Contributed By Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law
In recent years, the Taiwan government has adopted an increasingly stringent and proactive approach toward the regulation of virtual-assets service providers (VASPs), largely in response to the rising number of illegal fundraising cases, fraud cases, money laundering activities, and civil disputes involving virtual assets. These concerns have been further magnified by high-profile exchange failures which exposed significant risks to investor protection and market integrity.
At present, virtual assets that do not qualify as securities under Taiwan law are primarily governed by the Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA). A significant amendment to the MLCA was enacted in 2024, introducing new registration and compliance obligations for VASPs. Under the revised framework, VASPs are now required to complete anti-money laundering (AML) registration with the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) before commencing any business operations. Engaging in virtual-asset services without completing this AML registration constitutes a violation of the MLCA and may subject operators to criminal liability. In light of this change, a large number of existing VASPs had already submitted their registration applications, and as of early May 2026, there are eight registered VASPs under the MLCA framework.
In addition to strengthening AML oversight, the FSC published a draft bill for a dedicated piece of legislation – the Virtual Asset Service Act – in 2025. This draft bill was reviewed and submitted by the Executive Yuan (the cabinet) to the Legislative Yuan (the congress) in April 2026. This proposed law introduces a comprehensive licensing regime for VASPs and is intended to provide a clearer legal foundation for the regulation of the virtual-asset industry. While its passage remains uncertain, it signals a shift toward a more formalised and robust regulatory framework in Taiwan.
To foster fintech innovation and support the development of emerging financial services, the Taiwan government enacted the Financial Technology Development and Innovative Experimentation Act, commonly referred to as the “Sandbox Act”, in 2018. This legislation established a formal regulatory sandbox framework designed to encourage experimentation with novel fintech business models and technologies, while ensuring that consumer protection and financial stability are not compromised. Under this framework, eligible fintech companies are permitted to conduct time-limited trials of their services and products in a controlled regulatory environment. During these trial periods, certain legal and regulatory requirements may be conditionally waived, subject to the oversight and supervision of the competent regulatory authority, the FSC. The goal is to provide a safe space for innovation while gathering empirical data to inform future regulatory adjustments.
Since the enactment of the Sandbox Act, the FSC has approved multiple blockchain-related projects for inclusion in the sandbox. Notable examples include a blockchain-based interbank fund transfer system, a blockchain-enabled fund exchange service, and a group-buying platform for bond investments with blockchain as underlying technology. These initiatives highlight the government’s commitment to embracing blockchain technology and creating a regulatory environment conducive to innovation and responsible development in the fintech sector.
In Taiwan, apart from regulations governing crypto-assets/digital assets, there are no specific standalone regulations governing blockchain technology.
From a personal data viewpoint, whether the right to be forgotten indeed exists under the Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is still the subject of debate. However, the PDPA explicitly states that a data subject has the right to request a government or non-government agency to delete his/her personal data
If blockchain data truly possesses the “immutability” characteristic inherent to the technology, it could theoretically conflict with provisions in personal data laws regarding a data subject’s right to deletion as indicated above. However, there is currently no very specific discussion on this conflict within judicial practice. In practice, whether any personal data may be successfully deleted would depend on the individual products or services.
To the authors’ knowledge, there have not yet been any court decisions in Taiwan that offer detailed analysis or legal interpretation regarding the enforceability of agreements involving digital assets or blockchain-based transactions. As a result, there remains a degree of legal uncertainty in this area. However, based on general principles of contract law, an agreement would likely be recognised as legally valid and enforceable as long as there is clear mutual intent by the parties to enter into the agreement, and all other essential elements required for a valid contract – such as offer, acceptance, and legal capacity – are present. Courts would likely evaluate such agreements on a case-by-case basis.
There are no self-regulatory organisations other than the Taiwan Virtual Asset Service Provider Association (the “VASP Association”). A VASP is required to join the VASP Association before it may conduct its VASP-related business in Taiwan.
The VASP Association functions as a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) with the primary goal of promoting responsible practices and ethical standards within the virtual-asset industry. It is tasked with the development, implementation, and continuous refinement of self-regulatory standards designed to strengthen industry self-discipline and foster public trust. These standards include comprehensive rules and guidelines covering key areas such as anti-money laundering (AML), anti-fraud measures, and consumer protection protocols, which are critical to maintaining the integrity and security of the virtual-asset ecosystem. In addition to setting industry norms, the VASP Association plays an important liaison role by maintaining ongoing communication and co-operation with the FSC and other relevant government agencies. Through this engagement, the association not only helps ensure compliance with regulatory expectations but also provides a formalised platform through which the industry can articulate its viewpoints, challenges, and policy recommendations to regulators.
