHY IS THE ACCEPTANCE FEATURE IMPORTANT?

The acceptance feature ensures that the rights connected with the security token will be passed on from the seller to the purchaser in the legally required form of an assignment contract. The absence of a legally effective acceptance of the offer poses the danger that the token could be transferred to the purchaser without the associated rights as set out in the token terms. These rights would then remain with the previous owner of the tokens while the security token would be transferred. The acceptance feature therefore enables the legally effective transfer of security tokens and their associated rights on the secondary market. Security tokens that can only be traded over centralized marketplaces do not necessarily need an acceptance feature, because the seller as well as the purchaser place a trading order which can be viewed as an offer respectively as an acceptance. But as long as such marketplaces do not exist for security tokens the acceptance feature is a valid way to ensure the legally effective transfer of security tokens and the associated investor rights.

 

Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

 I.  https://fin-law.de

E. info@fin-law.de

 

OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_button button_url=”https://subscribe.newsletter2go.com/?n2g=bnenflo7-3kepbm9f-9g1&_ga=2.76407708.842992497.1570698390-510082309.1569668016″ url_new_window=”on” button_text=”SIGN IN FOR NEWSLETTER” _builder_version=”4.9.10″ _module_preset=”default” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”13px” button_text_color=”#FFFFFF” button_bg_color=”#333233″ button_border_width=”10px” button_border_color=”#333233″ button_border_radius=”0px” button_letter_spacing=”2px” button_font=”|700||on|||||” button_use_icon=”off” animation_style=”zoom” global_module=”775″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_button][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

subscribe to Newsletter

    Contact

    info@fin-law.de

    Jul 06, 2020

    Buy or Build – Is the Acquisition of an Institute an Alternative to a BaFin Application?

    Business ideas in the blockchain sector in Germany can often not be realized without the appropriate authorization of BaFin. The obligation to obtain a BaFin authorization as a consequence of the extensive regulation of crypto assets and blockchain tokens often comes as a showstopper for startups if they cannot find a cooperation partner that offers the required regulatory framework as a Whitelabel solution or as a service. The authorization requirement can pose a serious obstacle even for well-funded projects, especially because the application process can take anywhere from six to twelve months depending on the specifics of the project. Many entrepreneurs therefore feel that the acquisition of an already existing and authorized bank or financial institute might be an elegant alternative to the rather time-consuming application process. But is the acquisition of an already authorized institute really faster than the aforementioned application process?

    COMPLEXITY OF A BAFIN AUTHORIZATION PROCESS DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC PROJECT

    Entrepreneurs should generally be aware of the fact that the specific business model and its realization and implementation as well as the ownership structure of the obligated company have a significant influence of the complexity of the authorization application. The authorization process for e.g. a GmbH with just one natural person as its shareholder intending to offer investment brokerage services related to cryptocurrencies will potentially be prepared and approved by BaFin and Bundesbank a lot faster than e.g. the application of a stock company which is part of an international group of companies intending to offer Market Making on an international crypto exchange, financial commission services for cryptocurrencies and financial portfolio management services for tokenized financial instruments. The preparation time for the application and the time required until authorization is granted is therefore much shorter for simpler, more focused business models than for more complex and versatile business models.

    BANK ACQUISITION AS AUTHORIZATION PROCESS IN A DIFFERENT FORM

    The acquisition of an existing institute is also subject to supervisory requirements. The purchaser of a bank or authorized financial institute must undergo a scrutinizing ownership control procedure, just as would be required in case of application for authorization directly. In this procedure, all of the intended owners that would hold substantial shares of the bank or institute to be acquired must provide information and documentation, such as e.g. certificates of good conduct and trade register excerpts. This might cause a similar workload as the preparation for an authorization process would, especially for purchasers that are part of an international group of companies. If additionally the business model of the to-be acquired institute must be changed or amended to suit the purchasers needs, a new and viable business plan must be submitted to BaFin as well. This business plan will be then be reviewed and checked in detail for economic and regulatory sustainability by BaFin and the German Central Bank. The internal processes also have to be adjusted, should the new business model trigger new compliance obligations for the institute. The creation of new documents such as report templates, ToS or customer contracts might also be necessary.

