Hello,
As we said before, this applies mainly to news agencies advertising ICOs but we have our legal representatives on it as well.
You are directly promoting BNK as security right here on the forum, let alone your other marketing activities, which clearly communicate what they are not supposed to (since you want to claim your coin is a utility token). If you don't understand that I find it really amusing and another reason, there is no future with bankera scheme.
People, don't be naive, this fallacy won't end well and for the ones who invested obviously.
This forum is not under the jurisdiction of the Lithanian National Bank.. This is a medium of communication and is not designed for professional advertising.
So how does this affect Bankera? It does not.. Google where Bankera is based.
Post from someone on reddit:
"On further research, they are based out of the British Virgin Islands and are not under the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian National Bank, so in that case I have to concur with you that this will likely have no impact on their plans."
"Position of ICOs in the British Virgin Islands
Below is a summary of the relevant considerations when launching an ICO through a BVI company. It is assumed that the ICO will be structured through a BVI business company, which is the vehicle of choice for ICOs in the British Virgin Islands.
Perhaps most importantly, no ICO or blockchain-specific rules or guidlines have yet been issued by the government or regulator. At this stage the British Virgin Islands is keen to 'wait and see' with regards to ICO regulation, which seems to be consistent with the position in the United Kingdom and across pan-EU law. As such, the question remains as to the impact of the pre-existing legislative and regulatory framework in the British Virgin Islands.
Primary legal and regulatory considerations
The following laws are the most relevant to structuring an ICO through the British Virgin Islands:
the Securities and Investment Business Act 2010;
the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Act 1997 and its subsidiary legislation the Anti-money Laundering Regulations 2008 and the Anti-money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code of Practice 2008 (together, the anti-money laundering regime);
the Financing and Money Services Act 2009;
the Beneficial Ownership Secure Search System Act 2017 (the beneficial ownership regime);
the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and the Common Reporting Standard (CRS); and
the Electronic Transactions Act 2001.
Below is a short description of the issues which each law seeks to address. The extent to which each law or a combination of the laws and regulations above will apply largely depends on the unique structure of the ICO.
Securities and Investment Business Act
The Securities and Investment Business Act prohibits persons from carrying on, or presenting themselves as carrying on, investment business of any kind in or from within the British Virgin Islands unless they hold a licence from the BVI Financial Services Commission, or else benefit from one of the safe harbours. 'Investment business', 'investment' and 'investment activity' are all defined by the act.
Most relevant to ICOs is the definition of 'investments' under the act. This includes:
shares;
interests in a partnership or fund interests;
debentures;
instruments giving entitlement to shares;
interests or debentures;
certificates representing investments;
options;
futures;
contracts for differences; and
long-term insurance contracts.
However, ICO tokens or any form of cryptocurrencies are not expressly classed as investments in their own right under the act. Understanding whether tokens issued under an ICO are investments will therefore typically involve the question of whether the token itself is equivalent to a security or a derivative contract caught by the act. This is a complex task and each case will require professional legal advice.
However, most ICOs would not usually fall within the scope of the act and therefore may conduct business legitimately without the need for the BVI company to hold an investment business licence.
The act requires that a prospectus be registered where an offer is made to the public. However:
Part 2 of the act, which deals with the public issue of securities, is not yet in force; and
the digital tokens or cryptocurrencies issued under an ICO may fall outside of the definition of securities under the act.
In relation to the latter, determining whether the types of crypto-currency can or will be considered securities within the context of the act is key. If they are, certain exemptions may apply so that no prospectus or offering document is required.
Anti-money laundering regime
The anti-money laundering regime needs careful consideration with respect to ICOs launched through BVI business companies. The regime primarily focuses on the regulated sector in the British Virgin Islands and requires certain policies and procedures to be established by 'relevant persons' conducting 'relevant business' – both of these terms are strictly defined. The requirements seek to provide general regulatory rules to minimise and eliminate any form of money laundering or terrorist financing through the British Virgin Islands.
ICOs are not within the definition of 'relevant business' in the regime and therefore the vehicle through which they are structured (ie, the BVI business company) is unlikely to be deemed a relevant person. However, any ICO team should consider anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations regardless, as a way of future-proofing the business.
Financing and Money Services Act
The Financing and Money Services Act regulates 'money services business' in the British Virgin Islands, which under the act entails:
money transmission services;
cheque exchange services;
currency exchange services;
the issuance, sale or redemption of money orders or traveller's cheques; or
other such services.
These services contemplate money which amounts to legal tender (ie, fiat currencies). Digital tokens and forms of cryptocurrencies would therefore fall outside the scope of the definition of a money services business.
Beneficial ownership regime
Briefly, considerations around share ownership, voting rights, the right to remove a majority of the board of directors and the exercise of significant influence and control over an ICO company will play a part in determining who must be recorded on the register. With this in mind, it is relatively straightforward to ensure that the identity of ICO token holders will not need to be maintained on any beneficial ownership register of an ICO company.
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and the CRS
Both of these regimes relate to the automatic exchange of tax information between participating and reportable jurisdictions. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and CRS legislation will be important in determining the ultimate beneficial ownership of the BVI business company issuing the ICO. While these pieces of legislation will not be immediately relevant at the launch of the ICO, they must be considered as the BVI business company acting as the issuer starts to conduct business more generally.
Electronic Transactions Act
The Electronic Transactions Act is pertinent since everything in relation to the launch and conduct of the ICO will be done electronically. As such, understanding the impact of the act's provisions on electronic signatures and record-keeping requirements is fundamental. In general terms, the Electronic Transactions Act lends support to the position that electronic records will not be denied legal validity simply because they are maintained in electronic format, as opposed to paper.
Comment
The BVI legislative regime is flexible and able to foster the region's growing number of ICOs. Nevertheless, it will be important for each new ICO to be advised properly in order to mitigate any possibility of falling into regulatory prohibitions or other legal risks."
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Private-Client-Offshore-Services/British-Virgin-Islands/Harney-Westwood-Riegels/Launching-an-ICO-in-British-Virgin-Islands
