Not publishable as-is. 1 of 5 publication_gate checks fail. The renderer displays the gate rather than suppressing it. Legal review and sub-brief approval are informational and are not part of this test.
Bangladesh
BDschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedprohibitedoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 8 categories · 20 sourced
findings · 15 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
20Findings.claims[]
4Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction lead brief
Lead Signal
Bangladesh's cryptocurrency posture remains a blanket prohibition enforced entirely through ancillary financial-crime and foreign-exchange statutes rather than through any dedicated crypto law. Bangladesh Bank treats cryptocurrency transactions as unauthorised and in violation of existing financial regulations, and this prohibition is applied through the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 rather than through a bespoke crypto statute naming the prohibition directly. No dedicated crypto licensing regime exists, and none is indicated as under development this cycle. This finding is corroborated across two independent secondary sources — a crypto-education platform and a global regulatory-tracking service — though neither reaches primary-source confirmation of the specific enabling Bangladesh Bank circular or warning notice; the exact instrument number under which the prohibition is currently codified was not verified against bb.org.bd this cycle, and that sourcing gap is carried forward rather than resolved. The prohibition's legal architecture is itself notable: rather than a single named ban, Bangladesh Bank's position rests on the combined weight of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, which restricts foreign-currency-denominated transactions generally, and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012, which brings unregulated financial flows within reporting and enforcement scope. Financial institutions are directed not to facilitate cryptocurrency-related activity under this combined framework, meaning the practical prohibition operates at the level of the regulated financial system's gatekeepers rather than through direct criminalisation of individual possession or use. No indication of an exemption for foreign-currency-earning freelancers or remittance-adjacent crypto use, sometimes discussed informally in Bangladesh's outward-remittance context, was located this cycle, and the prohibition should be read as general rather than carrying any carved-out exception.
Other Developments
No bespoke statutory basis, persistent classification ambiguity. Because Bangladesh Bank's prohibition rests on general financial-crime and foreign-exchange law rather than on crypto-specific legislation, the underlying legal basis for the ban is itself somewhat indirect: cryptocurrency activity is captured by statutes that were not drafted with digital assets specifically in mind, a structural feature of the regime rather than a gap expected to close through crypto-specific rulemaking in the near term. This structural feature has a direct practical consequence: because there is no crypto-specific statute to amend or repeal, any future liberalisation would require either a new dedicated law or a reinterpretation of how the existing foreign-exchange and money-laundering statutes apply to digital assets, a materially higher institutional bar than amending a single crypto-specific provision would represent. This also means the prohibition's durability is tied to the durability of Bangladesh's broader foreign-exchange and anti-money-laundering architecture rather than to any crypto-specific political consensus.
Cross-Monitor Connections
This cycle's crypto_licensing finding intersects directly with material tracked elsewhere in the research fleet. The financial-integrity monitor is separately tracking a statutory contradiction in which Bangladesh's newly enacted Gambling Prevention Act 2026 and Cyber Security Act 2026 explicitly name cryptocurrency as a money-laundering vector within their own provisions, even as Bangladesh Bank's transaction prohibition, recorded here, remains in place; that AML/CTF-framed analysis is authored by financial-integrity, not duplicated here. Separately, the gambling-regulatory monitor is tracking the same underlying 2026 statutes from a gambling-market-entry perspective, including their explicit criminalisation of cryptocurrency-linked wagering; the crypto-licensing prohibition recorded here is the financial-regulatory backdrop against which that gambling-specific prohibition sits. Both of these adjacent findings reinforce rather than contradict the picture recorded here: Bangladesh's posture toward cryptocurrency is one of prohibition and prohibition-adjacent statutory naming, consistently, across three different legal instruments, with no instrument moving in a liberalising direction.
Outlook
The most likely near-term development is not liberalisation but further statutory layering: given that two newly enacted statutes now name cryptocurrency as a laundering vector while Bangladesh Bank's transaction prohibition remains unchanged, the more probable trajectory is additional enforcement or clarification activity attempting to reconcile the ban with the new vector-recognition language, rather than any move toward a licensing framework. A secondary indicator worth tracking is whether Bangladesh Bank issues a clarifying circular addressing this apparent tension; the absence of such a clarification to date, despite the new statutes already being in force, suggests the tension is not yet being treated as urgent by the regulator relative to the gambling-enforcement action driving most of this cycle's broader financial-integrity signal. No development this cycle points toward the emergence of a dedicated crypto statute or licensing regime.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Bangladesh has no VASP licensing, registration or notification regime. Bangladesh Bank (BB) instead prohibits dealing in virtual assets/currencies outright, relying on the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 (FERA) s.23(1), the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 rather than a dedicated crypto statute. The prohibition was first circularised 24 December 2017 and reaffirmed by FE Circular No. 24 of 15 September 2022. BB has separately told the Criminal Investigation Department that mere possession/holding, absent an FX, AML or terror-financing nexus, is not itself punishable, creating a grey enforcement zone alongside the formal transaction ban. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 explicitly excludes cryptocurrency trading, exchange operation and legal-tender status from its scope, confirming BB's continued exclusive jurisdiction rather than any liberalisation.
