Singapore

Cryptoassets (including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and non-fungible tokens (NFTs)) are not specifically defined in Singapore legislation. However, they might have characteristics that fit the definition of terms used in various local legislation and would be treated accordingly.

For example, some cryptoassets fall under the definition of a “digital payment token” which is a term used in the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA), a statute that provides for the licensing and regulation of payment service providers, the oversight of payment systems, and other connected matters. The term “digital payment token” is defined as any digital representation of value that:

• is expressed as a unit;
• is not denominated in any currency, and is not pegged by its issuer to any currency;
• is, or is intended to be, a medium of exchange accepted by the public, or a section of the public, as payment for goods or services or for the discharge of a debt;
• can be transferred, stored or traded electronically; and
• satisfies such other characteristics as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore’s Central Bank and financial regulator, may prescribe.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH), and stablecoins like USD Coin (USDC) and Tether (USDT) have been identified as falling within the definition of a “digital payment token”.

Some cryptoassets may also fit the definition of a “capital market product” (CMP) under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) (SFA), a statute that provides for the regulation of activities and institutions in the securities and derivatives industry in Singapore. The term “capital market product” is defined as “any securities, units in a collective investment scheme, derivatives contracts, spot foreign exchange contracts for the purposes of leveraged foreign exchange trading, and such other products as the Authority [i.e. MAS] may prescribe as capital markets products”. According to MAS, cryptoassets may constitute the following categories of CMPs:

• a share, if the cryptoasset confers or represents ownership interest in a corporation, represents liability of the cryptoasset holder in the corporation, and represents mutual covenants with other token holders in the corporation inter se;
• a debenture, if the cryptoasset constitutes or evidences the indebtedness of the issuer of the cryptoasset in respect of any money that is or may be lent to the issuer by the holder of the cryptoasset;
• a unit in a business trust, where the cryptoasset confers or represents ownership interest in the trust property of a business trust;
• a securities-based derivatives contract, which includes any derivatives contract of which the underlying asset is a share, debenture or unit in a business trust; or
• a unit in a collective investment scheme (CIS), where the cryptoasset represents a right or interest in a CIS, or an option to acquire a right or interest in a CIS.

Order 22 of the Singapore Rules of Court 2021 (Cap 322) (ROC 2021) also defines “cryptocurrency or other digital currency” as “movable property”, which can be the subject of an enforcement order to enforce orders or judgments made by the Singapore Court.

The major laws/regulations in Singapore that are most relevant to cryptoassets are the PSA and the SFA, as well as the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSMA).

The PSA is relevant to cryptoassets because it provides, among other things, the licensing and regulation of digital payment token (DPT) service providers (DPT Service Providers) who carry on business in Singapore.

The SFA is relevant to cryptoassets because some cryptoassets might have characteristics that fulfil the definition of a CMP and would therefore be subjected to regulation under the SFA. MAS has, in its publication titled A Guide to Digital Token Offerings dated 26 May 2020, listed several examples of how some cryptoassets might have characteristics of various CMPs that would require their issuers to comply with the requirements under the SFA (e.g. preparing and registering an accompanying prospectus).

The FSMA, specifically Part 9 of the FSMA which recently came into force on 30 June 2025, is relevant to cryptoassets because it, in particular, establishes a licensing regime for DPT Service Providers with a place of business in Singapore who provide services solely to overseas customers. Previously such entities were not regulated under the PSA, which only applied to DPT Service Providers who carry on a business of providing payment services in Singapore. As a result, DPT Service Providers who only offer their services overseas could base themselves in Singapore without being subject to local regulatory oversight. The FSMA closes this gap by ensuring that these DPT Service Providers are properly licensed and regulated, thereby preventing them from claiming to be headquartered or based in Singapore to take advantage of Singapore’s strong financial reputation.

The applicable regulation is dependent on the characteristics of the cryptoasset, and the services provided in relation to them. If a cryptoasset’s characteristics make it a “digital payment token” under the PSA and FSMA, DPT Service Providers will need to be licensed and regulated accordingly. If a cryptoasset has characteristics that fulfil the definition of a CMP under the SFA, then the regulations imposed by the SFA will apply.

