Page 22

‍

6. Comparison to Digital Assets Classified as Securities

‍

Most cryptocurrencies launched post-Bitcoin, especially those with pre-mines, initial coin offerings (ICOs), or foundation-directed governance, are likely to be classified as securities. Examples include:

‍

Ripple (XRP): The SEC filed a lawsuit claiming XRP was an unregistered security; a U.S. court partially agreed in 2023.

Case Summary: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-338

‍

LBRY (LBC token): Ruled a security by U.S. District Court.

Ruling: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2022/lr25463.htm

‍

Ethereum’s ICO (2014): Though currently not classified as a security, its early fundraising mechanism meets several Howey criteria and is under renewed scrutiny.

‍

Bitcoin, by contrast, was never offered as part of an ICO, has no fundraising history, and was mined into circulation by anyone with open-source software.

‍

7. Implications for Institutional Investors and Asset Managers

‍

Bitcoin’s clear non-security status reduces:

‍

Legal compliance costs,

‍

Disclosure risk,

‍

Custodial complexity, and

‍

Litigation exposure.

‍

Institutions can:

‍

Integrate BTC into portfolios without SEC securities registration,

‍

Launch BTC-based funds under commodities frameworks,

‍

Hold BTC on balance sheets with clear tax treatment.

‍

This clarity makes Bitcoin the preferred cryptoasset for compliance-oriented capital allocators.

‍

8. Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Legal Clarity as a Commodity Is a Competitive Advantage

‍

Bitcoin is the only digital asset with regulatory clarity across major global jurisdictions as a non-security commodity asset. This classification is not merely academic—it confers real-world advantages in fund design, institutional trust, custody requirements, and legal protection.

‍

In a regulatory environment where most tokens face uncertain futures, Bitcoin stands alone as the de-risked institutional-grade crypto asset, immune from most securities litigation and legal classification volatility.

‍

Next is Section 6C – Legal Risks

‍

Legal & Regulatory Compliance – Bitcoin (BTC)

C. Legal Risks 

‍

While Bitcoin has achieved substantial legal clarity in many global jurisdictions, it remains subject to a complex array of legal risks that institutions must carefully evaluate before allocating capital. These risks stem not from the protocol’s architecture, which is decentralized and stateless, but from its intersection with legacy financial systems, political interests, regulatory gaps, and legal precedent uncertainty. Legal risk in Bitcoin’s case does not originate from internal protocol deficiencies but from external forces seeking to control, constrain, or co-opt its decentralized monetary function.

‍

This section dissects legal risks across several dimensions, including jurisdictional overreach, regulatory enforcement uncertainty, global compliance fragmentation, AML/KYC burdens, potential criminalization in authoritarian states, taxation enforcement, and protocol-adjacent litigation exposure. Each paragraph includes direct source references to ensure institutional auditability.

‍

1. Jurisdictional Arbitrary Enforcement Risk

‍

Bitcoin's decentralized nature makes it difficult to regulate directly, so many governments instead pursue enforcement through intermediaries—such as exchanges, custodians, and node operators. However, this creates a risk of arbitrary or politically motivated enforcement actions, particularly in authoritarian regimes or states with fragile legal institutions.

‍

For example, in India, the government has flip-flopped between proposing outright bans and tax regimes on Bitcoin, creating significant operational uncertainty for exchanges and users. In China, the People's Bank of China banned all crypto transactions in 2021, including Bitcoin, under the pretext of financial stability and anti-speculation mandates.

‍

Sources:

‍

India crypto tax policy: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-imposes-tax-crypto-2022-02-01/

‍

China ban enforcement: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-declares-all-crypto-transactions-illegal-2021-09-24/

‍

Such legal unpredictability makes institutional investment riskier in emerging markets, despite their high Bitcoin adoption levels.

‍

2. Global Regulatory Fragmentation and Conflicting Classifications

‍

Bitcoin’s legal status varies significantly by country, creating a compliance challenge for multinational firms or funds managing cross-border portfolios. In one country, Bitcoin may be considered a commodity; in another, a currency; in a third, an illicit asset. This regulatory heterogeneity increases legal exposure and necessitates bespoke compliance infrastructure.