Standing sub-brief359 words · last cycle 2026-08-21
Crypto Licensing
Bangladesh maintains a blanket prohibition on cryptocurrency transactions, treating them as unauthorised and in violation of existing financial regulations. No dedicated crypto statute exists naming the prohibition directly; instead, Bangladesh Bank applies the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 to constrain crypto exchange, brokerage, and related activity, with financial institutions directed not to facilitate cryptocurrency-related transactions.
This ancillary-statute structure is the defining feature of Bangladesh's crypto-licensing landscape: there is no application process, no licence category, and no regulator-defined path to lawful crypto-asset activity of any kind. The absence of a dedicated statute also means the prohibition's specific enabling instrument — the exact Bangladesh Bank circular or warning notice presently in force — was not independently verified against bb.org.bd this cycle; the finding rests on secondary crypto-industry and regulatory-tracking commentary rather than on a primary regulatory citation, a sourcing gap that should be closed before this finding is treated as fully verified.
The practical effect of this structure is that Bangladesh Bank's enforcement lever operates against the regulated financial system's gatekeepers — banks and licensed payment intermediaries — rather than against individual crypto users or platforms directly, meaning enforcement visibility is likely to surface primarily through the banking sector's compliance behaviour rather than through direct regulatory action against crypto exchanges, which have no lawful presence in the jurisdiction to be acted against in the first instance. The two structured claims underpinning this module's assessment carried a confidence-tier value this cycle that fell outside the crypto monitor's controlled four-value enum and were held during composition pending Interpreter-side correction; the module-level characterisation above is retained at the module-summary level independent of those held claim records.
Outlook
The near-term outlook for Bangladesh's crypto-licensing landscape is stability rather than change: no licensing framework is under development, and the prohibition's ancillary-statute basis means any future shift would require either a new dedicated law or a reinterpretation of the existing foreign-exchange and anti-money-laundering framework. The single development most likely to alter this picture is independent verification of the specific enabling Bangladesh Bank instrument, which would upgrade this cycle's secondary-sourced finding to a primary-sourced one without changing its substance.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (5)
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Bangladesh Bank's 24 December 2017 circular criminalises transacting in virtual/digital currency under section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 of 15 September 2022 reaffirmed that no individual, entity or institution operating in Bangladesh may deal in, exchange, transfer or trade virtual assets or virtual currencies, and ordered banks to refrain from facilitating such transactions.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — No Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) licensing, registration or notification regime exists in Bangladesh; the sole regulatory posture toward crypto activity is prohibition of dealing under foreign-exchange law.retrieved M5bindingin force
T4 · The Business StandardThe Business Standard — Bangladesh Bank has told the Criminal Investigation Department that mere possession/holding of cryptocurrency is not itself a punishable offence absent a nexus to FX, AML or terror-financing violations, creating an enforcement grey area distinct from the formal transaction ban.retrieved M4non-binding
T2 · ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and ITICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and IT — Bangladesh's National Blockchain Policy 2026 explicitly excludes cryptocurrency/virtual-currency trading, exchange operation and legal-tender status from its scope, confirming these remain exclusively under Bangladesh Bank's existing FX/AML jurisdiction rather than being liberalised by the blockchain policy.retrieved M4bindingin force
Bangladesh has no statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets. FERA 1947's definition of 'currency' does not recognise virtual currencies, and virtual assets are not an approved form of foreign exchange or investment. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 assigns tokenised securities and security-token offerings to BSEC under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969, while explicitly excluding cryptocurrency trading. Stablecoins are grouped with broader private crypto assets rather than given a distinct classification.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (4)
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — The definition of 'currency' under section 2(b)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 does not recognise virtual currencies, and virtual currencies/assets are not an approved form of foreign exchange or investment under sections 2(aa) and 2(bb) of that Act.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and ITICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and IT — Bangladesh's National Blockchain Policy 2026 assigns tokenised securities, security token offerings and blockchain-based capital market instruments (including DeFi protocols offering securities-like products) to the jurisdiction of the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969, separate from Bangladesh Bank's FX-based crypto prohibition.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · The Business StandardThe Business Standard — The National Blockchain Policy 2026 groups stablecoins together with broader private crypto assets rather than creating a distinct stablecoin classification, a framing that commentary characterises as prioritising risk containment over enabling stablecoin use.retrieved M3non-binding
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — No unified statutory taxonomy exists in Bangladesh distinguishing utility tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens or NFTs; all such instruments fall outside recognised currency/asset categories absent a dedicated crypto-asset law.retrieved M4bindingin force
Bangladesh Bank has issued no activity-specific rule addressing staking, DeFi, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validator activity or tokenisation. The general prohibition on dealing in and facilitating virtual-asset/virtual-currency exchange, transfer or trading is broad enough in wording to sweep up any means of acquiring or transacting in virtual currency, but no bespoke guidance exists. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 promotes permissioned enterprise tokenisation for trade/government use cases while explicitly excluding cryptocurrency-linked tokenisation.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Bangladesh Bank's prohibition on dealing in and facilitating exchange/transfer/trading of virtual assets or virtual currencies applies broadly enough to capture mining, staking and other means of acquiring virtual currency, though BB has issued no activity-specific rule addressing mining, staking, DeFi, DEX or validator operations.retrieved M3bindingin force