Broadly speaking, and bearing in mind that one must look beyond the labels and examine each cryptoasset on its own case to determine what laws and regulations apply:

• Payment tokens, which refer to cryptoassets that are designed to be used as a method of payment for goods or services (e.g. BTC and ETH), would generally fall under the definition of “digital payment tokens” under the PSA and FSMA.
• Stablecoins, which are cryptoassets that aim to maintain a stable value relative to a specified asset (typically a unit of fiat currency or commodity), or a pool or basket of assets, would also generally constitute “digital payment tokens” and be regulated under the PSA and FSMA.
• Security tokens, which could, for example, be structured to represent shares in a company or a debenture, would generally constitute CMPs and be regulated under the SFA.
• Utility tokens that give token holders the right to access the issuer’s platform, pay for specific services offered on the platform and/or vote on features of the platform, that do not have other rights or functions attached to them, and that are not or are not intended to be a medium of exchange accepted by the public or a section of the public as payment for goods or services or for the discharge of a debt, might not be regulated under the SFA, PSA, or FSMA.
• NFTs, which are unique digital tokens that have often been used to tokenise digital art, are also generally not regulated under the SFA, PSA, or FSMA.

There are licensing regimes in Singapore that apply to cryptoasset issuers/providers/exchanges (Cryptoasset Service Providers) which are dependent on the nature of their businesses as well as the characteristics of the cryptoassets that they deal with.

Licensing regime under the PSA

For Cryptoasset Service Providers offering digital payment token services in Singapore, the PSA would apply. Under the PSA, Cryptoasset Service Providers have to be licensed under either:

• the Standard Payment Institution licence (SPI Licence); or
• the Major Payment Institution Licence (MPI Licence).

Cryptoasset Service Providers should apply for the SPI Licence if they only provide payment services below the specified thresholds in section 6(5) of the PSA 2019.

The requirements that need to be fulfilled for a SPI Licence or a MPI Licence can be found in the PSA, the Payment Services Regulations 2019, as well as the relevant notices and guidelines issued by MAS. MAS Guidelines on Licensing for Payment Service Providers [PS-G01] (the Guidelines on Licensing) dated 18 December 2019 provides a useful overview of the licensing criteria. In summary, applicants will need to meet various governance and ownership, fit and proper, competency, place of business, minimum base capital, security, compliance, technology risk management, and audit requirements. Applicants should also submit all the necessary documents, including a legal opinion and an independent external auditor’s assessment report of the new applicant’s proposed AML/CFT and Consumer Protection processes, policies, and procedures if they intend to provide DPT services under the PSA.

MAS also has the discretion to consider the applicant’s track record, financial condition, operational readiness, and whether the public interests will be served. Licensees will also need to comply, on an ongoing basis, with anti-money laundering (AML), combating the financing of terrorism (CFT), submission of regulatory returns, cyber hygiene, business conduct, disclosure and communications, and annual audit requirements as detailed in the Guidelines on Licensing.

Licensing under the SFA

Cryptoasset Service Providers might need to be licensed under the SFA depending on the type of services they provide. For example, Cryptoasset Service Providers who operate a platform in relation to digital tokens which constitute CMPs may be considered to be carrying on business in one or more of the regulated activities under the SFA, and may need to apply for a Capital Market Services (CMS) licence, and/or a Recognised Market Operator (RMO) licence or an Approved Exchange (AE) licence if they facilitate the secondary trading of such tokens.

Licensing under Part 9 of the FSMA

Cryptoasset Service Providers with a place of business in Singapore who only provide digital payment token services outside of the country will need to apply for a Digital Token Service Provider (DTSP) licence under the FSMA. The requirements that need to be fulfilled can be found in the FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets (Digital Token Service Providers) Regulations 2025, as well as the relevant notices and guidelines issued by MAS. MAS’s Guidelines on Licensing for Digital Token Service Providers provides a useful overview of the licensing criteria. It is important to note that MAS has publicly stated that it has set a high threshold for licensing and that DTSP licences under Part 9 will generally not be granted. MAS has highlighted that such business models pose heightened money laundering risks, and that it is challenging to effectively supervise entities whose operations are conducted entirely outside Singapore.

