<\/p>\n
1. Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/strong>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n This report provides an analysis of the current legal regulation of cryptocurrency in Spain, as well as its regulation from a comparative perspective.<\/p>\n To this end, it is necessary to begin with the concept of blockchain<\/strong> technology<\/strong>, which has proliferated enormously in recent years and whose origin dates back to the 1990s, when a group of individuals decided, with the potential that the Internet represented at that time and relying on cryptography, to propose the creation of a new open financial system, without authorities or control institutions, capable of guaranteeing anonymity, controlling the money supply, and being completely transparent regarding transaction flows.<\/p>\n All of this enabled the creation of bitcoin in 2008, thus beginning the materialization of the supposed possibilities of this new technology which, initially, is capable of simplifying a large number of processes such as international payments.<\/p>\n This is because it eliminates intermediaries while enabling a new standard of interoperability among different financial institutions.<\/p>\n Following the emergence of bitcoin, understood as the first cryptocurrency, numerous others and new crypto assets followed, known as altcoins.<\/p>\n Although it is true that, at present, no international consensus has yet been reached regarding the nature of this type of asset.<\/p>\n However, despite this lack of consensus, this report provides a brief reflection on advances in the legal regulation of cryptocurrencies.<\/p>\n 2. Definition of Cryptocurrency.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Virtual currencies, also called cryptocurrencies, can be defined “as a digital representation of value not issued or guaranteed by a central bank or public authority, not necessarily associated with a legal tender currency, which does not have the status of currency or foreign exchange, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of payment and can be transferred, stored or traded by electronic means.”<\/em><\/p>\n This definition is established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and is contained in Article 1 of the Directive amending Directive (EU) 2015\/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing.<\/p>\n Indeed, the proposed directive expands the list of entities obliged by Directive (EU) 2015\/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council to include providers that primarily and professionally provide services for exchanging virtual currencies for fiat currencies.<\/p>\n It also requires Member States to ensure that providers of virtual currency exchange services for fiat currencies and providers of electronic wallet custody services are authorized or registered.<\/p>\n In this regard, the ECB strongly supports these standards, which are consistent with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), since terrorists and other criminal groups are currently able to transfer funds on virtual currency networks by concealing transfers or taking advantage of a certain degree of anonymity on those exchange platforms, as we will examine in greater detail later.<\/p>\n On the other hand, we must consider that the use of virtual currencies involves greater risks than traditional means of payment in the sense that their transfers are carried out via the Internet and have no limit other than the capacity of the computer network and technological infrastructure.<\/p>\n In this regard and, from an economic perspective, cryptocurrencies do not meet the classic character<\/strong>i<\/strong>stics of a fiat curren<\/strong>c<\/strong>y<\/strong> <\/strong>, these being: a medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value.<\/p>\n In fact, they have a limited function as a medium of exchange insofar as they have a reduced level of acceptance among the public.<\/p>\n However, under no circumstances, and it is important to note this distinction, can we confuse cryptocurrencies with electronic money, since the latter is a digital currency transfer mechanism, which is defined in Article 2.2 of Directive 2009\/110\/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of September 16, 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, such as PayPal.<\/p>\n In fact, the relationship between traditional and electronic money has a legal basis and their respective stored funds are expressed in the same monetary unit (e.g., euro, dollar), whereas this does not occur with virtual currencies.<\/p>\n In this context, the ECB understands that digital currencies do not necessarily have to be exchanged for legally established currencies, but can also be used to acquire goods and services without making this exchange or resorting to an electronic wallet custody service provider.