FINMA is the most relevant regulatory body to businesses or individuals using blockchain technology or operating fintech companies in Switzerland. As supervisor and regulator, FINMA is responsible for protecting investors and creditors. It also ensures the proper functioning of the Swiss financial market and may, therefore, publish guidelines, information for individuals or public warnings. In the field of blockchain and fintech, FINMA can be approached for a pre-assessment concerning tokens or business models. Applying a risk-based approach when dealing with institution’s requests, FINMA is able to adapt its practice immediately in order to take increased market risks into account.

Switzerland has implemented Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations on virtual assets and VASPs, applying the same AML obligations to crypto-assets as to fiat currency. In 2021, the AML Ordinance was amended to lower the customer identification threshold for crypto exchange transactions from CHF5,000 to CHF1,000, going beyond minimum FATF standards. FINMA has also confirmed that blockchain-based payment systems and stablecoins are assessed against international standards, such as the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI).

FINMA distinguishes between three token categories:

• payment tokens (cryptocurrencies used as means of payment);
• utility tokens (providing access to a digital application or service); and
• and asset tokens (representing debt or equity claims on the issuer).

This token categorisation and the treatment of tokens by FINMA are rather straightforward from the perspective of the Swiss financial market laws. FINMA’s focus is on the economic function and purpose of a token (substance over form), and follows the principle of “same risks, same rules”, while taking into account the specific features of each project.

There is no crypto-specific regulatory framework in Switzerland. Existing financial market laws apply on a technology-neutral basis, with the 2021 DLT Act filling identified gaps. Depending on the business model, the Banking Act, the FinIA, the Financial Market Infrastructure Act (FMIA), the Collective Investment Schemes Act and/or the AML Act may apply.

Any activity crossing defined thresholds, such as accepting public deposits, operating a trading platform, managing assets, or providing payment services, triggers licensing requirements. AML obligations apply broadly to anyone professionally transferring or managing crypto-assets.

No specific crypto activities are outright prohibited, but operating without the required licence is unlawful.

No major crypto-specific regulations have recently come into force recently, but a significant domestic development is underway. In October 2025, the Federal Council opened a consultation on a proposed amendment to the FinIA, aimed at improving conditions for innovative fintech business models, enhancing Switzerland’s attractiveness as a financial centre, and implementing international standards. The Federal Council proposes introducing two new categories of financial institutions under the FinIA:

• Payment Institutions, replacing the existing “fintech licence” under the Swiss Banking Act (BankA); and
• Crypto Institutions, authorised to provide custody, trading and other services relating to crypto-based assets with trading characteristic.

Additionally, payment institutions are granted exclusive authority to issue stable, crypto-based means of payment.

The consultation ran until February 2026, with the proposed regulation targeting stablecoins and crypto-assets specifically.

The regulatory consequences do not fundamentally change merely because the activity is carried out through a legal wrapper, such as a fund or regulated firms and/or investment funds with exposure to crypto-assets. In the absence of specific legal definitions for a specific digital asset (eg, DLT-based securities or crypto-assets), digital assets must be classified according to the categories provided for traditional assets. In line with the principle of technology neutrality, the existing rules applicable to traditional asset categories must also be applied by companies operating with digital assets. 

Switzerland has a well-established initial coin offering (ICO) industry. Before launching, project owners must assess which Swiss financial market laws apply, as an ICO may trigger licensing requirements under the Banking Act, the FinIA, the FMIA, the Collective Investment Schemes Act and/or the AML Act. The applicable requirements depend heavily on how the token is classified, as a payment, utility or asset token.

There are no mandatory white paper requirements specific to crypto-asset issuances in Switzerland. However, if the tokens qualify as securities, the Financial Services Act’s prospectus requirements may apply. Marketing materials must comply with the Swiss Unfair Competition Act, and if tokens qualify as collective investment schemes, the Collective Investment Schemes Act’s disclosure rules apply. For any significant issuance, obtaining a binding tax ruling and conducting a pre-assessment with FINMA is considered best practice.

Switzerland’s market abuse framework is set out in the FMIA, which prohibits insider trading (Article 142 FMIA) and market manipulation (Article 143 FMIA). The FINMA enforces these provisions against all market participants ‒ both individuals and legal entities ‒ regardless of whether they are subject to prudential supervision. Prohibited behaviour includes trading on material non-public information and any conduct designed to create artificial prices or mislead the market.

The key distinction compared to traditional securities is one of scope. The FMIA market abuse provisions apply to financial instruments within the scope of the FMIA. Crypto-assets that do not qualify as securities – such as pure payment tokens like bitcoin ‒ may fall outside the specific FMIA market abuse regime. Where crypto-assets do qualify as securities ‒ such as certain asset tokens ‒ the full FMIA market abuse regime applies in the same way as for traditional securities.

