Ireland Plans Industry Standards to Combat Illicit Use of Cryptocurrencies

cryptonews.ruPubblicato 2026-08-15Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-15

Introduzione

Ireland has published its first National Strategy against Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Proliferation Financing, detailing plans to counter the illicit use of digital assets. The strategy, released by the Department of Finance, implements reforms to strengthen Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CFT) measures for the crypto sector. New obligations are introduced for crypto asset service providers, including enhanced due diligence for transfers involving non-custodial wallets and stricter checks when dealing with foreign crypto firms. The government noted that legislation to align with the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation is at an advanced stage. The strategy also addresses standards for accepting cryptocurrency as a source of funds for gambling activities. This follows Ireland's first national risk assessment for crypto in seven years, with plans to implement these sectoral standards by the second half of 2027.

The Irish government has published a comprehensive anti-money laundering strategy detailing how the country will counter the potential use of digital assets for illicit purposes.

In a notice published on Thursday, the Irish government released its first National Strategy to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Proliferation Financing. The document outlined policy reforms in the cryptocurrency sector aimed at strengthening Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) measures.

"Most of these measures are already in effect, and the final provisions introduce new anti-money laundering obligations for providers of crypto-asset-related services. They require enhanced verification for transfers from non-custodial crypto wallets and stricter due diligence when dealing with foreign crypto companies," the Irish government stated.

The document, prepared by the country's Department of Finance, noted that the bill to implement AML/CFT rules in line with the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation was at an "advanced stage." The document also examined industry standards "regarding the acceptance of cryptocurrency-related activities" as a source of funds for gambling.

Ireland's anti-money laundering strategy is the latest example of government efforts to address challenges related to the potential use of digital assets for money laundering and terrorist financing. In June, Ireland published its first national risk assessment on cryptocurrencies in seven years, stating that it planned to implement industry standards in the second half of 2027.

Related: UK authorities continue investigation into Nigel Farage's cryptocurrency 'gifts' following by-election victory

end-content

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main focus of Ireland's newly published National Strategy regarding digital assets?

AThe main focus is on combating the potential illicit use of digital assets, specifically for money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons.

QWhat new obligations will the strategy introduce for crypto-asset service providers?

AIt introduces new anti-money laundering obligations, requiring enhanced due diligence for transfers from non-custodial crypto wallets and stricter checks when dealing with foreign crypto companies.

QAccording to the document, what is the status of the bill implementing AML/CFT rules in line with the EU's MiCA regulation?

AThe document notes that the bill is at an 'advanced stage' of development.

QBy when does Ireland plan to implement the industry standards mentioned in its risk assessment?

AIreland plans to implement the industry standards in the second half of 2027.

QWhat specific area, besides AML/CFT, does the strategy also address regarding cryptocurrency-related activity?

AIt also addresses industry standards regarding the acceptance of cryptocurrency-related activity as a source of funds for gambling.

Letture associate

Is RWA Still Meaningful Without DeFi?

The article "Would RWA Still Matter Without DeFi?" argues that tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) alone, like putting a barcode on a container, is not transformative. True value emerges when these tokenized assets are integrated into decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems, enabling valuation, financing, hedging, trading, and loss management in a programmable, automated manner. Tokenization provides digital representation, but DeFi provides utility through leverage, liquidity, and composability. The core challenge lies in aligning the different "time clocks" of blockchain (fast, 24/7), traditional markets (limited hours), and asset redemption (slow processes), which creates liquidation risks and gaps. Effective RWA integration requires more than a token; it needs a full stack: legally enforceable rights, reliable data oracles, clear transfer rules, executable secondary liquidity, appropriate collateral parameters, and credible loss resolution paths. Liquidity is defined not by total value locked (TVL) but by the ability to exit a position under stress within a required timeframe. Risk management for RWAs must be modeled as a dependency graph, monitoring interconnected nodes like issuers, custodians, oracles, and liquidity pools for early warning signs beyond just price data. While tokenized government bonds serve as an initial "ping test," the future lies in more complex assets like computing power and energy, which require bespoke risk models. Tokenized stocks paired with perpetual futures present a major test, combining global equity ownership with crypto-native leverage, necessitating robust architectural safeguards like isolation and dynamic collateral rules. The conclusion is that without DeFi, RWA tokenization offers limited value—improving distribution and transparency. The significant opportunity arises when tokenized assets become functional components within open, programmable capital markets, where they can be used as collateral and facilitate complex financial strategies. The token is merely the barcode; the market operating system is the real machine.