According to MAS’s Guidelines on Provision of Digital Payment Token Services to the Public [PS-G02] dated 17 January 2022, entities licensed or exempted under the PSA should not promote their digital payment token services to the general public in Singapore. They are only allowed to promote their services on their own corporate website, mobile applications, or official social media accounts but they must not trivialise the risk of trading in digital payment tokens when doing so.

Individuals or corporations that are not licensed under the PSA are not allowed to advertise or promote their digital payment token services in Singapore, and doing so might constitute an offence under section 9 of the PSA.

Entities regulated under the SFA must ensure they also comply with advertising restrictions set out in the statute and its accompanying regulations. For instance, CMS licence holders are subject to Regulation 46 of the Securities and Futures (Licensing and Conduct of Business) Regulations, which prescribes various requirements for product advertisements. These include presenting a fair and balanced view of the capital markets products, ensuring advertisements are clearly legible, and including the mandatory disclaimer: “This advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore”.

Issuers seeking to rely on prospectus exemptions under the SFA must also ensure that they and their representatives comply with the relevant advertising restrictions. A notable case in 2019 involved an initial coin offering (ICO) issuer that sought to rely on an exemption under section 275 of the SFA, which permits offers to be made to accredited investors without the need for a prospectus as long as the offer is not accompanied by any advertisement. However, the issuer’s legal advisers published a LinkedIn post that constituted an advertisement, which resulted in MAS informing the issuer not to proceed with its securities token offering in Singapore, as it could no longer rely on the section 275 SFA exemption.

In Singapore, cryptoasset custodians are regulated under the PSA. Amendments to the PSA that came into force in 2024 expanded the scope of regulation to include the provision of custodial services for DPTs. Under the revised framework, cryptoasset custodians must be licensed if their activities fall within the broadened definition of a “digital payment token service”, as set out in the First Schedule of the PSA which now includes the following regulated activities:

• “any service of safeguarding a digital payment token, where the service provider has control over the digital payment token”;
• “any service of carrying out for a customer an instruction relating to a digital payment token, where the service provider has control over the digital payment token”;
• “any service of safeguarding a digital payment token instrument, where the service provider has control over one or more digital payment tokens associated with the digital payment token instrument”; and
• “any service of carrying out for a customer an instruction relating to one or more digital payment tokens associated with a digital payment token instrument, where the service provider has control over the digital payment token instrument”.

Cryptoasset custodians and other DPT Service Providers regulated under the PSA are also subject to stringent safeguarding requirements in relation to their customers’ assets. Some of the key requirements under the Payment Services Regulations 2019 (PSR) and the Guidelines on the Provision of Consumer Protection Safeguards by Digital Payment Token Service Providers dated 19 September 2024 (DPT Safeguarding Guidelines) include the need to, among others:

• deposit customers’ assets into a trust account by the next business day upon receipt of those assets (Regulation 18B(1), PSR);
• segregate customers’ assets from their own (Regulation 18B(2) and 18C, PSR);
• ensure the security of the trust account and, if applicable, conduct adequate due diligence on the provider of the trust account (Regulation 18D, PSR);
• keep separate book entries for each customer (Regulation 18F, PSR);
• perform daily reconciliations (Regulation 18H, PSR);
• ensure that the safeguarding of assets belonging to customers is not performed by, or performed under the influence or direction of, persons who execute trades, make investment decisions or make trading decisions (Regulation 18G(e), PSR); and
• keep at least 90% of customers’ assets in systems that are not connected to the internet or any other form of wireless communication, i.e. in cold wallets (paragraph 3.4.4 of the DPT Safeguarding Guidelines).

Digital payment token service providers licensed under the PSA must all comply with the AML requirements set out by MAS in its revised Notice PSN02 Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism – Digital Payment Token Service (Notice PSN02) dated 30 June 2025.