‍

For instance, Germany classifies Bitcoin as a unit of account and private money, taxed under capital gains frameworks. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s central bank bans crypto trading, but the country leads global peer-to-peer BTC adoption.

‍

Sources:

‍

BaFin (Germany) BTC classification: https://www.bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/FinTech/VirtualCurrencies/virtual_currencies_node_en.html

‍

Nigeria CBN crypto ban: https://www.reuters.com/article/nigeria-crypto-ban-idUSKBN2A42S0

‍

Such divergence means even legally compliant institutions face risk when onboarding new jurisdictions or clients.

‍

3. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know-Your-Customer (KYC) Enforcement Risk

‍

While Bitcoin itself is pseudonymous—not anonymous—many regulators argue it can facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing, particularly when used in non-KYC channels. FATF guidance now imposes compliance expectations even on decentralized systems, potentially threatening Bitcoin’s frictionless nature through “travel rule” enforcement on wallet providers and custodians.

‍

As per the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) must implement full KYC/AML screening and data-sharing across jurisdictions. This has led to preemptive delistings, withdrawal limits, and de-banking of Bitcoin entities even when no criminal behavior is present.

‍

Sources:

‍

FATF Travel Rule Guidelines: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Guidance-RBA-virtual-assets.html

‍

VASP definitions: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/guidance-virtual-assets.html

‍

Overzealous enforcement or misapplication of these standards can create a hostile environment for legitimate Bitcoin businesses and institutional onramps.

‍

4. Retroactive Legal Interpretation and Regulatory Overreach

‍

A significant risk in Bitcoin’s legal landscape is regulatory retroactivity—where governments impose compliance mandates retroactively or reinterpret old laws to cover new technologies. This can criminalize previously compliant activity and introduce ex-post liability exposure for investors and intermediaries.

‍

For example, in the United States, debates over whether self-hosted wallet developers or Lightning node operators could be subject to Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements or treated as money transmitters are ongoing.

‍

In the Tornado Cash case, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned smart contracts under the OFAC regime—a move that sparked widespread legal alarm, as code execution itself was treated as a sanctions violation.

‍

Sources:

‍

OFAC Tornado Cash Sanction: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916

‍

Coin Center lawsuit on OFAC overreach: https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-sues-treasury-over-unconstitutional-tornado-cash-sanctions/

‍

While Bitcoin is not a privacy coin, similar enforcement logic could be applied to pseudonymous transactions or multisig coordination, creating regulatory chilling effects even without malicious use.

‍

5. Taxation Complexity and Legal Risk of Misreporting

‍

Tax treatment of Bitcoin varies by country but is often legally ambiguous, especially in cases involving:

‍

Mining income,

‍

Forked coins,

‍

Layer 2 staking yield,

‍

Cross-border transfers.

‍

Institutions face legal risk from unintended noncompliance, particularly as tax authorities increase crypto auditing and surveillance.

‍

In the U.S., the IRS treats Bitcoin as property, requiring capital gains reporting on every transaction. Yet most legacy systems are ill-equipped to track tax lots, leading to underreporting or misreporting risks for retail and institutional investors alike.

‍

Sources:

‍

IRS Notice 2014-21: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

‍

IRS FAQ on digital asset taxation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions

‍

Even good-faith errors could trigger fines or prosecution under U.S. tax law, especially as enforcement becomes more automated.

‍

6. Criminalization of Peer-to-Peer Bitcoin Activity in Authoritarian States

‍

Bitcoin’s potential to bypass state capital controls and financial surveillance makes it a target in authoritarian countries. There is growing legal risk of Bitcoin criminalization not because of criminal use, but because it threatens centralized control over money.

‍

Examples include:

‍

Turkey and Egypt: where citizens face legal scrutiny for BTC usage amid currency crisis.

‍

Pakistan: proposed jail sentences for BTC traders in recent drafts.

‍

Such moves illustrate how Bitcoin’s core utility can be treated as a legal threat, irrespective of user conduct.

‍

Sources:

‍

Turkey BTC regulation: https://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-crypto-law-idUSKBN2BX0H6

‍

Pakistan crypto ban proposal: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/1/11/pakistan-plans-to-ban-cryptocurrency-forever

‍

This presents reputational, business continuity, and compliance exposure for institutions with cross-border clientele.