    ACQUISITION OF AN INSTITUTE FOR THE REALIZATION OF NEW BUSINESS MODELS IS SELDOMLY THE RIGHT CHOICE

    The acquisition of a bank or financial institute in order to realize a new business model is almost never worth it. The time-saving effect usually diminishes completely, because the acquisition of the institute can only become effective if the competent supervisory authorities approve the acquisition and they will only do so after a successful ownership control procedure. Furthermore, there is typically the risk that the acquirer also brings the institutes bad debts into his own books. For new crypto related business models, it is therefore usually preferable to directly apply for an own BaFin authorization.

    Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

     I.  https://fin-law.de

    E. info@fin-law.de

    OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

    The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

    subscribe to Newsletter

      Contact

      info@fin-law.de

      Jun 29, 2020

      Crypto Business in Germany – In Which Scenario is BaFin Competent for Foreign Crypto Providers?

      Germany is taking on a special role in Europe and globally when it comes to blockchain regulation. The German Government decided last year that Germany would strive to become an internationally well-known hotspot for businesses with business models that are connected to or based on blockchain technology or cryptocurrencies. Germany tries to achieve this among other things by tailor-made regulations for blockchain related subjects. The transposition of the fifth European AML directive into German law for example went far beyond what was required by the European legislator. As a result, the custody of crypto assets for customers is a financial service that is subject to authorization since January 1st of 2020. But also other business models that are connected to crypto assets cannot be operated in Germany without the prior BaFin authorization. This applies to e.g. the operation of Bitcoin ATMs and crypto exchanges as well as to the offering of investment advice or investment brokering services for crypto assets. But at what point foreign services are subject to authorization?

      AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT WHEN BUSINESS SEAT IN GERMANY OR ACTIVE TARGETING OF GERMAN MARKET

      The German Banking Act is applicable to companies from the crypto industry that have their registered headquarter in Germany. These companies are therefore also obligated to obtain an authorization if they offer crypto related financial services. The obligation to apply for a BaFin authorization can alternatively also apply to foreign providers that neither have a registered place of business nor a branch office in Germany. BaFin states in its long-standing administrative practice that foreign providers of banking and financial services are subject to authorization, if they target the German market in order to repeatedly and commercially offer services that are subject to authorization to domestic enterprises and persons. The crypto providers are obligated to apply for a BaFin authorization in accordance to the German law in these cases. The option of EU-passporting an authorization for financial services that has been granted in another EU member state is not possible for this kind of crypto-related businesses. The reason is that the regulation of services in regard to crypto-related business models is not homogenously within the European Union.

      AT WHAT POINT IS THE GERMAN MARKET IS ACTIVELY TARGETED?

      The administrative practice of BaFin answers this question by giving numerous criteria by which the individual case can be assessed. The assessment whether a sufficient connection to Germany is given will always be decided by the circumstances of the individual case. The most important indications for BaFin that a sufficient “targeting” of the German market is given in case of a provider in order to justify an obligation to obtain an authorization are: the content of a website or of marketing tools that are used by the provider; whether the provider uses sales assistances that operate in Germany; whether German customers contacted via social media, messenger services, email, traditional print media or in any other way promoting the financial services. On the other hand, the administrative practice of BaFin accepts that a passive serving of German customers in a way that the customers initiatively demand the services from the crypto service provider instead of being actively targeted constitutes an admissible case of reverse soliciting. In such cases, a BaFin authorization in accordance to the German Banking Act will not be required.

      Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

       I.  https://fin-law.de

      E. info@fin-law.de

      OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

      The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

      subscribe to Newsletter

        Contact

        info@fin-law.de

        Jun 22, 2020

        Trading Signals for Crypto Assets – Do Signal Providers have to register with BaFin?

        The international trade of crypto assets is becoming more and more attractive to professional traders. Even though the overall market capitalization of the crypto market is still extremely low in comparison to the market capitalization of the established capital markets, the independence from exchange trading hours and the volatility that are associated with crypto assets are potentially so profitable that more and more professional traders are entering this market. With the increasingly professional approach to investments in the crypto market, a likewise increase in the usage of modern investment tools which detect trends or even place buy and sell orders on the basis of artificial intelligence can be observed. A somewhat milder precursor to such investment-bots can be found in the sending of trading signals with attached buy or sell recommendations. These trading signals are often provided either via messenger services like Whatsapp or Telegram or via email or they are even made publicly available via a website. But is the provision of trading signals a regulated activity that the signal provider has to coordinate with the supervisory authorities?