<\/p>\n Although it is true that these operations, not being covered by any of the control measures established by the aforementioned Directive, may be used as a means of financing illicit activities.<\/p>\n Following this line, the Directive itself establishes that the legislative bodies of the Union must avoid appearing as promoters of the use of privately established digital currencies, since these alternative means of payment are neither legally established as currencies nor are they legal tender currencies issued by central banks.<\/p>\n Therefore, although it is appropriate for the legislative bodies of the Union, in accordance with FATF recommendations, to regulate virtual currencies from the perspective of combating money laundering and terrorist financing, their objective in this area should not be to encourage greater use of virtual currencies.<\/p>\n 3. Conceptualization of Cryptocurrencies at the International Level<\/span><\/span><\/strong>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n The difficulty in determining the nature of cryptocurrencies, together with the absence of a common approach worldwide, has led countries to adopt different positions to address this new technological phenomenon.<\/p>\n For this reason, we distinguish between the different positions that, initially, countries may adopt in order to address new technological requirements.<\/p>\n A first strategy podr<\/strong>\u00ed<\/strong>a consist of prohibiting the issuance and operations of this type of asset.<\/strong><\/p>\n This strategy has the advantage of providing certainty at a low regulatory cost, although it is clearly a strict option that does not favor innovation and that in some respects may be counterproductive since, in the absence of any regulation, it may encourage clandestine use. Examples in this regard would be China and North Korea. <\/p>\n The second strategy<\/strong> is based on assuming that crypto assets are a different type of asset from everything regulated so far and that the difficulty of fitting them into securities regulations advises issuing local regulations while international (or European) regulations are not available.<\/strong> Examples of this approach are France, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Israel, Malta, Mexico, Russia, or Thailand. In this case, the main disadvantage is that local regulations may become incompatible with future state regulations. <\/p>\n The third approach<\/strong> is based on seeking to apply existing regulations on securities or financial instruments as long as there is no international or European regulation, without issuing a new regulatory body<\/strong>, although on occasion regulatory adjustments or interpretative criteria may be introduced to address new circumstances or clarify the applicability of existing rules. This option could also include Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Spain. <\/p>\n In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the statements made by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in March 2018, where it informed the G20 that, in its opinion, crypto assets did not represent a risk to financial stability primarily due to their small size relative to the financial system as a whole, although this area should continue to be monitored as it was growing rapidly.<\/p>\n However, it is important to consider the fact that the very concept of what a cryptocurrency is and what its legal consideration may be also varies from country to country.<\/p>\n For example, for the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the US financial intelligence unit, virtual currencies are a currency in themselves, although not with all its attributes. Under this characterization, FinCEN considers that exchange platforms and “administrators” (issuing entities) are Money Services Businesses (MSB) and, as such, are subject to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regulations (Bank Secrecy Act of 1934) and have an obligation to register. <\/p>\n For its part, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the futures market regulator, considers that bitcoin has the legal nature of a commodity and has also issued various alerts.<\/p>\n Finally, for the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the US tax agency, virtual currencies are considered property, which means that payment with virtual currencies constitutes a barter and, consequently, generates a capital gain or loss.