marsbit10 min fa

marsbit10 min fa

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Treasury unexpectedly announced it would at least double the size of its long-term Treasury buyback operations, starting September 9. The move triggered an immediate market reaction, with the 30-year yield falling 9 basis points. This intervention came against a backdrop of the 30-year yield hitting a 19-year high of 5.34% the previous day, driven by persistent inflation, high oil prices, deteriorating U.S. fiscal health with public debt surpassing $40 trillion, and a global "buyers' strike" for long-dated bonds. Treasury buybacks involve the government repurchasing older, less liquid bonds from the market via reverse auctions to improve market functioning, not to reduce overall debt. While the action provided tactical relief and signaled the Treasury's willingness to intervene, analysts caution it does not address core structural issues: massive fiscal deficits, high borrowing needs, and fading demand from traditional buyers like foreign central banks. For investors, the announcement offered short-term support for long-duration bond ETFs and boosted assets like gold, which rose 2.7%. However, it's unlikely to significantly lower mortgage rates or alter the challenging environment for long-term bonds. The key takeaway is the distinction between a tactical market operation and the unresolved structural pressures that continue to push yields higher, requiring close monitoring of upcoming economic data, Treasury auctions, and potential signals of more aggressive policy measures.

marsbit14 min fa

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

marsbit14 min fa

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

Following an unscheduled announcement from the U.S. Treasury Department on August 19th, investor discussions have intensified regarding the potential for future policy interventions in long-term bond markets. The Treasury increased the maximum size of its regular buyback operations for 10-to-30 year bonds from $2 billion to $4 billion, citing a desire to improve liquidity. This move came shortly after a surge in long-term yields, with the 30-year Treasury yield briefly touching 5.34%. Market analysts, rather than focusing on the modest operational size, have interpreted the timing—outside the normal quarterly communication window—as a significant signal. The move has been dubbed the "Bessent Put," implying the market's growing expectation that Treasury officials, led by Deputy Secretary Josh Bessent, may act to prevent a disorderly rise in long-term borrowing costs. This perception represents a potential shift in the market's view of the government's "policy reaction function." The underlying pressures on long-term bonds are multifaceted, including large fiscal deficits, increased Treasury supply, a rise in corporate debt issuance for AI infrastructure (creating a "crowding out" effect), and uncertainty around foreign holdings, particularly from Japan. Geopolitical risks in the Middle East further complicate the policy landscape, potentially creating conflicting pressures between fighting inflation and managing financing costs. However, the article clarifies that this Treasury buyback program is distinct from Quantitative Easing (QE). It is a debt management operation, not a Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion. While the announcement opens the door for market speculation about more forceful tools like Yield Curve Control (YCC) or a return to QE, analysts note that conditions would need to deteriorate significantly for such measures to be implemented. For now, the "Bessent Put" reflects a change in market expectations about possible policy boundaries, not an imminent launch of new monetary stimulus.

marsbit14 min fa

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

marsbit14 min fa

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

"Is Stablecoin Truly Necessary for Cross-Border Payments? While stablecoins are often praised as superior for cross-border transfers—especially if the recipient desires crypto—their advantage is less clear in traditional cross-currency scenarios (e.g., USD to Mexican Peso). The existing correspondent banking system is slow and costly (≈15% fees) due to multiple intermediaries. Modern fintech solutions like Wise have dramatically improved this by using a netting model: they hold local currency pools and settle payments domestically, avoiding actual cross-border fund movement. This offers near-instant transfers with low, transparent fees (averaging ~0.52%). The 'stablecoin sandwich' model (convert fiat to stablecoin, transfer on-chain, convert to local fiat) offers similar user experience but doesn't inherently provide major cost or speed advantages over fintech. Its on-chain transfer is cheap, but fiat conversion spreads remain. Stablecoin's real innovation is 'unbundling' the cross-border payment stack. Instead of requiring a proprietary global network like Wise, businesses only need reliable on- and off-ramps in specific corridors. This lowers market entry barriers, fosters competition among local providers, and can drive down costs, particularly for niche or underserved corridors (e.g., US to Africa). While vertical integration may reoccur, the open, permissionless nature of the underlying blockchain layer makes monopolistic pricing difficult. The long-term benefit is the potential redistribution of value—previously captured as intermediary rents—to consumers through lower costs."

marsbit18 min fa

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

marsbit18 min fa

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

Ethereum has surged above $2,300, a level not seen in over three months, marking a significant recovery and technical breakthrough by reclaiming key resistance levels, including the weekly EMA50 for the first time in the current bear market. The rally has been fueled by a combination of factors: improved market risk appetite, positive regulatory sentiment, and a major short squeeze where over 88% of recent ETH liquidations were short positions. The ETH/BTC ratio has also broken its long-term downtrend, indicating renewed strength for Ethereum relative to Bitcoin. Fundamentally, Ethereum spot ETFs have shown strong inflows, outperforming their Bitcoin counterparts in recent months. Wall Street institutions like Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have notably increased their ETH exposure, while several banks have added or expanded positions in ETH ETFs. On-chain fundamentals remain robust, with the proportion of staked ETH reaching a new all-time high of nearly 33.7%. Data indicates long-term holding sentiment, as small wallet holdings increased while large outflows were often directed towards staking or contracts, not selling. However, potential headwinds include declining staking yields and community debate over proposals to adjust staking rewards at high participation levels. The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade, featuring improvements to validator exit efficiency, could enhance liquidity and further attract institutional stakers. While the rebound is supported by sentiment, capital flows, and fundamentals, its sustainability hinges on continued positive developments.

marsbit18 min fa

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

marsbit18 min fa

Trading

Spot