        THE PROVISION OF TRADING SIGNALS IS TYPICALLY NOT INVESTMENT ADVISORY

        Financial services can be subject to an authorization requirement. This is the case with activities that include the offering of personalized investment advice to customers or their representatives with regards to certain financial instruments in consideration of the individual situation of the investor. According to the German Banking Act (KWG) financial instruments in this sense are also crypto assets such as Bitcoin, Litecoin or comparable cryptocurrencies. Global recommendations that are published by service providers via information distribution channels or that are intended for the public are not investment advice in the regulated sense. Trading signals that simply analyze general trends of the crypto market and provide buy or sell recommendations on this basis can therefore not be investment advisory in the aforementioned sense of the KWG. They always lack the personal reference to the investor.

        REGISTRATION OF INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH BAFIN

        Notwithstanding any authorization requirements, companies or individuals that are neither already authorized as securities service providers, financial investment management companies or as investment companies have a reporting obligation to BaFin if they offer investment recommendation services. However, this reporting obligation is only triggered according to the WpHG if the recommendations that are provided relate to financial instruments in the sense of the MiFID II. Crypto assets are qualified as financial instruments only according to the German KWG and not according to MiFID II. The reporting obligation therefore does not apply to signal providers that only provide their services with regard to the crypto market. This could of course be different in case of trading signals that relate to tokenized financial instruments that qualify as financial instruments in sense of MiFID II such as tokenized stocks or tokenized securities.

        Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

        I.  https://fin-law.de

        E. info@fin-law.de

        OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

        The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

        subscribe to Newsletter

          Contact

          info@fin-law.de

          Jun 15, 2020

          Scaling Bitcoin via the Lightning Network – What Must be Considered by Crypto Businesses?

          The Lightning Network promises to solve one of Bitcoin´s biggest problems: The Scalability. Due to its decentralized operation mode, the Bitcoin network itself can process and settle between seven and twelve transactions per second. In part this is due to the relatively small block size of just one Megabyte per block in comparison to other cryptocurrencies and in part to the fact that all transactions must be validated by the miners and then bundled in blocks be implemented into the current version of the Bitcoin blockchain. The Lightning Network, which is already active since 2018 tries to solve this problem with an off-chain solution.

          HOW DOES THE LIGHTNING NETWORK WORK?

          The Lightning Network is a very complicated construct from a technical point of view, which can hardly be described in a few sentences. It is a so-called Second-Layer protocol that even though it uses the Bitcoin networks infrastructure, it accumulates and resolves a certain number of Bitcoin transactions combined outside of the Bitcoin blockchain and will afterwards introduce them as just a single transaction into the Bitcoin blockchain. The core components of the Lightning Network are the so-called Payment Channels, which can be opened up between two users of the Bitcoin network. Payment Channels represent a current account relationship between two participants of the Bitcoin blockchain that opened them up, which are not managed on the Bitcoin blockchain but off-chain. If the two participants later decide to close the payment channel, their current account balance will be implemented as a single transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain. In addition, the Lightning Network enables its participants to also use already existing Payment Channels of other participants for their transactions so that transactions between participants not having a direct Payment Channel link can be processed indirectly through the Payment Channels of other participants. The usage of the Lightning Network relieves the Bitcoin network extremely with regards to the data amount to be processed as well as with regards to the computing power that miners have to spend for validation of transactions. Instead of validating each and every transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain separately, miners only have to validate a single transaction at the point in time in which the Payment Chanel is closed.

          WHAT EFFECTS COME WITH THE UTILIZATION OF THE LIGHTNING NETWORK?

          The most important effect of the utilization of the Lightning Network is the scaling of Bitcoin. The network is able to considerably increase the comparably low number of Bitcoin transactions per second. Transactions are also immediately valid without the necessity to wait for confirmation by the miners. Bitcoins appropriateness as an alternative means of payment is thereby substantially increased. In addition to this, the utilization of the Lightning network fosters financial privacy of the transaction parties on the Bitcoin network. While “traditional” Bitcoin transactions are directly and publicly included in the blockchain for everyone to see, transactions that are processed via the Lightning Network are not as such included in the Bitcoin blockchain but rather effectuated off-chain. Therefore, the amount, the involved parties as well as the origin of the transferred Bitcoins of an individual transaction processed via the Lightning network cannot be detected via the blockchain.

          WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CRYPTO BUSINESSES?

