Tanzania

Two qualifications temper this otherwise closed picture. First, a December 2024 High Court ruling in Yellow Card Tanzania Ltd v. Nyamwero reportedly held that the absence of a crypto regulatory framework does not render crypto trading illegal, and the court reportedly enforced a crypto-linked settlement on that basis -- a judicial data point suggesting Tanzanian courts may not treat crypto activity as per se unlawful even where BOT's supervisory posture is restrictive. This finding rests only on secondary reporting and awaits confirmation against the primary court record, so it is carried as an annotated caveat rather than a change to the module's traffic-light assessment. Second, an unverified report describes a July 2026 statement by the BOT Governor announcing that BOT has completed a study and is finalising a comprehensive crypto, stablecoin, and virtual-asset regulatory framework. That report is sourced only through secondary channels and has not been folded into the baseline record; if confirmed against a BOT press release or gazette notice, it would be the single most consequential development available to this module and would likely warrant revisiting both the crypto_licensing traffic-light and Tanzania's overall jurisdiction status.

Outlook

Absent confirmation of the reported comprehensive framework, Tanzania's licensing posture should be read as closed: no pathway exists for crypto businesses, and regulated intermediaries are affirmatively barred from facilitating crypto activity. The module's trajectory is marked as a watch item precisely because of the unconfirmed framework announcement and the judicial caveat, both of which point toward the possibility of a more permissive or at least more legally settled posture than the notice-and-prohibition architecture currently on record. Primary-source confirmation of either thread -- a BOT framework document or the Nyamwero court record -- is the key trigger to watch for in coming cycles.

Outlook

This module is best read as a genuine authority-exists-but-unexercised gap rather than either a green-light or a settled prohibition: CMSA's securities-characterisation power is a real, potentially applicable tool, but its non-use to date means no crypto-asset in Tanzania currently carries a formal classification of any kind. Resolution would come from either a CMSA determination applying the security definition to a specific token, or a statutory amendment creating a dedicated crypto-asset taxonomy; neither has occurred, and this module's evidence base remains thin enough that any characterisation should be treated as provisional pending CMSA's enforcement record being reviewed.

Outlook

This module carries the same structural characteristics as token classification: real but latent regulatory authority exists at the securities regulator, while the central bank and securities authority alike are silent on the on-chain-native activities of mining and staking specifically. No enforcement action, guidance, or rulemaking has been identified in either direction, so this module's traffic-light assessment reflects an evidence gap rather than an active red-light prohibition targeting on-chain activity as such. Future cycles should watch for any CMSA guidance applying general securities authority to a specific tokenisation transaction, which would be the first concrete test of how that latent authority operates in practice.

Outlook

Until the reported sandbox pilot is confirmed against a primary source, this module should be read at its current baseline: CBDC research only, with no stablecoin-specific issuance or reserve framework of any kind in force. Confirmation of the nTZS pilot would be a material upgrade to this module's status, moving Tanzania from pre-issuance research toward an active, if still discretionary, sandbox-supervised stablecoin pilot; that confirmation is the single most important trigger to watch for in this module going forward.

Outlook

The pattern here is consistent with the rest of Tanzania's crypto regime: general consumer-protection machinery exists and is actively maintained -- BOT continues to issue risk warnings and to update its complaint-handling and consumer-protection regulations -- but none of it is tailored to crypto-specific risks such as exchange custody failures, stablecoin de-pegging, or DeFi protocol exposure. Any crypto user harmed by a domestic transaction would need to rely on general financial-consumer-protection channels rather than a crypto-specific redress mechanism, and this gap is unlikely to close absent a broader move toward a dedicated crypto framework.

Outlook

This module's current baseline conclusion -- no confirmed primary-source Tanzania Revenue Authority instrument specific to virtual currencies -- would need to be revisited if the reported Finance Act 2024 withholding-tax provision is confirmed. Until then, the operative picture is one of a tax authority with acknowledged limited capacity to reach crypto transactions, and a capital-gains exemption that does not extend to crypto-assets by its own terms. This module's evidence base is thin and should be treated as provisional pending both TRA guidance and confirmation of the Finance Act 2024 report.

Separately, and with more direct confirmation, FATF removed Tanzania from its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring at the June 2025 plenary after Tanzania completed its action plan. This corrects a previously reported October 2024 snapshot that had shown Tanzania remaining under increased monitoring, and it is a general AML/CFT-effectiveness signal rather than a crypto-specific control -- but because BOT treats crypto flows as falling within the general foreign-exchange perimeter, the improved FATF standing is relevant context for how Tanzania-linked crypto cross-border activity is assessed by counterparties and correspondent banks.

Outlook

Cross-border crypto flows in Tanzania remain governed by general foreign-exchange control instruments rather than a dedicated crypto reporting or threshold regime. The improved FATF standing is a genuine positive shift in the broader financial-integrity backdrop, but it does not itself create any new crypto-specific cross-border rule. The key open item remains whether GN No. 198 applies to crypto-asset settlement explicitly or only by inference -- a full-text review of that regulation would resolve a meaningful ambiguity in how domestic crypto-asset transactions are currently treated under Tanzania's foreign-currency-use restrictions.