Not publishable as-is. 5 of 8 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.
Morocco
MAschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated update date not yet available · 8 categories · 18 sourced
findings · 9 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
18Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction brief
No content recorded at this JID path.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Morocco has no crypto-specific licensing statute in force. The binding position remains the November 2017 joint communiqué by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Bank Al-Maghrib (BAM) and the Autorité Marocaine du Marché des Capitaux (AMMC), which treats virtual-currency activity as unregulated and warns the public against its use; enforcement precedent (e.g. prosecutions for crypto-based purchases) has functioned as a de facto prohibition even though MENAFATF found no legal text formally confirming a ban. Draft Law 42.25 (SGG avant-projet, Aug 2025) would create a VASP licensing regime under AMMC oversight, with BAM approval required for certain activities, but it is not enacted and no effective date exists.
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 · Bank Al-MaghribBank Al-Maghrib — <cite index="15-1">being an unregulated activity, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Bank Al-Maghrib and the Moroccan Capital Market Authority draw public attention to the risks associated with the use of virtual currencies</cite>, and no crypto-specific licensing statute has since entered into force; MENAFATF's 2024 review found no legal text formally confirming a ban, so the practical prohibition rests on this warning plus exchange-control enforcement rather than a codified ban.retrieved M5bindingin force
T4 · MariblockMariblock — Draft Law 42.25 (pending) would empower AMMC to license and oversee virtual-asset service providers (VASPs) and to regulate the issuance, listing and trading of digital tokens; <cite index="11-13">VASPs that seek to be licensed in the country must be incorporated in Morocco, and firms that seek to provide crypto-based financial services must secure BAM's approval before applying</cite> to the AMMC.retrieved M5non-binding
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-16">the AMMC has a maximum of 120 days to process applications and a two-month window to either turn down or accept licensing requests</cite> under the pending draft law's licensing procedure, which is not yet operative.retrieved M3non-binding
No statutory taxonomy of crypto-assets currently exists in Morocco; under the 2017 communiqué, virtual currencies are simply treated as an unregulated instrument. Draft Law 42.25 (pending) proposes a MiCA-inspired taxonomy distinguishing crypto-assets, asset-referenced/stablecoin tokens (BAM-regulated), and other digital tokens (AMMC-regulated), while explicitly excluding NFTs, CBDCs and crypto-mining from its scope.
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 · Bank Al-MaghribBank Al-Maghrib — Under the current (2017-derived) regime, <cite index="15-1">being an unregulated activity</cite> means virtual currencies/crypto-assets carry no formal statutory classification in Morocco today.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-8">While the document scope covers digital assets and cryptocurrencies, it leaves out central bank digital currencies — which BAM has looked into before now — non-fungible tokens, and crypto mining</cite>, per Draft Law 42.25's stated scope exclusions.retrieved M3non-binding
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-11">Bank Al-Maghrib, on the other hand, will provide regulation for the issuers of asset-backed tokens such as local stablecoins</cite>, under Draft Law 42.25's proposed classification split between BAM and AMMC.retrieved M4non-binding
No in-force rules address staking, mining, DeFi, DEX, node operation, validation or tokenization in Morocco. Draft Law 42.25 (pending) expressly excludes crypto mining and leaves DeFi/other digital financial instruments to existing capital-market law rather than covering them directly; staking, validator and node-operation activity are not addressed by either the 2017 communiqué or the pending draft.
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)
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-8">the document scope covers digital assets and cryptocurrencies, it leaves out central bank digital currencies — which BAM has looked into before now — non-fungible tokens, and crypto mining</cite>, meaning mining is excluded even from the pending draft regime.retrieved M3non-binding
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-9">The law also does not provide legal coverage for decentralized finance and other digital financial instruments already captured by existing capital market laws</cite>, per the draft law's stated scope.retrieved M3non-binding
T4 · MariblockMariblock — No Moroccan legal or draft-law provision currently addresses staking, validator, or node-operation activities; both the 2017 communiqué and Draft Law 42.25's disclosed scope are silent on these activities.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
No local stablecoin issuance-authorisation, reserve, redemption or disclosure regime is currently in force. Draft Law 42.25 (pending) proposes that BAM will regulate issuers of asset-backed tokens/local stablecoins, but implementing detail (reserve backing, redemption rights, disclosure) is not yet verified against the enacted text since the bill remains in adoption.