          There is an increased demand for fast and cheap transactions, especially when it comes to the commercial handling of Bitcoins. Crypto exchanges and other service providers that handle a high quantity of Bitcoin transactions have a special interest in solutions like the Lightning Network. Crypto businesses that are obligated to observe AML obligations according to the applicable AML regulations have the problem that their auditing possibilities are substantially limited when using off-chain solutions such as the Lightning Network. They will not be able to determine the involved parties nor the transaction amount of an individual transaction. It is also virtually impossible to track the address, from which the transferred Bitcoin originate. Supervisory authorities will therefore probably be very critical with regard to the usage of the Lightning Network by supervised entities.

          Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

           I.  https://fin-law.de

          E. info@fin-law.de

          OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

          The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

          subscribe to Newsletter

            Contact

            info@fin-law.de

            Jun 08, 2020

            Capital Markets Union and Security Token – Which Country Should Be Chosen for a Security Token Offering?

            The European commission intends to further develop and promote the free flow of capital within the Capital Markets Union. Numerus efforts have been made – and some have even been partially implemented – to reach this goal since 2015. The EU Prospectus regulation for example creates a uniform European framework for the creation and approval of security prospectuses for security issuances on the European capital markets. The requirements of security prospectuses regarding the content as well as the approval process have been harmonized by the new regulation. Furthermore, issuers of securities have the option to utilize a prospectus that has been approved in one European member state for the first public offering of a security via EU-Passporting in another member state for the same purpose. The regulation is obviously also applicable for the first public offering of dematerialized securities which are represented in the form of security tokens.

            ISSUERS OF SECURITY TOKENS CAN FREELY CHOSE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

            Issuers of security tokens are therefore always confronted with the question to which of the competent European authorities they should submit their security prospectus for approval. Issuers are generally speaking free to decide this matter. They can choose between the competent authority of their home state or any other supervisory capital markets authority within the European Union. Furthermore, security prospectuses can also be approved by supervisory authorities from one of the member states of the European Economic Area (EAA) and then be repassported via EU-passporting to other European countries in order to offer the security tokens to investors in the target country. But which supervisory authority is the right choice for STO issuers? Which criteria should be considered by issuers in the selection process?

            THE RIGHT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT

            The legal statues regarding the content as well as the approval and deposit process in all member states of the EEA are the same since the EU prospectus regulation entered into force. The European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) published twelve guidelines on how the regulation has to be interpreted. These guidelines deal e.g. with the presentation of the risks in security prospectuses and they have to be observed by all European supervisory authorities during the approval process. Therefore, the selection of the right supervisory authority should be decided by criteria which take the actual project in account and not by legal criteria. It is probably cost efficient to apply for approval in the EEA member state in which the security tokens are offered, if the tokens in question are only offered to investors in this country. This way, the costs for an EU-passporting procedure and a translation of the prospectus summary into the official language of the target country, even though most will accept an English version – can be avoided. The widely shared supposition that the approval process for prospectuses takes longer in different states cannot be confirmed. The decisive factors for the question of how long the approval process takes are the complexity of the project and the diligence that the issuer and his advisers applied when creating the prospectus. The selection of a supervisory authority that has a certain amount of experience with the approval process of similar projects is however advisable when applying for approval of a security prospectus for security tokens.

            Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

             I.  https://fin-law.de

            E. info@fin-law.de

            OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

            The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

            subscribe to Newsletter

              Contact

              info@fin-law.de

              May 25, 2020

              Administration of Crypto Assets – What is Regulated by this Variant of the Crypto Custody Business?

              The custody of crypto assets in Germany is an activity which is subject to authorization since the beginning of the year 2020. Rumors have it, that over 40 companies are interested in obtaining an authorization from BaFin to conduct crypto custody business in Germany. The newly introduced legal basis is not only applicable to the professional custody of digital customer assets. According to the wording of the regulation there are two additional activities that are also subject to authorization. The administration as well as the safeguarding of crypto assets and of private keys, which are required for the transfer of crypto assets are also activities that are subject to authorization according to the wording of the new law. But what exactly does the legislator refer to with the administration of crypto assets for a third party? Which specific activity is intended to be regulated by the wording of the law?