If an entity is regulated under the SFA, the revised Notice SFA04-N02 Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism – Capital Markets Intermediaries (Notice SFA04-N02) dated 30 June 2025 would apply.

Licence holders under Part 9 of the FSMA have to comply with the revised MAS Notice FSM-N27 Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism dated 1 July 2025.

These notices require the implementation of a range of measures, including risk assessment and mitigation for money laundering and terrorism financing, customer due diligence, record keeping measures, suspicious transactions reporting, the appointment of an AML/CFT compliance officer at the management level, and the provision of personal information of the customer in all transactions.

Even if an entity is not regulated under the PSA, the SFA, or the FSMA, it is still required to comply with Singapore’s general AML and CFT laws under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (2020 Rev Ed) (CDSA) and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002 (2020 Rev Ed) (TSFA).

The ownership of cryptoassets is not defined or regulated by any legislation in Singapore. Cryptoassets have generally been recognised and treated as property by the Singapore courts, which have granted proprietary injunctions, freezing injunctions, as well as declarations of constructive trusts in respect of such assets.

There is no legislation or reported cases that specifically explain how DAOs will be treated under Singapore law.

A DAO will unlikely be treated as a company with a separate legal personality under Singapore law as it is not incorporated under the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (Companies Act) or any corresponding previous written law.

Even though DAOs seem to fulfil the legal definition of a “partnership” under the Partnership Act 1890 (2020 Rev Ed) (Partnership Act) of being “the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit”, there are difficulties with characterising a DAO as a general partnership under Singapore law. For example, under Singapore law, general partnerships can only consist of 20 persons but membership in a DAO can exceed that number once, for example, more than 20 associated DAO tokens have been issued. Furthermore, DAO tokens can generally be easily traded on the blockchain or via digital token exchanges, which runs contrary to the principle of how a partnership interest is not meant to be readily tradable in a secondary marketplace.

A DAO might be treated as an unregistered unincorporated association under Singapore law that is based on contract(s) between its members. However, such unincorporated associations under Singapore law are not legal entities capable of suing or being sued in their own name and have no legal existence separate from their members unless and until such legal personality is conferred by statute (Chee Hock Keng v. Chu Sheng Temple [2016] SGCA 34 at [28]). Therefore, a member of a DAO or a third party might not be able to bring an action against the DAO itself and might have to instead claim against all members of the DAO or, more realistically, members of the DAO who have control over the smart contracts that determine the DAO’s actions.

There are no special laws or rules which specifically apply in the event of a bankruptcy or insolvency that involves cryptoassets. The Singapore courts have generally applied the established principles in insolvency and bankruptcy law to cases involving cryptoassets.

Under Singapore law, a smart contract is likely to be enforceable if it satisfies the legal requirements for the formation of a contract, namely:

• offer and acceptance;
• intention to create legal relations; and
• the existence of consideration.

The enforceability of a smart contract is ultimately a fact-specific inquiry which will likely turn on the objective intentions of the parties. For example, a smart contract will more likely be treated as a legally binding contract if parties expressly or impliedly agree for their rights and obligations to be defined by the smart contract and to abide by the behaviour of the code, as opposed to a situation where parties agree for the smart contract to merely implement their agreement but not to define it. The facts and circumstances surrounding the parties’ interactions and transactions relating to the smart contract will likely be determinative.

Victims can file a claim against the fraudsters in the Singapore courts and apply for freezing injunctions against them and proprietary injunctions in respect of their cryptoassets. This was successfully done in Singapore in the case of CLM v. CLN and others [2022] SGHC 46 (CLM), where the plaintiff, who had BTC 109.83 and ETH 1,497.54 stolen from him, successfully obtained freezing injunctions against the unknown fraudsters as well as proprietary injunctions in respect of his stolen cryptoassets.

If victims manage to trace their cryptoassets to cryptocurrency exchanges, they can also apply for disclosure orders against the exchanges to:

• find out how much of their assets remained in the relevant user account(s) with the exchange;
• continue tracing the cryptoassets that had been withdrawn; and
• identify the owners of the relevant user account(s) who might be involved in the fraud.