<\/p>\n In this regard, it is obvious that this US regulation contrasts with the absence of regulation in the <\/strong>C<\/strong>ommunity and dom<\/strong>e<\/strong>stic level. <\/strong> <\/p>\n At the Community level, many organizations have expressed their views on virtual currencies, such as the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Parliament, or the European Commission, but the only positive regulation is that contained in the 5th Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Directive, to which I have previously referred.<\/p>\n In the Spanish cas<\/strong>e, <\/strong>to date, there is also no positive law that specifically addresses its regulation, but rather documents without regulatory stat<\/strong>u<\/strong>s<\/strong>: consultations from the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT), the Institute of Accounting and Auditing (ICAC), notices from the National Securities Market Commission (CNMV) and the Bank of Spain (BdE), some responses from the Executive Service of the Commission for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Monetary Offenses (SEPBLAC), the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling, and some judicial rulings, such as the judgment of the Provincial Court of Asturias of February 6, 2015, appeal no. 27\/2015, among others.<\/p>\n The most active public body regarding crypto assets, among other reasons for being the most concerned, has been the National Securities Market Commission (CNMV).<\/p>\n This institution made public in 2018 that its strategy follows the recommendations of the European Commission and, therefore, seeks to promote the application of new technologies to the provision of financial services, but also monitors associated risks.<\/p>\n Among the specific objectives derived from this strategy was el to provide criteria for determining in wh<\/strong>i<\/strong>ch cases a crypto asset should be consider<\/strong>e<\/strong>d a negotiable security and, therefore, apply the corresponding rules. <\/strong>La CNMV se ha situado claramente en la opci\u00f3n que m\u00e1s protecci\u00f3n proporcionaba a los inversores sin alterar la deseable homogeneidad normativa europea.<\/p>\n In fulfillment of the objective of providing criteria and as much information as possible, on February 8, 2018, the CNMV published two communications, one jointly with the Bank of Spain and another with specific considerations from the CNMV addressed to financial sector professionals.<\/p>\n The joint communication with the Bank of Spain, which was addressed to investors and, in general, to retail financial users, first highlighted that no cryptocurrency or ICO had been registered, authorized, or verified by any Spanish supervisory body (a situation that continued during 2019).<\/p>\n Likewise, various considerations were presented that should be taken into account before acquiring cryptocurrencies or participating in an ICO: The lack of local and European regulation<\/strong>, which means buyers lack corresponding protections; the existence of problems arising from the cross-border nature of the phenom<\/strong>e<\/strong>no<\/strong>n<\/strong>, since most cases do not take place in Spain and, if so, involve international actors; the existence of a high risk of l<\/strong>o<\/strong>ss of invested capital; the existence of liquidity problems and extreme volatility; <\/strong>y, por \u00faltimo, el comunicado llamaba la atenci\u00f3n sobre el hecho de que the informati<\/strong>on made available to investors in the case of ICOs may not be adequate, <\/strong>ya que generalmente no est\u00e1 auditada y, con frecuencia, resulta incompleta, resalta los beneficios y minimiza los riesgos.<\/p>\n 4. Use of Cryptocurrencies for Tax Fraud, Money Laundering, and Terrorist Financing<\/span><\/span><\/strong>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n From what we have been able to deduce so far, virtual currencies perform an economic function (medium of exchange or store of value), which means that their possession and use have certain tax relevance.<\/p>\n In addition to posing a higher-than-average risk of being used to commit tax fraud, as a consequence of the fact that the identity of participants is anonymous (although it is true that it is not total anonymity), transactions are peer-to-peer, they may have a cross-border component, and access to information by financial authorities is very limited.<\/p>\n In fact, some authors claim that cryptocurrencies combine the defining elements of tax hav<\/strong>e<\/strong>ns, <\/strong>ya que son ganancias que no est\u00e1n sujetas a imposici\u00f3n y aseguran el anonimato; y adem\u00e1s, tienen el valor \u201ca\u00f1adido\u201d de que no dependen de la existencia de instituciones financieras, de manera que los evasores fiscales que tradicionalmente han hecho uso de los para\u00edsos fiscales podr\u00edan migrar hacia el uso de criptomonedas.<\/p>\n Thus, the characteristics of cryptocurrencies make them a potentially ideal means of committing fraud, whether “<\/strong>static”<\/strong> (derived from the mere holding of undeclared virtual currencies) or<\/strong> “<\/strong>dynamic”<\/strong> (derived from transactions that have avoided taxation).