There are currently no regulatory guidelines or specific statutory provisions in Taiwan that offer a detailed legal analysis concerning the transfer of ownership or transactional finality of digital assets transferred through a blockchain network using a private cryptographic key. The legal framework surrounding such transactions remains under-developed, and questions regarding the enforceability of ownership claims or the resolution of disputes involving blockchain-based transfers have yet to be formally addressed by Taiwanese courts. However, from a practical standpoint, if a digital asset is successfully transferred from one digital wallet to another through the proper use of a private key, such a transaction is generally presumed to be final and valid. Nonetheless, the lack of legal clarity poses potential challenges in dispute resolution.
To the authors’ knowledge, there are currently no court decisions that have provided in-depth analysis or discussion regarding the use of digital assets as collateral. However, both civil and criminal courts in Taiwan have generally recognised that digital assets possess property value, and therefore, theoretically, it is possible to create security interests over such assets. However, the legal characterisation of digital assets under the Civil Code remains subject to debate. Some courts have classified digital assets as “things” while others have regarded them as “rights”. As a result, the specific methods for creating security interests over digital assets may depend on the future development of judicial practice.
Legally, there are no regulations prohibiting virtual-asset service providers (or any related businesses) from opening bank accounts or using other banking and payment services.
In practice, however, the number of banks willing to open accounts for these providers is quite limited. This is often due to AML concerns or rather limited understanding of the industry players and the industry as a whole.
There are no legal/regulatory requirements regarding ESG/sustainable finance in Taiwan.
In Taiwan, there is room for the issuance of security tokens under Taiwanese law, and although Taiwan has some ESG or perpetual-related disclosure regulations, these disclosure regulations are not applicable to security tokens.
The tax regime has not been specifically amended to address blockchain technology or digital assets. As a result, the taxation of such assets is generally subject to interpretation under existing regulations. One major uncertainty arises when virtual assets are sold on local trading platforms, and the seller cannot provide documentation for the initial purchase cost. It becomes challenging to determine the taxable income derived from the transaction.
Also, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has indicated that tax reporting obligations for virtual assets could be introduced once virtual-assets trading platforms and exchanges fully adopt real-name verification in accordance with the AML regulations applicable VASPs. As a result, regulatory measures concerning the taxation of virtual assets are expected to be implemented in the foreseeable future.
Regarding the winding-up or insolvency of blockchain-related businesses, there are no laws and regulations that specifically address winding-up or insolvency requirements/regimes, nor are there any specific judicial precedents. Therefore, if a VASP goes bankrupt, the general bankruptcy law and company law regarding bankruptcy and liquidation will still apply.
See 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies.
Currently, both security tokens and non-security tokens are under the supervision of the FSC. Specifically, the FSC regulate over financial products and services, including those involving blockchain and digital assets.
For non-security tokens in particular, because these are under the AML regime of the current framework, many of the systems being established are closely aligned with FATF standards. In November 2025, the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) Mutual Evaluation Committee reaffirmed Taiwan’s “regular follow-up” status. This unanimous decision by APG members, prompted by Taiwan’s 2023 follow-up report, maintains the country’s standing in this top-tier category since its initial 2019 mutual evaluation.
It is worth noting that the forthcoming VASP-specific law will include a section on stablecoins, at which point the Central Bank will also play a role.
In Taiwan, the primary distinction regarding the characterisation of digital assets is between tokens having the nature of securities (ie, security tokens) and tokens without the nature of securities (ie, non-security tokens).
Security Tokens
Under the current regulatory framework in Taiwan, tokens that meet the existing legal definition of “securities” as set forth in the Securities and Exchange Act are subject to the full scope of regulatory oversight administered by the FSC. In order to provide a structured and compliant environment for such tokens, the FSC has delegated authority to the Taipei Exchange (TPEx) to develop and enforce detailed rules and requirements governing both the issuance and secondary trading of security tokens. These regulations are designed to ensure investor protection, market transparency, and regulatory compliance. Due to the rather high regulatory thresholds and associated compliance burdens, market participation has remained limited. To date, there has been only one officially approved security token issuance programme in Taiwan, highlighting the cautious and controlled approach taken by regulators toward this emerging form of digital asset.