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)
T4 · MariblockMariblock — <cite index="11-11">Bank Al-Maghrib, on the other hand, will provide regulation for the issuers of asset-backed tokens such as local stablecoins</cite> under the pending Draft Law 42.25 framework.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement (SGG)Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement (SGG) — The SGG-published avant-projet of Draft Law 42.25 is described by seed anchors as containing stablecoin-issuer rules (reserve/redemption provisions), but this detail has not been independently verified against the enacted (still pending) text and is registered here as a gap pending primary-source confirmation.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
The 2017 BAM/AMMC/MEF communiqué functions as the primary consumer-facing risk-disclosure instrument, warning of the absence of protection against exchange-platform failure, absence of a specific legal protection framework for users, and price volatility. No custody-segregation, complaint-handling, or suitability regime specific to crypto exists; Draft Law 42.25 (pending) would bring custodial exchange operators into AML/CFT-linked licensing scope, but this is not yet in force.
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 · Bank Al-MaghribBank Al-Maghrib — <cite index="15-1">being an unregulated activity, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Bank Al-Maghrib and the Moroccan Capital Market Authority draw public attention to the risks associated with the use of virtual currencies</cite>, including exchange-platform failure risk, absent legal protection, and volatility.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · MariblockMariblock — Draft Law 42.25 (pending) would bring <cite index="11-13">operators of custodial exchanges, on-ramp and off-ramp platforms, crypto asset managers and companies that provide advisory services on crypto assets</cite> into scope, but no custody-segregation obligation is currently in force.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
A 2022 DGI (Direction Générale des Impôts) circular reportedly classifies cryptocurrencies as intangible assets for tax purposes, applying a 20% capital-gains rate on disposals and treating mining income as business income subject to income tax, with a general reporting obligation. This is corroborated only via a secondary summary source, not the primary DGI circular text, so confidence is capped at Probable per the seed's caution flag pending primary-source verification.
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)
T3 · Heavnn UniversityHeavnn University — Per a 2022 DGI circular (secondary-sourced), gains from the sale or exchange of cryptocurrencies are subject to capital gains tax; <cite index="31-2">The capital gains tax rate is 20%</cite>.retrieved M4bindingin force
T3 · Heavnn UniversityHeavnn University — <cite index="31-3">Income from cryptocurrency mining is considered business income and is subject</cite> to income tax, per the 2022 DGI circular (secondary-sourced).retrieved M3bindingin force
T3 · Heavnn UniversityHeavnn University — <cite index="31-17">Taxpayers are required to report all cryptocurrency transactions on their tax returns</cite>, per the 2022 DGI circular (secondary-sourced).retrieved M3bindingin force
Morocco's binding-adjacent position frames virtual-currency risk partly through the country's general exchange-control regime, as reflected in the 2017 BAM/AMMC/MEF communiqué's unregulated-activity framing. No crypto-specific cross-border reporting threshold exists in force. Draft Law 42.25 (pending) proposes travel-rule-style information-sharing obligations for licensed VASPs, but these are not yet operative.
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 · Bank Al-MaghribBank Al-Maghrib — Morocco's virtual-currency risk warning frames unregulated crypto flows as sitting outside the country's exchange-control regime; per the 2017 communiqué, <cite index="15-1">being an unregulated activity, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Bank Al-Maghrib and the Moroccan Capital Market Authority draw public attention to the risks associated with the use of virtual currencies</cite>, which in practice constrains outbound crypto-linked currency flows absent a licensing regime.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · MariblockMariblock — Draft Law 42.25 (pending) would require licensed VASPs to apply AML/CFT controls including that <cite index="11-15">these controls include keeping and sharing the information of the participants in a transaction, collaborating with other regulators and reporting suspicious activities</cite>.retrieved M4non-binding
Crypto subscribes to the FIM aml_ctf baseline; independent aml_cft_regime claims are intentionally not produced here to avoid duplication (absent_field_provenance: not_applicable_in_regime — tracked under FIM subscription, not this baseline). For cross-reference context only: MENAFATF's May 2024 5th Enhanced Follow-Up Report on Morocco shows <cite index="22-2">Recommendation 15 has been re-rated from non-compliant to partially compliant</cite>, reflecting incremental progress on virtual-asset AML/CFT technical compliance, though a comprehensive VASP risk assessment remains outstanding per the seed disambiguation.
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. 5 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_architecture_patterns
0
min_red_flags
0
min_controls
0
worked_examples_count
0
decision_tree_nodes
0
counterparty_diligence_questions
0
min_t1_per_instrument_met
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
translation_provenance_recorded
FAIL
egress_verified
pass
board_briefing_present
FAIL
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
FAIL
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
0.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Morocco
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.