<\/strong><\/p>\n In Spai<\/strong>n, <\/strong>el ICAC considera en su consulta de 5 de marzo de 2014 (referencia rmr\/38-14) que las monedas virtuales son intangible fixed assets <\/strong>en la medida en que cumplan con una serie de criterios recogidos en la NRV 5.a del Plan General de Contabilidad, aprobado por el Real Decreto 1514\/2017, de 16 de noviembre (PGC). Su consideraci\u00f3n como inmovilizado o existencias vendr\u00e1 establecido en virtud de la funci\u00f3n que cumplan en relaci\u00f3n con su participaci\u00f3n en la actividad ordinaria de la empresa. <\/p>\n However, with regard to individuals, and as an asset, virtual currencies fall within the <\/strong>s<\/strong>ubjective scope of the Wealth Tax<\/strong>, in tanto que el art\u00edculo 1 de la Ley 19\/1991, de 6 de junio, del Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio, define patrimonio neto como “<\/em>the set of goods and rights of economic content owned, with deduction of charges and encumbrances that diminish their val<\/em>u<\/em>e, as<\/em> <\/em>well as debts and personal obligations for which one must answer<\/em>“. <\/em> <\/p>\n Regarding their valuation, binding consultations V0250-18 and V0590-18, of February 1 and March 1, respectively, establish that virtual currencies must be valued at their market value as of December 3<\/strong>1<\/strong> <\/strong>(art. 24). Dado su car\u00e1cter descentralizado, no hay un valor de mercado oficial, pero podr\u00eda monedas virtuales como el bitcoin “<\/em>act<\/em>u<\/em>ate as a means of payment and by their own characterist<\/em>i<\/em>cs should be understood as included within the concept <\/em>“<\/em>other commercial effects (judgment of the CJEU of June 12, 2014, case C-461\/12, Granton Advertising)<\/em>“” <\/em> <\/p>\n As with regulatory authorities, tax authorities determine the treatment of virtual currencies and operations carried out with them differently by country.<\/p>\n By way of example, in the United States there are express regulatory pronouncements on the tax treatment of virtual currencies. Thus, while Notice 2014-21 of the IRS establishes that virtual currencies are property and, therefore, payments made with virtual currencies must be declared. In addition, income obtained through the use of virtual currencies must be declared in the Personal Income Tax. <\/p>\n Whereas, with regard to the Spanish case, given the high volatility of the market and leaving aside the treatment of virtual currency generation activity (mining), the prevailing view seems to be to consider, for income tax purposes (IRPF, IS, IRNR), that virtual currencies are assets, which means that exchanges with virtual currencies are barters of goods, and this enormously complicates tax management, both for the taxpayer (who will have a capital gain or loss with each exchange made) and especially for the Tax Administration.<\/p>\n Thus, the DGT, although not expressly, recognizes the nature of asset (and not currency or foreign exchange) of virtual currencies in binding consultation V0808-18 of March 22, which establishes that purchases and sales of virtual currencies carried out outside an economic activity will give rise to capital gains or losses, these being attributed, in accordance with Article 14.1.c) of Law 35\/2006 of November 28 on Personal Income Tax, at the time the asset change occurs, that is, when the good is delivered.<\/p>\n However, for Value Added Tax (VAT) purposes, in Spain they are treated as a means of payment (legally they are not, but their function is similar) and, as such, their delivery would not be taxed (in accordance with Article 135.1.d of the VAT Directive). This interpretation differs from that made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Hedqvist judgment (CJEU judgment of October 22, 2015, Skatteverket v. David Hedqvist, case C-264\/14), which considers them as currencies and declares that financial services linked to them are exempt from VAT taxation on the basis of Article 135.1.e of the Directive. <\/p>\n However, it is possible that if the market reaches a certain maturity, volatility is reduced, and virtual currencies begin to be used as a means of payment more or less generally, it seems evident that the tax approach will undergo numerous variations, coming to be considered for income tax purposes as a means of payment.<\/p>\n On the other hand, it is necessary to refer to the fact that in Spain there is no special reporting obligation arising from operations with virtual currencies<\/strong>, although there is a general obligation to declare gains and losses obtained from their use, as well as their mere holding, provided that the thresholds established by the Wealth Tax regulations are exceeded.