“`html
Singapore cryptocurrency regulations and the June 30 deadline
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has issued a definitive directive that all entities based in Singapore providing digital token services to international clients must secure a DTSP licence or immediately cease cross-border activities.
By June 30, 2025, any organization registered in Singapore — whether a corporation, partnership, or individual — that offers digital token services to overseas clients is required to either:
- Acquire a Digital Token Service Provider (DTSP) licence pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Act 2022, or
- Immediately terminate operations involving international markets.
This mandate leaves no space for ambiguity. MAS has clearly indicated that there will be no grace period, no transitional provisions, and no extensions.
Any entity impacted by these new regulations must adhere or discontinue cross-border digital asset operations.
Notably, these limitations are applicable irrespective of the scale of international business activity. Even companies for which foreign clients constitute just a minor portion of revenue are included. MAS is closing a significant regulatory loophole that allowed Singaporean crypto firms to cater to global users while evading stricter regulations in other jurisdictions.
Did you know? MAS mandates a minimum base capital of SGD 250,000 for DTSP applications (even for partnerships or individuals), which must be maintained as a cash deposit or capital contribution.
Who qualifies as a digital token service provider under Singapore’s updated legislation?
Singapore’s revised regulations widely characterize DTSPs to include any entities offering token-related services internationally, regardless of size, structure, or direct user engagement.
Section 137 of the FSM Act defines a Digital Token Service Provider (DTSP) as any individual or business involved in:
- The transfer of digital payment tokens.
- The exchange between digital tokens and fiat or other tokens.
- The custody of tokens on behalf of others.
- The promotion of any token-related service.
MAS has purposefully broadened the definition. It includes centralized crypto exchanges, DeFi platforms, wallet providers, token issuers, and even non-crypto businesses if they deliver token-related services to clients outside Singapore.
This implies that a Singaporean startup conducting a marketing initiative for a foreign crypto project may still be categorized as a DTSP, even if they do not directly handle user funds.
The regulatory perspective centers on the place of incorporation, not the location of servers or the residence of the end-user.
MAS has highlighted that the business model or revenue size does not exempt entities from compliance. Even small operators, part-time ventures, or side projects linked to crypto are subject to the mandate.
The agency has unequivocally warned that it will initiate enforcement actions against any DTSP that has not registered or exited international operations by the June deadline.
Did you know? Pure utility or governance token service providers are excluded from DTSP licensing, unlike exchanges or custodial businesses engaged with payment tokens.
MAS crypto deadline 2025
In spite of industry lobbying efforts, the MAS has declined all appeals for phased implementation.
Crypto service providers and industry organizations had urged the regulator to provide a transition window, a temporary exemption procedure, or at least a fast-track licence application.
Many asserted that the sudden timeline — less than a month in numerous instances — offered inadequate time to reorganize or discontinue services.
MAS disregarded these apprehensions, stating that permitting token services to persist during a transition would subject the market to unacceptable risks, especially in terms of financial crime.
Consequently, the regulatory adjustment represents a compliance cliff. Firms must either:
- Withdraw from the international crypto market entirely, or
- Complete the licensing process prior to June 30.
No exceptions will be made.
Singapore $200K crypto penalty and imprisonment risks
Failing to meet the June 30 deadline constitutes a criminal offense under Singapore law.
Companies that continue to function as DTSPs for international clients without a valid licence will infringe upon Section 137 of the FSM Act and face:
- Fines of up to SGD 250,000 (approximately USD 200,000), and
- Imprisonment for up to three years.
MAS has emphasized that these penalties will be enforced regardless of the scale of the business or the extent of the violation.
This escalates the decision from a mere compliance issue to a legal survival matter. Either you’re fully licensed, or you’re in violation. Also, as MAS is anticipated to grant licences only sparingly due to ongoing AML/CFT issues, many firms may find themselves ineligibile.
Singapore enacts a de facto prohibition on new crypto licences amid AML concerns
While MAS has not officially halted licensing, it has made it evident that authorizations for Digital Token Service Providers (DTSPs) will be exceedingly rare.
In a June 6, 2025 announcement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore stated that licences would only be granted in “extremely limited scenarios,” due to ongoing Anti–Money Laundering (AML) and Counter–Terrorism Financing (CFT) concerns.
MAS has clarified its stance: The standards for licensing are now deliberately elevated. A spokesperson confirmed that MAS “will typically not grant a licence” considering the inherent challenges of regulating offshore token services and the associated crypto legal risks in 2025.
This effectively enforces a de facto licensing ban. Unless a crypto company in Singapore possesses both superior compliance infrastructure
“““html
and a robust operational rationale, it is improbable to obtain regulatory sanction. The crypto licensing hurdles currently confronting firms in the city-state are among the most rigorous globally.
MAS crypto compliance regulations: What’s the reason for the crackdown?
Singapore’s regulatory enforcement arises from a fundamental worry: regulatory arbitrage.
MAS has long been apprehensive that crypto enterprises would register in Singapore, obtaining reputational credibility from its financial landscape, while catering to international clients under minimal or no regulatory supervision.
This gap enabled firms to present themselves as MAS-compliant without being liable to crypto service provider standards in the jurisdictions where they function.
To address this, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 granted MAS direct control over cross-border digital token transactions, via Section 137. This legal provision empowers the authority to enforce complete compliance mandates, irrespective of users’, servers’, or funds’ locations.
MAS strives to safeguard Singapore’s reputation as a reliable financial center.
Did you know? MAS announced its licensing requirement merely four weeks prior to its implementation.
Broader consequences of Singapore crypto regulations
The immediate effects of MAS’s policy transition are already apparent.
One of the most notable instances is WazirX, a crypto exchange previously registered in Singapore but mainly catering to clients in India. After a Singapore court prohibited its restructuring, the company shifted operations to Panama. Its parent company underwent restructuring under Zensui, a new organization based outside Singapore.
An increasing number of crypto firms are reorganizing or migrating to offshore regions such as Panama, Hong Kong, and Dubai, all viewed as more lenient environments for digital asset ventures.
Industry leaders like Bybit and Bitget have begun withdrawing teams from Singapore, citing licensing ambiguity and MAS crypto compliance regulations as significant barriers.
This phenomenon is termed a “crypto exodus,” as enterprises seek regions with more adaptable frameworks.
In the meantime, neighboring nations like Thailand are testing more reachable crypto regulations, permitting retail applications like credit card-based crypto spending for tourists, while the Philippines is enhancing crypto licensing and AML oversight.
Source link
“`