T2 · ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and ITICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and IT — The National Blockchain Policy 2026 promotes permissioned enterprise blockchain tokenisation for trade, land and government-service use cases, but explicitly excludes tokenisation tied to cryptocurrency trading or exchange from its scope.retrieved M3bindingin force
No stablecoin-specific legal category exists in Bangladesh — hence no issuance authorisation, reserve requirement, redemption right or systemic designation regime. Despite the general FX prohibition on virtual-currency dealing, unofficial inflows of USDT and USDC are reported to circulate outside regulatory scrutiny, particularly in remittance-adjacent use. The National Blockchain Policy 2026 references CBDC development but treats private stablecoins as a subset of the broader crypto-asset category it excludes from scope.
Standing sub-brief268 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Stablecoin Regime
Bangladesh has no dedicated stablecoin regulatory framework, and the National Blockchain Policy of Bangladesh 2026 confirms that this remains the case by expressly excluding cryptocurrency and virtual-currency trading, exchange operation and legal-tender status from its scope. This exclusion is probable-confidence, sourced to a T1 primary policy document, and its practical effect is to confirm that Bangladesh Bank retains exclusive jurisdiction over any stablecoin-adjacent activity under the same foreign-exchange and anti-money-laundering framework that governs cryptocurrency generally -- specifically the blanket transactional prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 s.23(1), reaffirmed by Bangladesh Bank circulars in 2017 and again in 2022.
There is no evidence this cycle of any stablecoin-specific carve-out, pilot, or differentiated treatment relative to other forms of cryptocurrency. A stablecoin, insofar as it constitutes a virtual-currency transaction under Bangladeshi law, would fall within the same blanket prohibition that applies to cryptocurrency transactions generally; the National Blockchain Policy's exclusion language does not distinguish stablecoins from other token types, treating crypto trading and exchange operation as a single excluded category. This is a jurisdiction where the absence of a differentiated stablecoin framework is itself the finding: the policy apparatus that might otherwise create such a framework has affirmatively declined to engage with virtual-currency activity at all, leaving the entire category -- stablecoins included -- under Bangladesh Bank's existing prohibition-and-enforcement posture.
Outlook
Watch for whether any future Bangladesh Bank guidance or blockchain-policy revision introduces stablecoin-specific treatment distinct from the general crypto prohibition; absent such a development, stablecoins in Bangladesh should be assessed under the same blanket-prohibition lens as cryptocurrency generally, with no separate regulatory track to monitor.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · The Business StandardThe Business Standard — No stablecoin issuance authorisation regime exists in Bangladesh; unofficial inflows of USDT and USDC circulate outside regulatory scrutiny despite Bangladesh Bank's general prohibition on virtual-currency dealing.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — No reserve or redemption requirements are prescribed for stablecoins in Bangladesh because no stablecoin-specific legal category exists under Bangladeshi law.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
Bangladesh Bank has issued repeated public warnings on the volatility, lack of legal backing, and financial/legal risk of dealing in virtual currencies, and has directed banks to post branch-level warning notices and increase monitoring. However, there is no bespoke consumer-protection statute for crypto-asset service providers covering custody segregation, complaint handling, or suitability/appropriateness — these categories are not applicable because no licensed VASP category is recognised.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (3)
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 (2022) and its 29 July 2021 public notice DCP(PR)1/2021-7/5 repeatedly cautioned the public about the volatility and financial risk of dealing in virtual currencies, noting such instruments have no financial claim and are not guaranteed by any sovereign.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · The Business StandardThe Business Standard — Bangladesh Bank's Banking Regulation and Policy Department issued BRPD Circular No. 40 (12 October 2022) directing banks to display public notices at branches, sub-branches and agent-banking outlets warning customers against involvement in cryptocurrency transactions and to increase monitoring of related activity.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — No custody-segregation, complaint-handling or suitability/appropriateness rules specific to crypto-asset service providers exist because no licensed VASP category is recognised under Bangladeshi law.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
No dedicated crypto tax legislation or verifiable primary NBR ruling on the tax treatment of cryptocurrency income or gains was located in this pass. General income-tax principles under Bangladesh's Income-tax Act would presumptively apply to any realised gains as unexplained/other income, but this is unconfirmed against a primary NBR circular or ruling and requires escalation.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, BangladeshLegislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Bangladesh — No primary NBR ruling or circular specifically addressing the tax treatment of cryptocurrency income or gains could be verified in this research pass; general income-tax principles would presumptively apply to any realised gains, but this link to crypto specifically is unconfirmed against a primary NBR source.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Cross-border transactions to obtain, transfer or retain proceeds in virtual assets/currencies are explicitly barred under FERA-based FE circulars. Retention of export proceeds abroad in cryptocurrencies is a contravention of FERA s.5(1)(e)(i), cognisable under s.23(1). Because cross-border crypto transfers are themselves prohibited outright, no separate crypto travel-rule or cross-border reporting framework exists — the restriction operates as an outright ban rather than a regulated/reported channel.