‍

7. Legal Liability Risk via Infrastructure and Custodial Intermediaries

‍

Even if Bitcoin itself is not legally liable, intermediaries that facilitate access—custodians, wallets, brokers—may face legal action for negligence, compliance failure, or fraud. Institutions must carefully vet infrastructure partners and implement legal risk mitigation clauses in service contracts.

‍

Examples include:

‍

Coinbase lawsuits over trading outages,

‍

Prime Trust insolvency risks,

‍

Ledger wallet security breaches.

‍

Even minor platform failures can create legal exposure for fiduciary stakeholders, especially in regulated environments like pension or endowment management.

‍

Sources:

‍

Coinbase legal actions: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/coinbase-hit-with-lawsuit-over-unregistered-securities-2022-08-04/

‍

Ledger data breach: https://www.ledger.com/blog/ledger-security-notice-july-2020

‍

8. Legal Uncertainty Surrounding Future Financial Crimes Regulation

‍

Lawmakers worldwide continue to consider new bills targeting digital assets for financial crime prevention, which may inadvertently target neutral tools like Bitcoin wallets or Lightning routing nodes.

‍

Potential legal risk arises from:

‍

Anti-ransomware legislation targeting self-hosted wallets,

‍

Treasury proposals to ban privacy-preserving infrastructure,

‍

International coordination for blockchain monitoring (Interpol, Europol involvement).

‍

These proposals often lack nuance and could result in overbroad criminal liability for neutral infrastructure operators.

‍

Sources:

‍

Ransomware regulation proposal: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117s3866is/pdf/BILLS-117s3866is.pdf

‍

Europol crypto crime analysis: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/cryptocurrencies-tracing-in-virtual-wild-west

‍

9. Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation Risk

‍

While rare in open-source projects, legal disputes over intellectual property or cryptographic method patents can arise, especially as institutions adopt Bitcoin-adjacent technologies (wallet SDKs, hardware devices, multisig tooling). These risks are peripheral but real.

‍

Institutions deploying Bitcoin at scale should implement IP risk reviews for wallet providers, custody software, and hardware integrations.

‍

Examples:

‍

Craig Wright’s ongoing lawsuits over Bitcoin whitepaper/IP claims,

‍

Potential patent trolling on Lightning routing algorithms.

‍

Sources:

‍

Wright litigation summary: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/02/23/bitcoin-white-paper-at-heart-of-craig-wrights-latest-lawsuit/

‍

10. Summary: Legal Risks Are External, Not Intrinsic—but Still Require Institutional Controls

‍

Bitcoin’s protocol design makes it resilient against most forms of internal legal liability. However, its intersection with legal systems, nation-state power structures, and financial compliance architecture introduces serious external risks that must be navigated carefully. Institutions can mitigate these risks through:

‍

Multi-jurisdictional compliance strategy,

‍

Infrastructure vendor audits,

‍

Legal risk insurance,

‍

Continuous regulatory surveillance,

‍

Custodial contract enforcement,

‍

Structured tax reporting systems.

‍

Bitcoin may not be a security—but legal clarity does not equal legal immunity, and institutional operators must treat legal compliance as a dynamic, multi-vector responsibility.

‍

Proceeding now to Section 6D – KYC/AML Policies

‍

6. Legal & Regulatory Compliance – Bitcoin (BTC)

‍

D. KYC/AML Policies 

‍

Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architecture has long been a focal point of regulatory scrutiny concerning financial crime prevention. The global legal framework of Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance has evolved significantly since Bitcoin’s inception, shifting from a reactionary enforcement model to a structured legal framework targeting service providers that interface with the Bitcoin protocol. While Bitcoin itself cannot comply with or violate KYC/AML policies—it is code, not a company—the growing ecosystem of custodians, exchanges, payment processors, and institutional platforms are increasingly being required to implement robust KYC/AML frameworks.

‍

This section delivers a comprehensive institutional analysis of the regulatory expectations around KYC/AML in the Bitcoin ecosystem, including applicable global frameworks, key enforcement precedents, infrastructure adaptations, surveillance mechanisms, compliance burdens, and emerging geopolitical divergences. Every point includes direct source links for audit purposes and policy tracking.