<\/p>\n One of the few references in a legal text to virtual currencies appears in the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan for 2018 (BOE no. 20, of January 23, 2018), which mentions that, within actions to prevent and suppress smuggling, drug trafficking, and money laundering, “<\/em>to be strengthened<\/em>” <\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em>” <\/em>to detect and prevent <\/em>“<\/em>the use by organized crime of the deep web, or <\/em>“<\/em>deep web<\/em>“<\/em>, for the trafficking and trade of all types of illicit goods, as well as the use of cryptocurrencies such as<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em> <\/em> <\/em>“<\/em>bitcoin<\/em>” <\/em>or similar as means of payment<\/em>“<\/em>.<\/p>\n Along these lines, it appears that the National Office for Fraud Investigation (ONIF) intends to identify all companies operating with bitcoin, and is preparing a list for this purpose, requesting from these companies the corresponding details on the acceptance of bitcoin payments, amounts collected, bitcoin addresses, the time when bitcoin-to-euro exchanges have been made, and the exchange houses with which such transactions have been carried out.<\/p>\n In fact, in April 2018, it became known that the Tax Agency had sent information requests to more than 60 entities involved in the acquisition or sale of cryptocurrencies.<\/p>\n Similarly, it appears that the AEAT is internally evaluating the possibility of creating new reporting obligations, regulating entities that exchange virtual currencies and, in particular, so-called human ATMs or individuals who conduct escrow-type operations (sales between individuals arranged through applications such as meetup.com), as well as establishing a sanctioning regime or regulating documentation obligations for operations carried out with virtual currencies.<\/p>\n In this regard, it should be noted that, from the outset, the draft reform of the EU Directive provided that the special due diligence and reporting obligations that have been attributed to financial operators by Directive (EU) 2015\/849 should be extended to the cryptocurrency sector.<\/p>\n However, given the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, the question arose as to which actors in the sector in particular such due diligence and reporting obligations could be imposed upon.<\/p>\n Thus, the Commission’s original text provided only for the extension of the obligations in question to the exchangers <\/em>y a los proveedores de servicios de administraci\u00f3n de billeteros de criptomonedas (e-wallets<\/em>). Sin embargo, el proyecto de reforma enmendado por el Parlamento en primera lectura oper\u00f3 una enorme extensi\u00f3n ulterior de dichas obligaciones, al imponerlas a “<\/em>…virtual currency exchange platforms, providers of virtual currency electronic wallet custody services, issuers, administrators, intermediaries and distributors of virtual currencies, as<\/em> <\/em>well as administrators and providers of online payment systems in l<\/em>ine.” <\/em> <\/p>\n The problem is that such an extension of the list of obliged subjects represents an increase in the intensity of interference with individual rights, since this requirement could compromise the proportionality of the measure.<\/p>\n By this we refer to the possible interference with the right to data protection of persons who may be affected, a fact that could obviously call into question the proportionality of the measure with respect to the legitimate aim pursued by it.<\/p>\n Although it is true that, as a counterpart to the latter, the need for information is necessary because cryptocurrencies offer a high degree of transaction privacy, given the inherent difficulty of the system in linking a given transaction to a specific user and in tracing the path followed by a given unit of value that changes “owner.”<\/p>\n Thus, they perfectly adapt to the character<\/strong>i<\/strong>stics cl<\/strong>a<\/strong>ssic of cybercrime: <\/strong>instantaneidad; distancia entre el infractor y el lugar de comisi\u00f3n de una parte sustancial del iter criminoso del delito; car\u00e1cter transfronterizo, con la problem\u00e1tica jur\u00eddica asociada a la determinaci\u00f3n de la jurisdicci\u00f3n competente para conocer de la infracci\u00f3n y a la cooperaci\u00f3n internacional indispensable para perseguirla; inmaterialidad y, por tanto, facilidad de eliminaci\u00f3n de las pruebas.<\/p>\n 5. Current Status and Consequences of Future Cryptocurrency Regulation.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n On January 10, 2020, the deadline for transposition of the 5th Directive (EU) 2018\/843 on Money Laundering, which regulates Virtual Currency Exchange Service Providers, expired. Article 4 established January 10 as the deadline for Member States to adapt their legal, regulatory, and administrative provisions to comply with the directive.