Central African Republic Cryptocurrency Regulation: Bitcoin’s Legal-Tender Chapter Has Closed
Trace CAR’s reversal of crypto legal-tender status, regional banking restrictions and the approval evidence a crypto business still needs.
On this page
The Central African Republic’s cryptocurrency regulation has moved beyond the 2022 Bitcoin announcement. A guide that still calls Bitcoin legal tender misses an important change.
Removing legal-tender status also does not answer every question about a crypto business. Token issuance, exchange services, custody and bank access require separate analysis.
Our Africa cryptocurrency regulation directory compares those questions across the continent.
What happened to legal-tender status?
The IMF’s 2023 first programme review records that Law No. 23.005 of 6 April 2023 revised the cryptoasset law. It removed legal-tender status and guaranteed convertibility.
The earlier instrument was Law No. 22.004 of 22 April 2022. Describing the original announcement without the revision would give readers the wrong monetary picture.
BEAC’s 28 September 2023 board communiqué independently acknowledges the revised law and calls for vigilance over its implementation.
The change should not be rewritten as a claim that every form of crypto activity became prohibited. Legal tender and business authorisation are different questions.
What happened after the Bitcoin reversal?
The IMF’s 2025 third and fourth reviews, paragraph 23, discuss continuing risks around Sango, the tokenisation law and the February 2025 launch of the CAR meme coin.
At that review, the Sango fiscal-risk assessment was delayed and BEAC’s legal opinion on the tokenisation law remained pending.
These findings describe a dated review. They do not establish that a government-associated token provides a licence for an unrelated exchange.
Why do regional banking rules matter?
The IMF’s 2025 paper on digital payments, Annex 11, recalls the regional banking commission’s 6 May 2022 decision banning banks from using cryptoassets.
That institutional scope matters. It should not be enlarged into a general criminal prohibition on every resident without a supporting instrument.
A proposed bank partnership therefore needs its own legal review. A national token initiative does not settle the bank’s position.
Where does COSUMAF fit?
COSUMAF’s General Regulation of 23 May 2023 contains a specific section for digital-asset service providers, known as PSAN.
Article 336 requires adequate resources, sufficient own funds relative to services and risks, security, internal controls and an AML framework. Articles 338–339 address the application file and AML arrangements.
Article 341 requires a written application. Article 343 provides for examination within 60 working days after receipt of a complete file. That period does not guarantee approval.
These are regional provider rules. They do not prove that a particular company is authorised or that its banking arrangements are permitted.
The October 2026 amendment to the market regulation changes Articles 88–91 concerning private placements. It should not be presented as blanket permission for crypto services.
Use COSUMAF’s approval-verification service to investigate a company’s claim. Match the legal entity, decision, activities and conditions; seek clarification from the regulator if the record is unclear.
What evidence should a business collect?
Start with the service, rather than a country’s reputation as a crypto destination.
| Proposed activity | Question to resolve |
|---|---|
| Selling a token | What issuance, disclosure and approval rules apply? |
| Running an exchange | Which entity has permission for these services? |
| Holding customer assets | Who controls the assets and owes their return? |
| Receiving bank payments | May the bank support this particular activity? |
| Claiming state support | Which published instrument creates the claimed right? |
A company certificate, website or promotional announcement cannot answer the whole table.
Are capital and customer protections settled?
Article 336 requires sufficient own funds in relation to services and risks. A universal numeric VASP minimum was not independently verified. Do not substitute a bank threshold or token-sale target.
Customers should check the contracting company, withdrawal terms, complaints route and the exact basis of any licensing claim.
For comparison, read Cameroon’s crypto regulation and COBAC restrictions, Gabon’s cryptocurrency approval framework and Republic of the Congo crypto regulation.
Sources and review limits
Reviewed 6 November 2026. The legal-tender reversal is supported by the authorities’ statement in the IMF review and BEAC’s communiqué. This review did not independently retrieve the national amending statute for an article-by-article analysis.
The Sango and tokenisation findings above retain their 2025 review date. They are not a claim that every outstanding issue remains unresolved today. The latest implementation position, later instruments and any provider-specific approval must be checked for a proposed business.
This article does not certify an operator or present a government token project as general permission to provide crypto services.