Such disclosure orders were granted to the plaintiff in CLM who had traced his stolen assets to two cryptocurrency exchanges, which provided disclosures that enabled the plaintiff to identify and claim against two defendants for their believed involvement in the theft of his cryptoassets.

There are also procedures that victims can use to enforce judgments obtained against the fraudsters. For example, under Order 22 of the ROC 2021, “cryptocurrency or other digital currency” may be seized and sold pursuant to an enforcement order by “serving a notice of seizure on the person or entity having possession or control of the movable property”.

The tax implications of cryptoassets are shaped by the nature and purpose of the transaction. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has issued detailed guidance in its Income Tax Treatment of Digital Tokens and GST: Digital Payment Tokens (Second Edition) e-Tax Guides, which outline the applicable tax principles. This section provides a brief overview of the key tax implications, including capital gains tax, income tax, and goods and services tax (GST) as they relate to cryptoassets.

Capital gains tax

Singapore does not impose capital gains taxes on cryptoassets. Consequently, individual investors who buy and sell cryptoassets for personal investment purposes will not incur tax liabilities from these investments.

However, where the activities surrounding the acquisition and disposal of cryptoassets are conducted in a manner that resembles a business, IRAS may classify the gains as income and subject them to income tax.

Income tax

If an individual investor trades cryptoassets in a systematic and frequent manner, IRAS may classify the profits made as taxable business income. When determining whether the profits from one’s trading activity should be classified as such, IRAS looks at several indicators, also known as the “badges of trade”, which include:

• the nature of the subject matter;
• the length of ownership;
• the frequency and volume of transactions;
• the existence of any supplemental work like marketing efforts;
• the circumstances of the realisation;
• the motive;
• the mode of financing; and
• other relevant factors.

Cryptoassets earned by individuals and businesses in exchange for the provision of goods and/or services also count as taxable income. The contractual arrangement will generally determine the amount of taxable income. For example, if the contract provides for payment of SGD 100 worth of BTC, then the taxable income will be SGD 100. If the contract only provides for payment of BTC 1, then the taxable income will be the value of BTC 1 at the time that the income accrues to the business based on a reasonable and verifiable exchange rate (using an average of exchange rates available on major cryptocurrency exchanges, or the rates on CoinMarketCap which will likely meet this criterion).

Regarding tax residency, for both individuals and corporations, gains on payment tokens are taxable in Singapore only if they are sourced from Singapore. IRAS looks at the entire operation to determine where the income-producing activities take place. If the bulk of the business operations are performed in Singapore, then income derived from such activities would likely to be regarded as sourced in Singapore and hence taxable in Singapore. Relevant factors to this assessment would include whether the business has any physical presence in Singapore (e.g. offices, employees), and whether the key activities are performed in Singapore.

Goods and services tax

Singapore levies a 9% GST on the supply of goods and services. The use of digital payment tokens (as defined in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1993) to pay for goods or services does not exempt the transaction from GST, and the tax will be applied to the underlying goods or services. According to IRAS’ GST: Digital Payment Tokens (Second Edition) e-Tax Guide, the value of the underlying goods or services for GST purposes should be based on their “open market value”, which is the value that the supply of the goods or services would have fetched if “the supply were for consideration in money as would be payable by a person who has no relationship with any person which would affect that consideration”.

However, it should be noted that certain crypto-related transactions are exempt from GST. These include the exchange of digital payment tokens for fiat currency or other digital payment tokens, and the lending of digital payment tokens to earn interest. For instance, exchanging BTC for ETH or earning interest from lending BTC are GST-exempt activities.

Cryptoasset businesses in Singapore that handle personal data have to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). Additionally, cryptoasset businesses who are licensed by the MAS are also subject to additional regulations relating to data privacy and cybersecurity as elaborated upon below.

PDPA

Under the PDPA, crypto businesses must obtain consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. They are also required to inform individuals of the purposes for which their data is collected and to safeguard that data through reasonable security measures. In addition, businesses must ensure data accuracy, limit retention, and maintain accountability for all processing activities.