Non-Security Tokens
In Taiwan, digital assets that are not deemed securities are regulated under MLCA. Following the amendment to MCLA in 2024, a VASP is required to register with the FSC in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MCLA before commencing operations. Operating without such registration may result in criminal liability. Many then-existing market participants had accordingly applied for registration with the FSC under the new legal framework. As of beginning of May 2026, there are eight registered VASPs. Also, pursuant to the Regulations Governing Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism for Enterprises of Virtual Currency Platforms and Trading Business (the “VASP AML Regulations”), a duly registered VASP is required to:
Furthermore, in April 2026, the Executive Yuan (cabinet of Taiwan) announced the draft of specific law dedicated to virtual assets, namely Virtual Assets Service Act, which proposes a licensing regime for VASPs. It remains uncertain when the Legislative Yuan (the congress) will pass this Act.
According to current Taiwan laws and regulations, licensed asset management companies (ie, securities investment trust enterprise and futures trust enterprises) are prohibited from investing in cryptocurrencies.
Security Token Offerings (STOs)
Since 2020, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) and the Taipei Exchange (TPEx) have implemented a specialised framework for tokens classified as securities.
Non-Security Tokens (Virtual Assets)
Cryptocurrencies that do not function as securities are governed primarily by Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CFT) frameworks, specifically the VASP Registration and VASP AML Regulations. Specifically, VASPs offering virtual-asset exchange services must disclose key details about the virtual assets, including the token’s whitepaper, which should contain information about the issuer, among other things. Also, a VASP providing virtual-asset trading platform services must establish criteria for reviewing virtual-asset launches. These criteria should cover, among other factors, information about the issuer and the legal risks associated with the issuer.
Security Token Offerings
Under the current STO framework, if a customer fails to fulfil their settlement duties, the securities firm (acting as the platform operator) must cancel the transaction. Following immediate notification to the customer, the firm is responsible for seeking compensation.
Beyond these default procedures, the STO regulations do not currently contain specific provisions addressing market integrity or the prevention of market abuse by traders.
Non-Security Tokens
While no specific laws currently govern market abuse for virtual assets, the VASP Guidelines mandate that providers ensure all trading is conducted fairly and transparently. To achieve this, VASPs must implement market-monitoring mechanisms – such as alerts for abnormal price swings – alongside rules to prevent market abuse and conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, under VASP Registration Regulations, exchange service providers are required to maintain and publicly disclose a conflict-of-interest policy. They must also take proactive steps to safeguard customer interests, specifically ensuring that all exchange orders are processed both promptly and fairly.
Security Tokens
There have been no major announced cases involving enforcement actions for violations.
Non-Security Tokens
There has been frequent discussion regarding illegal depositing taking under banking law or illegal fundraising in violations of the securities regulation. In a recent case, a service provider claimed during their service offering that they were not accepting fiat currency, but rather stablecoins. The prosecutor proceeded with an indictment, but the judgment has not yet been finalised.
If the activities are carried out offshore, the aforementioned legal issues will theoretically still apply unless the operations are conducted entirely offshore.
These regulatory and judicial stances are unlikely to change within the next 12 months.
Security Tokens
An STO platform may only be operated by entities licensed as a securities dealer. Existing securities firms intending to engage in such business must obtain prior approval from FSC. Furthermore, entities that are not currently licensed as any kind of securities firms may also apply to the FSC for a licence specifically permitting them to conduct business of proprietary trading of virtual assets.
Digital Asset Without the Nature of Securities
For digital assets that are not considered to be securities, Taiwan currently adopts a registration regime under MCLA. According to the Regulations Governing Anti-Money Laundering Registration of Enterprises or Persons Providing Virtual Asset Services (the “VASP Registration Regulations”), any entity seeking registration as a VASP must submit the following documentation.
See 3.1 Licensing Requirements.
According to the VASP Registration Regulations, any change in the beneficial owner of VASP is subject to the prior approval of the FSC.
There are no passporting-related provisions or mechanisms in Taiwan.
As advised in 2.6 Non-Compliance, if the services are rendered from offshore, the Taiwan regulations will theoretically still apply unless the operations are conducted entirely offshore.
The current advertising regulations for Taiwan are as follows.
Security Tokens
The marketing and disclosure requirements for security tokens in Taiwan are primarily governed by the “Regulations Governing Securities Dealers’ Operation of the Business of Trading of Virtual Currency with Nature of Securities” (the “STO Regulations”), as promulgated by the Taipei Exchange (TPEx). Under the STO Regulations, issuers are required to disclose material information through a designated “Information Disclosure Section”. The STO Regulations stipulate the following key requirements.