Recent regulatory discussions involving FINMA have highlighted increasing attention to potential market abuse risks in crypto markets, although no dedicated crypto-specific market abuse regime has been introduced to date.

FINMA enforces Swiss financial market laws actively. In 2024, FINMA carried out 235 investigations relating to the unauthorised acceptance of public deposits, including by fintech business models. Also, FINMA carried out 232 investigations related to unauthorised financial intermediation, lack of SRO affiliations and unauthorised fintech business models (separate data on the fintech sector was not provided by FINMA).

FINMA’s enforcement activities may, in particular, result in criminal reports to law enforcement agencies, activity bans, withdrawals of licences, the opening of bankruptcy proceedings or the publication of orders against institutions. 

FINMA is willing to consistently take action against financial service providers in the fintech area that violate or circumvent supervisory laws, such as the banking, securities or AML regulations.

FINMA is willing to take action against foreign firms providing services into Switzerland without the required authorisation. In 2024, FINMA issued requests for administrative assistance from foreign countries to prosecute in 34 cases.

FINMA’s enforcement stance is unlikely to soften. It has signalled a continued willingness to act against firms that violate or circumvent supervisory laws in the fintech and crypto space. The growing influence of MiCA for Swiss firms serving EU customers may also indirectly drive further regulatory alignment domestically.

Neither blockchain technology nor cryptocurrencies are currently governed by any sector-specific laws or regulations. Therefore, existing laws and regulations apply to the new blockchain technology and, respectively, blockchain-based business models. Consequently, before a blockchain-based business model is implemented or digital assets are marketed, the project owner should be aware that several statutes may apply in Switzerland (in addition to foreign laws).

Licensing requirements are triggered when a blockchain or crypto-asset business crosses defined activity thresholds, such as accepting public deposits, managing assets, operating a trading platform, or providing payment services. The applicable licence depends on the business model and token classification, and may include a banking licence, securities firm licence, DLT trading facility licence, fintech licence or payment system authorisation.

Swiss licensing requirements apply to activities carried out on a professional basis in or from Switzerland. Foreign firms targeting Swiss clients or operating from Switzerland may trigger Swiss licensing requirements regardless of where they are formally incorporated, if they maintain a permanent physical presence in Switzerland.

Swiss licensing requirements are highly activity driven and depend on the specific regulated activity and corresponding licence category. Entities whose business falls within the scope of banking regulation must obtain a full banking licence, which entails extensive regulatory requirements, including minimum capitalisation, robust governance structures, fit and proper criteria for key individuals, comprehensive risk management frameworks, and adequate organisational arrangements. Comparable prudential and organisational requirements apply to securities firms licensed under the FinIA.

A simplified fintech licence is available to entities that accept public deposits of up to CHF100 million, provided such deposits are neither invested nor interest bearing. This regime entails reduced capital and organisational requirements compared to a full banking licence. Firms that professionally provide custody or safekeeping of crypto-assets for clients are generally required to hold at least a fintech licence.

Licensing of DLT trading facilities is governed by the FMIA. FINMA has issued specific admission, operational and technical requirements for such facilities, including mandatory reviews of smart contract code and requirements regarding operational resilience and business continuity.

Given the complexity and supervisory expectations associated with Swiss licensing procedures, early engagement with FINMA is both common practice and strongly recommended.

Under Swiss law, there are no specific change in control requirements applicable to digital asset firms. Instead, digital asset firms are subject to the same general rules as other firms outside the blockchain and cryptocurrency industry. If the business model is subject to licensing requirements in Switzerland, change in controls regularly trigger notification or authorisation requirements.

Swiss licences typically cannot be passported into other jurisdictions. As Switzerland is neither a member of the EU nor the EEA, Swiss firms do not benefit from EU passporting rights ‒ meaning a FINMA licence does not grant automatic access to EU markets. Swiss companies wishing to serve EU clients must typically set up a separate EU subsidiary to benefit from MiCA passporting rights across EU member states or implement EU requirements as minimum standards.

Switzerland has entered into the Berne Financial Services Agreement (BFSA) with the United Kingdom, which establishes a reciprocal framework enabling Swiss and UK financial service providers to offer cross border investment services to professional clients and certain high net worth individuals without establishing a local presence, within a defined and limited scope of services. For Swiss service providers, the agreement facilitates the provision of selected investment services into the United Kingdom, and vice versa, subject to compliance with the applicable conditions of the agreement.

Financial service providers wishing to rely on the Berne Financial Services Agreement must conduct prior notification or registration with the competent supervisory authority in the host state. The agreement is based on mutual reliance on home-state regulation and supervision and does not provide for passporting or unrestricted market access beyond its expressly defined scope.