              ADMINISTRATION OF CRYPTO ASSETS AS A SUBCATEGORY OF CUSTODY OF CRYPTO ASSETS

              According to BaFin´s not yet fully developed administrative practice for the crypto custody business, crypto administration is a subcategory of crypto custody. According to the leaflet published by BaFin in early March of 2020, the supervisory authority assumes that a service provider conducts crypto administration in cases in which the service provider continuously exercises rights associated with the customers crypto assets. This may for example be the case when a service provider holds tokenized investment products for customers in custody, which yield a return to their respective bearers. Crypto administration may exist in the case that the custody service provider makes payment claims of the aforementioned kind on behalf of their customers vis-à-vis the issuer of the tokenized investment product or if the service provider receives the corresponding payments for these kinds of claims for their customers. The private keys and therefore the control over the tokenized investment products and the right to claim the corresponding yield will in most cases be held by the service provider. BaFin therefore expressly states in its leaflet that all three variations of the crypto custody business require the service provider to have custody of the private keys to the crypto assets. Even though the custody of the private keys is an essential requirement for the crypto custody business, crypto administration may be given even if the service provider does not have exclusive access to the crypto assets in its custody. According to the administrative practice of the supervisory authority, crypto administration is also given if the service provider knows the private keys in addition to the customer and exercises the customer rights for him.

              CAN CRYPTO ADMINISTRATION BE GIVEN IN CASE OF DELEGATING?

              It is questionable if crypto administration can exist in cases where crypto assets are delegated, meaning that these crypto assets utilize a consensus mechanism called the Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS). Examples for crypto assets of this kind are EOS, Tezos and Cardano. In these blockchain systems new blocks are not created by miners that spend computing power in accordance to the Proof of Work consensus mechanism (PoW), but instead through the allocation of coins to so-called block validators. These block validators are chosen by the specific system on basis of the amount of coins (stake) that are allocated to them and they are rewarded for the validation of new blocks with the transaction fees that are paid by by the parties of the blockchaintransactions included in the block to be validated. Bearers of DPoS crypto assets can allocate their coins to block validators in order to improve the validators chances to be chosen by the system for validation of a new block. In return for the support, the validator will share the reward with his supporters should he actually be chosen by the system. However, delegating does neither require the delegated crypto assets to be actually transferred to a wallet of the staked validator nor does it require the block validators knowledge of the private keys to the delegated crypto assets. Crypto administration as a subcategory of the crypto custody business will therefore not be fulfilled by delegating crypto assets to block validators according to the administrative practice of BaFin.

              Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

               I.  https://fin-law.de

              E. info@fin-law.de

              OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

              The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

              subscribe to Newsletter

                Contact

                info@fin-law.de

                May 18, 2020

                Crypto Custodians and AML – What Applies to Crypto Custodians?

                Last week BaFin published its long-awaited article concerning the AML obligations of financial service providers that intend to offer crypto custody services. The subject of crypto custody services therefore stays highly topical even during the corona crisis and BaFin continues its efforts to best inform the market participants with regards to the supervisory obligations of crypto custodians. Including its latest publication, the authority already published four leaflets addressing crypto custodians offering information concerning the interpretation of the Grandfathering regulation of sec. 64y of the German Banking Act (KWG), the authorization process for crypto custody service providers and its general interpretation of the definition of the new financial service of crypto custody business. Obviously, the authority intends to comprehensively inform market participants about the obligations before and under the ongoing supervision.

                WHICH EXPLANATIONS DOES BAFIN OFFER TO CRYPTO CUSTODIANS?

                Nevertheless, the current publication concerning AML obligations of crypto custodians is rather general in its approach. In the first part of the article, BaFin references its other publications regarding crypto custody services as well as its publications that are directed at AML obliged market participants in general. After that, BaFin points out that service providers offering crypto custody services are considered AML obliged financial institutes in the sense of the German Money Laundering Act since the introduction of the crypto custody service into the KWG and therefore must comply with the applicable AML regulations – companies only offering crypto custody services as of the amendment on 1st of January 2020 and companies that then already qualified as credit institutions or financial service institutions even before. Finally, BaFin offers a short summary of the following main obligations that derive from the German Money Laundering Act: The implementation of an adequate risk management system, the performance of customer due diligence procedures (KYC) as well as the implementation of a reporting system.

                DOES THE BAFIN ARTICLE CONTAIN SPECIFIC NOTES FOR CRYPTO CUSTODIANS?