Standing sub-brief329 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Cross-Border Transfer
The Gambling Prevention Act 2026 introduces a new and severe predicate offence directly relevant to cross-border crypto transfer activity touching Bangladesh: laundering gambling proceeds via cryptocurrency now carries penalties of up to ten years' imprisonment and a BDT 50 million fine. This sits on top of, and is additional to, Bangladesh's pre-existing blanket cryptocurrency-transaction prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 s.23(1), which already captures virtually all crypto-linked value transfer -- cross-border or otherwise -- as unauthorised under Bangladesh's foreign-exchange control regime. The new offence therefore does not create a novel prohibition category so much as attach an aggravated, gambling-specific criminal exposure to an activity -- crypto transfer -- that was already unlawful.
The practical cross-border dimension is significant for any VASP, exchange or payment intermediary processing flows that might touch Bangladeshi persons or counterparties in connection with gambling activity: a transfer that would already have violated the standing FX-control prohibition now carries the additional, and substantially more severe, exposure of the gambling-proceeds laundering predicate offence where a gambling nexus is present. This is a probable-confidence finding sourced to T3 secondary reporting (SiGMA News) of the statute's provisions; whether the offence cross-references a specific FERA or Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 section, or operates as a freestanding provision, is not yet confirmed against primary legislative text.
Supervisory responsibility for this predicate offence sits with the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit, working alongside Bangladesh Bank's existing FX-control enforcement apparatus, though the practical coordination between these two enforcement tracks -- one gambling-specific and predicate-offence-based, one general FX-control-based -- has no evidenced track record this cycle.
Outlook
Watch for confirmation of whether the crypto-linked gambling-proceeds predicate offence cross-references a specific statutory provision or stands freestanding, which would clarify how it interacts procedurally with Bangladesh Bank's existing FX-control enforcement track. Watch also for any enforcement action specifically invoking this new predicate offence against a cross-border crypto transfer with a gambling nexus, which would be the first practical test of its reach.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (3)
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Bangladesh Bank's FE Circular No. 24 (2022) states that any transaction made in, from or to Bangladesh for obtaining virtual assets or virtual currencies is not permitted, and that provision of facilitation for exchange, transfer or trading of virtual assets/currencies is likewise barred.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — Retention of export proceeds abroad in any form, including in cryptocurrencies, constitutes a contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and is cognisable under section 23(1), as reiterated by FE Circular No. 24 (2022) referencing FE Circular No. 39 of 18 November 2021.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Bangladesh BankBangladesh Bank — No crypto-specific cross-border travel-rule reporting framework exists in Bangladesh because cross-border virtual-asset transfers themselves are prohibited outright under foreign-exchange law rather than being regulated and reported.retrieved M3bindingin forcea fact about the regime
Crypto AML/CFT obligations are subscribed from the FIM aml_ctf module per fleet doctrine; this baseline does not restate AML/CFT claims. For disambiguation context only: Bangladesh Bank has historically invoked the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 as part of its rationale for treating cryptocurrency transactions as punishable, meaning AML exposure for crypto in Bangladesh is bound up with the general prohibition rather than a bespoke crypto-AML regime.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Publication gate
Blocking. 1 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
egress_verified
pass
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
pass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
50.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Bangladesh
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
no reviewer on record
trust.content_source
ai_generated
Provenance and declared absence
Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.
Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.
Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.