<\/p>\n In Spain, at present, neither SEPBLAC nor the Bank of Spain has issued a statement on supervision of the Cryptocurrency or Virtual Asset Sector. In fact, registration of the Prevention Representative of Virtual Currency or Asset Service Providers is currently not permitted, claiming that they are not within the scope of application of Spanish Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (art. 2 of Law 10\/2010 on Money Laundering Prevention). <\/p>\n However, the 5th Directive already provides for the inclusion of Exchangers or Virtual Currency Exchange Platforms within the scope of application of the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive 4AMLD by amending various articles. Based on this, we can say that Spain is obliged to amend money laundering regulations to include Virtual Currency Exchange Platforms and Virtual Currency Wallet Providers, the deadline set by the 5th AML Directive having already expired on January 10, 2020 (art. 4 of the directive). However, it is anticipated that there will be a considerable delay in amending these regulations, possibly due to the situation of the Spanish government. <\/p>\n The fact is that it is extremely important to prevent Spanish financial institutions from closing their doors to the cryptocurrency sector by considering it a high-risk financial activity, despite voluntarily complying with Spanish Anti-Money Laundering Regulations.<\/p>\n Hence the importance of the Bank of Spain or SEPBLAC taking a position similar to that of other European countries, such as the United Kingdom, which announced on January 10 that it will be the Supervisory Authority for the Crypto Sector.<\/p>\n Other European countries such as France have moved ahead by regulating this sector through the Autorit\u00e9 des March\u00e9s Financiers (AMF). However, in some countries, although regulations have not yet been officially enacted, as in the case of Germany, it has regulated and allowed the financial sector to buy and sell virtual currencies, a case to which I will refer later, considering it an example to follow. <\/p>\n As we have observed throughout this report, there are different positions regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies; however, the need for more comprehensive regulation has accelerated the process.<\/p>\n In fact, the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) announced on January 21 the establishment, together with six other major banks, including, in addition to the ECB, those of England, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, and Sweden, to analyze the arguments and possible justifications for the use of this type of means of payment.<\/p>\n The latest to join this study will be Japan, whose deputy governor said, and I quote: “The speed of technological innovati<\/em>o<\/em>n is very r<\/em>a<\/em>pid. Depending on <\/em>c\u00f3mo evolucione el sistema de pagos, la demanda para una moneda digital central podr\u00eda aumentar en Jap\u00f3n. Tenemos que estar preparados si eso ocurre\u201d. <\/p>\n Although it is true that, as has been indirectly alluded to throughout this report, the ECB has not advanced as much as other banks regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies.<\/p>\n This is because the difficulty lies not only in seeing whether it is technically possible, but in the need to analyze the possibilities and variations to which this type of payment may be subject, as well as its repercussions; in addition to the fact that under no circumstances is it desired that European banking suffer any type of harm. Although, obviously, pressure from other countries is a clearly important factor, since no one wants to fall behind in payment innovation. <\/p>\n Nevertheless, on January 24, Beno\u00eet Coeur\u00e9, former ECB board member, was clear in stating that the difficulty no longer lay in the existence or not of this payment method, but in when it would arrive.<\/p>\n In fact, a report presented by the BIS that same day revealed that one-fifth of the world’s population resides in countries whose respective central banks see possibilities of launching their own digital currency, it being necessary to note that the central bank of China, after five years of analysis, is finalizing its own digital currency. Similarly, other countries such as Sweden, Uruguay, the Bahamas, and the Eastern Caribbean islands anticipate that they will put their pilot digital currency projects into circulation very soon. In contrast, around 66 central banks continue to study the possible repercussions of making that decision. <\/p>\n However, despite the existence of more than 45 million blockchain accounts, the number of people who own Bitcoin and other digital assets is considerably lower.