                BaFins explanations concerning the performance of customer due diligence (KYC) and the implementation of a reporting system are rather general in this leaflet and only give a general overview of the obligations of AML obliged financial institutes. Only within the explanations concerning an adequate risk management system for crypto custody service providers, the authority highlights that this will also include the creation of a sophisticated risk analysis with regards to the specific business model of a crypto custodian. According to the authorities cautiously implied estimate, the risk analysis should probably focus on the specific product risks. According to BaFin, because of the complexity and novelty of the underlying technologies as well as the different designs of the potential anonymity features that are associated with individual crypto assets, the crypto custodians will at this point potentially have to apply higher analyzing standards than other financial institutes. As a matter of fact, the actual traceability of transactions ranges from very good to impossible, depending on the specific crypto asset.

                MANY QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED

                In summary, the new BaFin article on AML obligations of crypto custodians provides only little guidance for the preparation of a sufficient AML manual for crypto custodians. It would have been preferable if the authority would have provided more specific information on the issue of KYC and have stated which customer information will at least have to be collected and verified by the obliged crypto custodians, especially since the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) already released corresponding recommendations on this question. Since the FATF recommendations are very far-reaching in some aspects – they recommend to not only collect the personal data from the participating parties of a crypto transaction but also the collection of that data from a possibly involved service provider – a clear positioning of the German supervisory authority concerning the FATF recommendations would have been helpful.

                Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                 I.  https://fin-law.de

                E. info@fin-law.de

                OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

                The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

                Sign in for Newsletter

                subscribe to Newsletter

                  Contact

                  info@fin-law.de

                  May 11, 2020

                  General Duties of Care in Crypto Business – What Applies to Financial Service Providers Dealing with Crypto Assets?

                  When it comes to providing their services to customers, financial service providers have traditionally been strictly regulated. Since the implementation of the second European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) in 2018, the obligations of securities service providers became even more extensive. In Germany, the federal Securities Trading Act (WpHG) regulates how securities service providers must interact with their customers and obliges them to provide their services in an honest, fair and professional manner and in the best interest of the customer. Naturally, this often leads to conflicts between the financial interests of the service providers and customer interests. These conflicts are supposed to be resolved through the extensive catalogue of obligations included in the section of the WpHG which deals with conduct, organization and transparency obligations of the service providers. Despite the first impression to which the term securities service providers leads, these strict regulations not only apply to financial service providers that deal with securities in the narrow sense of the term. They also apply to financial service providers with business models related to financial instruments that are explicitly qualified as such by the WpHG. These are not only securities such as e.g. tradable stocks and debt instruments, but also e.g. investment funds shares, asset investments, derivatives and futures contracts. But what about crypto assets, which were introduced earlier this year as a new class of financial instruments?

                  CRYPTO ASSETS ONLY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS IN THE SENSE OF THE GERMAN BANKING ACT

                  Since there are currently no plans to include crypto assets as financial instruments in the MiFID II directive, crypto assets remain a purely German phenomenon. With the inclusion of crypto assets in the German Banking Act the German legislator tried to achieve that providers with crypto-related business models must obtain a BaFin authorization in case they provide financial services or banking activities. In contrast to that, the German legislator refrained from the inclusion of crypto assets as financial instruments in the MiFID II-based WpHG, This often results in the fact that for service providers with crypto-related business models the provisions of the German Banking Act are applicable while at the same time the compliance provisions of the WpHG are not.

                  CAN CRYPTO ASSETS NEVERTHELESS BE SUBJECT TO THE WPHG?

                  When dealing with crypto assets, financial service providers must observe the fact that this category of financial instruments was primarily designed by the German legislator to include certain instruments that are not already included in any of the other forms of financial instruments. The classification of a token as a crypto asset does therefore not necessarily exclude the classification of the same token as a security e.g. in the form of a tokenized stock or a tokenized bond. These security tokens would be financial instruments in the sense of the German Banking Act as well as the WpHG. Financial service providers that offer their services in relation to security tokens therefore have to fulfill the authorization and supervising obligations of the German Banking Act as well as the strict due diligence obligations of the WpHG. The specific type of tokens that a service provider with a crypto-related business model deals with is therefore the decisive factor for the obligations that this service provider has to observe when dealing with customers.

                  Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                   I.  https://fin-law.de

                  E. info@fin-law.de

                  OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

                  The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

                  Sign in for Newsletter

                  subscribe to Newsletter

                    Contact

                    info@fin-law.de

                    May 04, 2020

                    Promoting the Token Sale – When Can Marketing Activities Begin?