Digital Assets Without the Nature of Securities
For digital assets without the nature of securities, VASP Registration Regulations impose specific requirements on virtual-asset trading platforms. These platforms must establish internal review standards and procedures for the launching of virtual assets. The review standards must include an assessment of whether the advertising content or solicitation activities related to the virtual assets involve any improper or false statements, or any conduct that is fraudulent, concealed, or otherwise likely to mislead others.
Additionally, the FSC issued the “Guidelines for the Management of Virtual Asset Service Provider” (the “VASP Guidelines”) in September 2023, which set forth customer protection requirements, including:
Taiwanese law does not have explicit regulations regarding white labelling. However, it cannot be ruled out that such arrangements may be viewed as an offshore exchange (one that is not registered in Taiwan) providing services within Taiwan, which may therefore constitute a violation of Taiwanese regulations.
There are no specific regulations for DeFi in Taiwan. From the perspective of Taiwanese law, it is difficult to conceive of virtual-asset products that have no service provider at all. If there is indeed one or more principal parties “behind” these services, they could still be held liable for any violations of Taiwanese law. This is especially true in cases involving criminal liability, where authorities may trace responsibility back to the individuals (ie, natural persons) involved.
As for CeFi providers, if they provide services to clients using their own positions while utilising DeFi protocols “behind the scenes”, there appears to be no explicit legal prohibition. However, in theory, these CeFi providers are expected to maintain a certain level of robust internal controls to prevent their use of DeFi from causing a material adverse impact on their operations.
See 5.1 Ability to Use DeFi.
As advised in 5.1 Ability to Use DeFi, if there is indeed one or more principal parties “behind” the DeFi services, they could still be held liable for any violations of Taiwanese law, especially if criminal liability is involved.
There have been no major announced cases involving enforcement actions for DeFi.
Under the current legal framework in Taiwan, there are no explicit prohibitions that prevent the use of cryptocurrencies for payment purposes in general commercial transactions. This means that private parties may legally agree to use cryptocurrency as a form of consideration, provided the transaction does not involve regulated financial services or trigger anti-money laundering obligations.
In the draft of Taiwan’s specific law for virtual assets (ie, draft Virtual Asset Service Act or Draft Act), there is a specific section dedicated to stablecoins. Under this Draft Act, stablecoins are required to maintain 100% reserve; consequently, “algorithmic” stablecoins will not be permitted to exist.
Pursuant to the Draft Act, to issue stablecoins in Taiwan, the issuer must apply for the approval from the FSC. Prior to granting such an approval, the FSC should consult with and obtain the consent of the Central Bank. Stablecoin issuers applying for the approval must also meet minimum paid-in capital requirement.
Stablecoin issuers are required to establish and maintain 100% reserve assets, which must be stored in domestic financial institutions. These reserve assets must be kept separate and independent from the issuer’s own assets and are subject to regular audits. Furthermore, if the total par value of the issued stablecoins reaches a certain threshold, the issuer must deposit a sufficient amount of reserves, which shall be factored into the aforementioned reserve assets.
Any part of the stablecoin issuance involving foreign exchange must be handled in accordance with Central Bank regulations.
Stablecoin issuers must issue and redeem stablecoins at par value. In principle, stablecoin issuers may not refuse a redemption request from a holder.
Stablecoin issuers are prohibited from paying any form of interest or yield on the stablecoins they issue.
See 6.2.1 Fiat Currency and Algorithmic Stablecoins and 6.2.2 Stablecoin Regulation.
See 6.2.1 Fiat Currency and Algorithmic Stablecoins and 6.2.2 Stablecoin Regulation.
Currently, Taiwan has not established specific regulations for RWA. Therefore, purely from a legal perspective, any issuer wishing to launch an RWA programme must comply with existing regulatory frameworks. For instance, if the design of a particular RWA constitutes a securities offering, it must theoretically fit within the current framework of securities laws. However, since existing securities regulations – with the exception of those specifically for security tokens – do not account for blockchain technology, any attempt to issue an RWA with the characteristics of securities may prove practically infeasible under the current regulatory framework.
8F, No 555, Sec. 4
Zhongxiao E. Rd
Taipei 110055
Taiwan, R.O.C.
+886 2 2763 8000
+886 2 2766 5566
attorneys@leeandli.com www.leeandli.com/EN