Niger Cryptocurrency Regulation: Prior Approval Is Written into the National Ordinance
Read Niger’s Article 58 VASP approval requirement, its national AML ordinance and the evidence needed to verify a provider’s operating permission.
On this page
Niger’s national AML ordinance expressly requires prior approval for professional virtual-asset services. A regional rule or a website label is not enough to verify a particular provider.
CENTIF-Niger’s public site identifies virtual-asset service providers with the French abbreviation PSAV. Its legislative register also lists a newer AML ordinance.
Those are useful starting points. They need to be connected to the actual legal provisions and current implementation.
Our Africa cryptocurrency regulation directory compares the evidence supporting country-level conclusions.
Which national instrument is listed?
CENTIF’s legislative register lists Ordinance No. 2024-56 of 19 December 2024 concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing.
The register links the national text. Its existence should not be replaced by an assumption that Niger’s law is identical to another country’s implementation of a regional model.
Article 58, on page 41 of the published scan, prohibits professional VASP activity without prior approval or authorisation from the competent authority. Article 59 requires compliance with the relevant provisions, including preventive measures, and leaves specific requirements and sanctions to competent authorities.
Those provisions were checked in the national text. Current implementing arrangements and company-specific permissions still need separate verification.
Does CENTIF identify crypto providers as reporting entities?
CENTIF’s reporting-entity explanation expressly includes providers of services linked to cryptocurrencies. It describes suspicious-operation reporting, internal procedures and staff training among the obligations of reporting entities.
That explanation is useful supporting evidence. It does not replace the national ordinance, an implementing instrument or an approval decision naming a company.
The separate PSAV page appears under the same navigation. The reviewed page did not provide a complete application procedure or company-specific permission. Limited website information is not a legal exemption.
What does the newer GIABA source establish?
GIABA’s fourth enhanced follow-up report for Niger is labelled 2026. The full report says it was adopted in November 2025 and reflects progress through 15 May 2025.
Its technical-compliance table retains a Non-Compliant rating for Recommendation 15. The listed gaps concern virtual-asset risk assessment, VASP supervisory powers and specific sanctions. Recommendation 15 was not among the five Recommendations re-rated in this exercise.
Those are dated assessment findings. They should not be described as a fresh review of every rule in force in November 2026. They also do not erase the prior-approval requirement in the national ordinance.
A country-level technical-compliance report does not license an individual exchange. Current implementation and company-specific permission need separate evidence.
What should a proposed service document?
Describe the transaction before asking which licence is needed. Identify who receives money, who sells crypto, who holds assets and who owes a refund.
A single brand can involve several legal entities. Permission held by one should not be attributed to the others without evidence.
| Claim | Evidence still needed |
|---|---|
| Locally authorised | Decision naming the company and activities |
| Application accepted | Current procedure and regulator correspondence |
| Payment access available | Named payment provider and transaction terms |
| Customer assets protected | Custody, reconciliation and withdrawal arrangements |
| Capital requirement satisfied | Applicable instrument and category |
This table is an editorial research aid. It is not CENTIF’s application checklist.
What about AML controls and capital?
A provider’s review should connect each legal obligation to an operating procedure. Customer identification, ownership checks, monitoring and reporting arrangements need a documented legal basis.
Do not quote a universal VASP capital figure without the instrument establishing it. This review did not independently verify such an amount.
The same caution applies to banking or payment licences. They may relate to one part of a service without resolving the crypto activity.
What should customers ask?
Request the legal name in the customer agreement and the permission reference relied upon. Verify the reference with the issuing authority.
Read the withdrawal conditions and complaint process. Keep payment receipts and the terms accepted when opening the account.
For context, read Benin’s prior-approval rule for crypto services, Togo’s cryptocurrency approval framework and Guinea’s virtual-asset licensing requirement.
Research scope and limits
Research reviewed 6 November 2026. Sources include CENTIF’s national ordinance listing and reporting-entity materials, the ordinance’s Articles 58–59 and the full GIABA follow-up. A complete current public VASP application pack, definitive VASP authority-designation instrument, named provider approval and universal VASP capital amount were not independently established. These are evidence gaps, not proof that the documents or providers do not exist. The GIABA findings retain their stated review period. Obtain current authority confirmation for a proposed business model.