                    Security token offerings are more and more regarded as an interesting alternative to traditional issuances of securities by companies. But the success at the digital capital markets is follows the same rules as their traditional counterparts and will be rated by the placement success of the security tokens. This means that a company seeking fresh capital at the capital markets cannot simply create and issue a digital investment product, but rather has to ensure that the offered product is economically attractive enough for the potential investors to invest in. It therefore should be based on a promising asset with a high enough potential return rate and preferably low associated risks. This also means that STO issuers must start marketing their products as soon as possible in order to introduce them to the potential investors. But at what point in time can tokenized securities be marketed in the European Union? Is it possible to start the marketing prior to the approval of the securities prospectus by the competent supervising authority and the subsequent publication of it?

                    MARKETING FOR SECURITY TOKEN OFFERING PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROSPECTUS IS POSSIBLE

                    According to the European Prospectus Regulation, an advertisement for the first public offering of a security prior to the necessary approval and publication of the prospectus is generally possible. However, the issuer has to comply to the same rules and restrictions that apply to the marketing efforts after the approval and publication of the securities prospectus. For transparency and investor protection reasons, the issuer e.g. has to ensure that marketing statements that are made will actually match the information in the future prospectus. Marketing statements must not deviate or exceed the information which is or will be provided in the prospectus. Furthermore, the issuers must place a well-visible disclaimer on every advertisement for a security token offering that requires the publication of an approved prospectus. that the disclaimer must point out that the information provided is indeed an advertisement and that the corresponding prospectus is not yet published. In addition to that, issuers will have to inform potential investors on every advertisement where the prospectus – once it is published – will be accessible. STO issuers have to be very diligent when it comes to the wording of the advertisement. The wording of any marketing activity must not be wrong or misleading. The display of forecasts and the description of the investing details have to be unbiased. This can be achieved e.g. by displaying positive and negative scenarios or by equally displaying the associated risks and rewards of the investment.

                    WHAT ABOUT SECURITY TOKEN OFFERINGS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A PROSPECTUS?

                    The aforementioned requirements for advertisements of first public offerings of tokenized securities do not apply to projects that do not require the issuer to publish a prospectus according to the European Prospectus Regulation. But even in these cases, STO issuers are regulatorily restricted in their marketing efforts and must ensure that the essential information of the soon to be offered tokenized security is made available to all and not only selected potential investors. STOs that are issued in accordance with the German regulation regarding security information sheets (WIB) are subject to special national requirements when it comes to advertisement for the token sale prior to the approval and publication of the WIB. Insofar, the German legislator however designed this legislation similar to the European Prospectus Regulation and therefore the requirements are mostly comparable to those of the EU regulation.

                    Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                     I.  https://fin-law.de

                    E. info@fin-law.de

                    OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

                    The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

                    subscribe to Newsletter

                      Contact

                      info@fin-law.de

                      Apr 27, 2020

                      Brokerage of Crypto Assets – What are the regulated activities?

                      The brokerage of the supply and demand of blockchain tokens in Germany in most cases requires that the acting intermediary obtains a prior authorization by BaFin. This has been the case even prior to the introduction of crypto assets as a new form of financial instrument at the beginning of 2020. The obligation to obtain a prior authorization applies when the blockchain tokens in question are qualified as financial instruments in the sense of the German Banking Act. This is the case if they are tokenized stocks or debt securities and therefore security tokens. Currency tokens, meaning digital representations of value which are designed to be used as a means of payment can also be financial instruments in the form of units of account or crypto assets. If the tokens in question on the other hand are mere tokenized vouchers or material assets – such as e.g. art pieces – the qualification as a financial instrument is rather far-fetched. But what are the exact requirements for the brokerage activity from a supervisory law point of view and which distinctions can be made?

                      TWO DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF INVESTMENT BROKERAGE WHICH REQUIRE AUTHORIZATION

                      The specific form of the brokerage activity is the decisive factor for the supervisory classification. The matching of supply and demand with regards to financial instruments can also be qualified as acquisition brokerage or as placement business next to the qualification as investment brokerage. BaFin published its corresponding administrative practice in the form of several guidances. According to the opinion of the financial supervisory authority, investment brokerage can occur in two different variations. On the one hand, BaFin qualifies an activity as investment brokerage if the intermediary deliberately transmits a declaration of intend which is aimed at the sale or acquisition of a financial instrument to a potential contracting party. On the other hand, BaFin also qualifies an activity as investment brokerage if the intermediary deliberately and purposely increases the willingness of a person to enter into a contract which is aimed at the sale or the acquisition of a financial instrument. In both variations the service provider acts as an intermediary which never enters into the contract in question and who works in his own name and for his own account.