<\/p>\n In fact, it is possible that one of the greatest concerns regarding the use of this payment method, and a possible explanation for the stagnation in its growth, is that regulation may end up being detrimental or that a total ban may be established.<\/p>\n In the event that the main countries that initially appear to be favorable to Bitcoin\u2014such as the United States, Japan, South Korea and, to some extent, the European Union\u2014were to follow in the footsteps of the Asian power and make the use of Bitcoin illegal, catastrophic repercussions could occur.<\/p>\n Regarding the Spanish case, opinion is clearly divided between those who believe that regulation can no longer wait and those who consider a total ban on this new medium necessary, viewing it as a viable alternative for the commission of cybercrimes.<\/p>\n In this sense, we consider it necessary to refer to an article written by Elena Lozano in Bolsaman\u00eda, who highlights that the financial activity of crypto-assets will not be able to endure much longer without being regulated, stating that: “<\/em>Spain and the rest of the member states (of the European Union) must<\/em> transpose in 2020 the fifth directive relating to the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, which will force<\/em> <\/em>them to regulate activity related to crypto-assets in t<\/em>e<\/em>rms of money laundering. In its adaptation to the Spanish legal system, Spain<\/em> may <\/em>follow the example of Germany, which already allows its banks to safeguard and sell these assets<\/em>.”<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n In her statement, she alludes to the case of Germany; this is because this European power can serve as an example and constitute a clear reference for other countries that have expressed their interest in offering this type of financial services, without this implying permissiveness toward certain types of crimes.<\/p>\n Following this line and, as the author points out, it can be said that there is a certain resistance to regulation due to (verbatim): “mainly two reasons. The first reason is that Bitcoin arrived to eliminate intermediaries, and those who are currently money intermediaries see their position threatened and therefore do not want the government to give the go-ahead for the use of Bitcoin and other crypto-assets. The second reason is that there are extremists who believe that Bitcoin does not need government intervention and should function on its own without any external regulation.”<\/p>\n Finally, it should be noted that the fact of announcing its possible regulation triggers a drop in its value.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the first days of January 2018, the price of Bitcoin fell by 14% in a single day when the government announced that it was working on a bill to ban cryptocurrency transactions. An example of this was the decision taken by the SEC in March 2017 to reject a proposal to modify stock market regulations; a decision that meant that, just five minutes after the announcement, the price of Bitcoin plummeted by 16%. Price reactions show a clear market preference for the definition of the legal nature of cryptocurrency, but with a light regulatory regime. <\/p>\n News pointing to a complete ban on cryptocurrencies or the non-recognition of these as currency are associated with negative returns<\/strong>, especially pronounced in the case of bans. However, those suggesting that cryptocurrencies could be treated as securities also generate negative returns. <\/p>\n For example, when China hinted at the possibility of introducing strict regulation of Bitcoin at the end of January 2017, Bitcoin operations moved massively to other Asian currencies; despite the fact that cryptocurrencies do not need the intermediation of any legal entity and lack borders, initiatives by regulatory bodies and news about possible measures in this <\/strong>a<\/strong>rea can have a notable impact on the markets for these assets, <\/strong>at least regarding their valuation.<\/p>\n 6.- Conclusions<\/span><\/span><\/strong>. <\/strong> <\/p>\n In short, virtual currencies are a novel phenomenon and, as such, difficult to fit into traditional legal categories. To this must be added that their development is still incipient and it is difficult to guess what their situation will be in the near future, especially regarding homogeneous regulation at an international level. <\/p>\n While it is true that, currently and as a consequence of the high volatility of cryptocurrencies and all the problems that their use implies, so-called stablecoins or stable cryptocurrencies are emerging, which are crypto-assets designed to be used as a means of payment to which mechanisms are incorporated to provide stability to their price.