The PDPA further imposes a mandatory breach notification requirement: organisations must notify the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) and affected individuals as soon as practicable if a breach is likely to cause significant harm or involves 500 or more individuals. These obligations are detailed in the PDPC’s Guide on Managing and Notifying Data Breaches under the PDPA.

Cryptoasset businesses licensed under the PSA and SFA

Cryptoasset businesses with licences under the PSA or the SFA have additional technology-risk and cybersecurity obligations.

For cryptoasset businesses with DPT licenses under the PSA, these obligations are set out in the Notice FSM-N13 Technology Risk Management and the Notice FSM-14 Cyber Hygiene. For SFA licensees, the relevant obligations are detailed in the Notice FSM-N21 Technology Risk Management and Notice FSM-N22 Cyber Hygiene. These notices should be read together with MAS’s Guidelines on Risk Management Practices – Technology Risk.

These notices and guidelines require cryptoasset businesses to maintain resilient and continuously accessible critical systems, ensure rapid recovery in the event of disruption, and adopt comprehensive security controls. This includes, among other things, implementing measures to prevent unauthorised access, applying timely security updates, and establishing clear security standards and governance across all systems.

Cryptoasset businesses in Singapore looking to offer staking and/or yield farming to their customers would generally need to be licensed under the PSA.

Under the PSA framework, licensed cryptoasset businesses are prohibited from providing staking or yield farming services to its retail customers. Paragraph 3.7.1 of the Guidelines on Consumer Protection Measures by DPT Service Providers [PS-G03] (PS-G03) expressly states that DPT licensees under the PSA should not entice a retail customer, or carry out any transaction on behalf of a retail customer that allows the retail customer, to:

• mortgage, charge, pledge or hypothecate any assets belonging to the retail customer;
• lend, or arrange to lend, any assets belonging to the retail customer; or
• stake, or arrange to stake, any assets belonging to the retail customer.

For the purposes of PS-G03, “retail customers” are defined as any customer other than an “accredited customer”, an “institutional investor”, a “DPT service provider”, or an entity that provides an equivalent DPT service outside Singapore and is regulated by a financial authority.

Licensed cryptoasset businesses may, however, offer staking or yield farming services to non-retail customers, provided they furnish clear written disclosures of the risks involved and obtain the customer’s written acknowledgment of those risks, pursuant to paragraph 3.7.2. of the PS-G03.

It should be noted that retail customers in Singapore are not prohibited from engaging in staking, yield farming, or other DeFi activities on their own or through unregulated platforms or decentralised protocols using their own cryptoassets.

There are numerous ongoing legal and regulatory consultations as well as legal frameworks in the pipeline in Singapore that relate to cryptoassets. These include:

• Implementing a new stablecoin regulatory framework. In MAS’s Response to Public Consultation on Proposed Regulatory Approach on Stablecoins-related Activities dated 15 August 2023, MAS announced that a new stablecoin framework will be implemented which allows issuers of single-currency stablecoins (SCS) pegged to the Singapore dollar or any of the Group of Ten (G10) currencies to apply for their stablecoin to be labelled as a “MAS-regulated stablecoin”. The purpose of this label is to assist participants to distinguish MAS-regulated stablecoins, which are subjected to requirements under this new framework that give them a high degree of value stability, from other stablecoins or cryptoassets. This new framework will eventually be implemented, among other measures, through the introduction of “Stablecoin Issuance Service” as a newly regulated payment service under the PSA.
• Addressing market integrity risks and prohibiting unfair trading practices. In Consultation Paper on Proposed Measures on Market Integrity in Digital Payment Token Services dated 3 July 2023, MAS consulted the public on its proposed regulatory measures to address market integrity risks and its proposed prohibitions against unfair trading practices. These proposed measures include, among other things, requirements for DPT Service Providers to conduct surveillance to detect unfair trading practices and making it an offence to engage in unfair trading practices like false trading, market rigging, market manipulation, bucketing, and cornering, in the context of digital payment tokens. MAS should be releasing its response announcing the measures that will be implemented after it has completed its review of the public’s feedback.