                      UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTIVITY OF THE BROKER QUALIFIES AS ACQUISITION BROKERAGE?

                      Acquisition brokerage in contrast to investment brokerage requires the service provider to act as an agent and for account of one of the parties of the contract. This is the case, if e.g. the broker enters into an agreement with the token acquirer as a representative with power of attorney of the security token issuer. Acquisition brokerage therefore always requires the broker to be mandated by his client to sell or acquire financial instruments for him.

                      WHICH ACTIVITIES ARE CONSIDERED A PLACEMENT BUSINESS?

                      The placement business is another, authorization requiring activity which must be distinguished from the investment brokerage and the acquisition brokerage. It is a special case of acquisition brokerage that requires that the contracts the broker enters into on behalf of the issuer are subject to a specific placing agreement, even though a specific take-over obligation for the broker with regards to the financial instruments is not agreed upon. This case also requires the service provider to act as an agent and for account of one of the contractual parties, in this case the issuer. An agreement is considered a placing agreement, if the issuer assigns the service provider with the task of placing the issued financial instruments at the capital markets. A take-over obligation would require the service provider to agree to the obligation to take the financial instruments onto his own books if he fails to place them at the capital markets. The broker would therefore carry the sales risk of the issuing.

                      Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                       I.  https://fin-law.de

                      E. info@fin-law.de

                      OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

                      The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

                      subscribe to Newsletter

                        Contact

                        info@fin-law.de

                        Apr 20, 2020

                        Chinas Blockchain-Based Renminbi as the First National Cryptocurrency

                        Last week, China surprised the rest of the world with the issuance of a digital Renminbi. By doing so, the Chinese government became the first mover on the road to a digital central bank currency (CBDC) in form of blockchain-based units of national currency. Even though the project right now is limited to parts of the salary payment of government officials of the city of Suzhou and is supported by the Chinese payment company Alibaba, the Chinese central bank already plans to extend the program in May. So China sets a tremendous pace when it comes to the implementation of a national cryptocurrency. According to the currently available information, the implementation of the Crypto Renminbi is supposed to facilitate the traceability of transactions as well as the supervision of payment flows. The Chinese government therefore takes the expected path with the implementation of its blockchain-based national currency.

                        TECHNICAL DESIGN OF THE CRYPTO RENMINBI MOSTLY UNKNOWN

                        Right now, there is little information available about the digital version of the Renminbi. Especially information regarding the technical design of the national cryptocurrency is sparse. Because the Crypto Renminbi is supposed to broaden the monitoring options of the Chinese government, it seems likely that the financial privacy within this system will hardly be protected. This circumstance even leads to a disadvantage over scriptural money from the perspective of the users. Information about the current balance, payment flows and specific usage of scriptural money are generally remain with the payment service providers and those are subject to the banking secret. Even though payment service providers under German law have to disclose this information to government authorities in specific cases, a justifying reason is always required for this. This justifying reason can be e.g. probable cause for money laundering or terrorist financing. In a blockchain-based system without privacy features every transaction is openly visible on the blockchain. Furthermore, everybody being technically in the position to read the blockchain can also see the current balance of every blockchain address.

                        ADAPTION OF THE CRYPTO RENMINBI UNLIKELY IN THE WESTERN WORLD

                        The monitoring possibilities that the Chinese government has over the Crypto Renminbi regarding the specific use, the current wallet balance and transaction history according to the currently available information will probably lead the western world to not adapt the crypto Renminbi when dealing with Chinese businesses. It has to be expected that the Crypto Renminbi will stay a purely Chinese phenomenon and means of payment. Nevertheless, the implementation of the Crypto Renminbi should motivate the international community to issue further versions of blockchain-based national cryptocurrencies.

                        Attorney Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                         I.  https://fin-law.de

                        E. info@fin-law.de

                        OUR BLOG ARTICLES IN A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER?

                        The FIN LAW Newsletter provides you with all blog articles of the month via monthly e-mail. Our newsletter is published regularly at the beginning of every month. Feel free to sign in to the FIN LAW Newsletter by clicking the button below. Of course can can sign off at any time if you do not wish to receive our newsletter anymore.

                        subscribe to Newsletter

                          Contact

                          info@fin-law.de

                          to top