‍

1. Bitcoin Protocol Is Pseudonymous, Not Anonymous

‍

At the base layer, Bitcoin does not store identity information. Wallets are alphanumeric addresses not inherently linked to real-world identities. However, transaction histories are public and permanently recorded on the blockchain, making Bitcoin one of the most traceable digital payment systems in existence once an identity is linked to an address.

‍

This structure complicates regulatory narratives: while users can transact pseudonymously, surveillance tools like chain analysis can retroactively deanonymize flows with high accuracy once a KYC leak or data breach links addresses to individuals.

‍

Sources:

‍

Bitcoin privacy architecture: https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous

‍

Chainalysis whitepapers on blockchain forensics: https://www.chainalysis.com/resources/reports/

‍

This dual nature—pseudonymity plus public audit trail—forms the basis of legal and compliance arguments for requiring KYC/AML infrastructure on entry and exit ramps.

‍

2. FATF Guidance Sets Global KYC/AML Standards for Bitcoin Service Providers

‍

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body tasked with combatting financial crime, has issued comprehensive guidelines on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). Bitcoin itself is not a VASP, but platforms facilitating its usage are required to comply.

‍

According to FATF:

‍

All VASPs must conduct KYC checks on customers engaging in Bitcoin transactions.

‍

Travel Rule compliance requires VASPs to share customer originator/beneficiary info with other institutions during Bitcoin transfers exceeding ~$1,000 USD.

‍

VASPs must monitor transactions, flag suspicious behavior, and report to national Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs).

‍

Sources:

‍

FATF Virtual Assets Guidelines: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/guidance-rba-virtual-assets.html

‍

FATF Travel Rule Framework: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/guidance-travel-rule.html

‍

FATF compliance is now a global expectation, and countries that fail to implement these rules face sanctions and blacklist inclusion.

‍

3. National Regulatory Implementation of FATF Guidelines

‍

Countries worldwide are adopting FATF rules into national KYC/AML legislation, mandating Bitcoin service providers to:

‍

Verify identities via KYC procedures,

‍

Conduct risk-based customer due diligence (CDD),

‍

Maintain suspicious activity reporting (SAR) mechanisms,

‍

Integrate blockchain analytics for enhanced due diligence.

‍

Examples:

‍

United States: FinCEN requires MSBs (Money Services Businesses) handling Bitcoin to implement full BSA compliance under the USA PATRIOT Act.

‍

European Union: AMLD5 and the upcoming AMLR require crypto platforms to meet the same standards as traditional banks.

‍

Singapore: MAS regulates all Bitcoin exchanges as DPT providers under the PSA with strict KYC requirements.

‍

Sources:

‍

FinCEN Crypto Guidance: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf

‍

EU AMLD5: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018L0843

‍

MAS DPT Regulations: https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/explainers/cryptocurrencies

‍

This harmonization trend increases operational costs for Bitcoin service providers but also grants compliance legitimacy for institutional investors.

‍

4. On-Chain Analytics Tools as Compliance Enhancers

‍

To comply with AML obligations, most Bitcoin infrastructure operators now deploy on-chain surveillance and risk assessment tools to flag suspicious addresses, trace illicit flows, and assess transaction history risk scores.

‍

Major tools include:

‍

Chainalysis Reactor and KYT (Know Your Transaction),

‍

Elliptic Navigator,

‍

TRM Labs Risk Intelligence,

‍

CipherTrace tools (now acquired by Mastercard).

‍

These tools allow exchanges and custodians to assign compliance risk scores to incoming/outgoing BTC addresses and automate AML compliance monitoring.

‍

Sources:

‍

Chainalysis KYT: https://www.chainalysis.com/products/kyc-aml/

‍

Elliptic Tools: https://www.elliptic.co/crypto-aml-compliance

‍

TRM Labs Compliance Suite: https://www.trmlabs.com/

‍

The downside: these tools create potential surveillance overreach, and critics argue they erode Bitcoin’s fungibility and pseudonymity.

‍

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. We invite you to explore more content on our blog for additional insights and information.

https://www.thestandard.io/blog  

‍

"If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at [Email “Coming Soon”]. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you."

‍

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

PAGE 23: www.thestandard.io/blog/bitcoin-btc-the-rise-of-cryptocurrency-in-2025-23