<\/p>\n In any case, what is evident is that virtual currencies are and will continue to be a reality. Therefore, the function of the Law is to provide a clear and concise response to these new realities in order to avoid conflict. Thus, rather than focusing on their legal categorization, regulatory solutions must adopt a practical approach and regulate virtual currencies in all aspects in which they have an impact. <\/p>\n 7.- Bibliography<\/span><\/span><\/strong>. <\/strong> <\/p>\n – OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 12 October 2016 C 459\/3 on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015\/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directive 2009\/101\/EC<\/p>\n Author: Carlota Castro Fari\u00f1as.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Our passion for cryptocurrencies and new technologies, combined with the best team of lawyers, allows IN DIEM to offer innovative legal solutions for companies, investors, and individuals. Currently, IN DIEM Lawyers has offices in Malaga, Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Huelva… <\/p>\n The IN DIEM Lawyers<\/strong> area specializing in Cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin<\/strong> has extensive experience and a high degree of knowledge in New Technologies and Cryptocurrencies. We operate and advise not only in relation to the virtual currency Bitcoin<\/strong> but also with all existing cryptocurrencies, including: Ethereum<\/strong>, Ripple<\/strong>, Litecoin<\/strong>, Dash<\/strong>… and investments in ICO<\/strong> (Initial Coin Offering), offering our clients the appropriate operational strategy and the necessary advice for their operations and investments.<\/p>\n The highly specialized Law and Cryptocurrencies Area of IN DIEM,<\/strong> comprised of a multidisciplinary team<\/strong> including IT specialists<\/strong>, financial experts<\/strong>, and expert lawyers<\/strong>, will contribute securely to the development of your operations and investments; providing technical and operational resources to analyze potential investments and operations, intervene in mining operations, or implement regulatory or legal compliance frameworks.<\/p>\n Among the services related to Cryptocurrencies and Bitcoins from IN DIEM Lawyers, the following may be mentioned:<\/p>\n 1.- Criminal Litigation related to Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies. Scams. If you require more information, you can click HERE<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n We are at your disposal for whatever you need. You can reach us via the IN DIEM Lawyers Phone (+34) 901 900 071.<\/strong> In cases of Emergencies, you can reach us at the IN DIEM 24-Hour Emergency Lawyers Phone: (+34) 610 667 452.<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n At IN DIEM Lawyers, we accept payments in different cryptocurrencies. To this end, we offer you a simple system. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, or Ethereum provide an unprecedented level of security<\/strong>. The network provides users with protection against the most frequent frauds, such as chargebacks or unwanted charges, and Bitcoins are impossible to counterfeit. Bitcoin is designed to allow its users to have total control over their money. <\/p>\n BitPay<\/strong> is a payment services<\/strong> platform that supports the cryptocurrencies<\/strong> Bitcoin (BTC) or Bitcoin Cash (BCH)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n For more information HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
transposicion-de-la-quinta-directiva-de-blanqueo-de-capitales-por-la-que-se-regulan-las-
monedas-virtuales-y-los-proveedores-de-servicios-de-cambio-de-monedas\/<\/li>\n
html<\/li>\nLawyers specializing in Cryptocurrencies and Technologies | IN DIEM: Malaga, Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Almeria, Huelva…<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
2.- Civil and Commercial Litigation related to Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies.
3.- Contracts. Sales and commercial operations with Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies.
4.- Implementation of Cryptocurrencies in Businesses.
5.- Advice on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Investment Operations.
6.- Contributions of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies to Companies.
7.- Taxation of Cryptocurrencies.
8.- Advice on Money Laundering and Cryptocurrencies
9.- Cryptocurrency Intermediation. Mandate Contracts.
10.- ATMs <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nDid you know that IN DIEM Lawyers accepts Bitcoin, Ether, and Bitcoin Cash as a form of payment…?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n