Switzerland does not have a specific cross-border regime for crypto-asset services, but foreign firms targeting Swiss clients may trigger Swiss licensing requirements depending on the nature and scale of their activities. Since Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member, MiCA does not apply directly, but Swiss firms serving EU-based customers must comply with MiCA requirements when operating in the EU.

The rules applicable to marketing of digital assets are dependent on the initial qualification of the digital assets. In general, marketing activities in Switzerland are subject to the conduct rules under the Swiss Unfair Competition Act. 

In addition, specific financial market regulatory provisions, particularly the special requirements of the Swiss Financial Services Act and the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act may apply if the digital assets qualify as financial instruments or collective investment schemes (particularly asset tokens). Depending on the nature and scope of the activity (sole marketing, offer, service provision), such requirements may solely consist in the obligation to designate marketing material as such or expand to comprehensive regulatory conduct rules, such as prospectus requirements and affiliation obligations.

In Switzerland, white-labelling is permitted in principle but subject to strict conditions. A FINMA-licensed entity must remain fully responsible for the regulated activity and cannot “rent out” its licence. The licensed institution must act as the contractual counterparty and retain effective control over compliance, including AML and risk management.

Outsourcing is allowed only where it does not impair supervision and key functions remain with the licence holder. Consequently, white-labelling does not enable unlicensed firms to independently provide regulated services in Switzerland.

DeFi applications are among the recognised use cases in Switzerland, and there is no outright prohibition on DeFi activity. CeFi firms in Switzerland may interact with or utilise DeFi protocols, but they remain fully subject to regulatory requirements. Swiss regulators emphasise that firms cannot avoid regulation by using decentralised structures. If a regulated activity is performed, the regulatory framework still applies irrespective of the technology applied.

Switzerland does not recognise decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) as a standalone legal form. DeFi projects therefore operate through traditional Swiss legal entities acting as a legal wrapper for on‑chain governance structures. Dominating structures are particularly the Swiss foundation (Articles 80-89 Civil Code), association (Articles 60-79), and GmbH structures under the CO.

With the Ethereum Foundation, Cardano Foundation, Tezos Foundation, Web3 Foundation domiciled in Zug, the Swiss foundation is the dominating legal structure to operate DAO in Switzerland.

A Swiss foundation is established under the Swiss Civil Code by executing a deed of incorporation, endowing the foundation with assets (minimum capital of CHF50,000), appointing one or more founders (who need not be Swiss residents), and registering the foundation in the Commercial Register. The foundation must have a registered office in Switzerland and a foundation board composed of one or more members, at least one of whom must be resident in Switzerland, and it is subject to supervision by the competent cantonal foundation supervisory authority (and, where applicable, FINMA). Reporting and accounting are mandatory, while an audit is only required if certain size or fundraising thresholds are exceeded, and the foundation’s purpose is generally irrevocable once established.

Other requirements apply in case of establishment of other types of legal structures in Switzerland.

In Switzerland, there is currently no Federal Supreme Court case law specifically addressing accountability and liability for harm caused by DeFi. Nevertheless, as in other areas of Swiss law, DeFi-related harm is assessed on the basis of the general rules of civil liability, which apply in a technology neutral manner irrespective of the decentralised or automated nature of the underlying system.

Legal claims may arise on both a contractual and a non-contractual basis. Where a legal relationship exists between the user and an identifiable operator of a DeFi platform (for example through terms of use governing access to a trading interface or protocol), liability may be assessed primarily under contract law (Articles 97 et seq CO). In the absence of a contractual relationship, potential claims are typically limited to non-contractual liability, in particular tort liability under Article 41 of the CO or, depending on the circumstances, unjust enrichment. Such non contractual claims are subject to stricter requirements, notably the need to establish an unlawful act, fault, damage and a causal link, and they often face significant hurdles in identifying a legally responsible party where control is diffuse or anonymous.

In Switzerland, payments for goods and services made with cryptocurrencies are generally permitted, and there are no specific cryptocurrency-related limits. 

For such payments, the general principles of Swiss civil law apply, notably contract law. Therefore, the limitations that do apply are to be found in the CO, which sets out the material and formal requirements for the valid entry into and performance of agreements such as purchase agreements, service agreements and employment agreements.

Switzerland applies its technology-neutral approach to tokenised assets, meaning they are regulated in the same way as their non-blockchain equivalents, based on their economic function. Asset tokens representing debt or equity claims are treated as securities and subject to the same rules as traditional securities. The 2021 DLT Act introduced ledger-based securities as an explicit legal category, allowing rights to be issued, transferred and held on a blockchain while remaining subject to the same regulatory framework as conventional securities.

The SDX is a practical example of this approach in action ‒ operating as a fully regulated financial market infrastructure for digital assets under the same framework as traditional exchanges and central securities depositories.