AML/CFT Guidance Notes for Virtual Asset Service Providers and Issuers of Initial Token Offerings

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION
AML/CFT Guidance Notes for
Virtual Asset Service Providers & Issuers of Initial Token Offerings Issued under Section 7(1)(a) of the Financial Services Act Published on 28 February 2022 (Updated on 04 July 2022)

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4
PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................... 4
EFFECTIVE DATE............................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND OF VAITOS ACT................................................................................................. 5
DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 5
VIRTUAL ASSET .......................................................................................................................................................5
VIRTUAL ASSET SERVICE PROVIDER.........................................................................................................6
INITIAL TOKEN OFFERING .................................................................................................................................6
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 7
RED FLAG INDICATORS (ML/TF)................................................................................................ 7
ANONYMITY................................................................................................................................................................8
TRANSACTIONS.......................................................................................................................................................8
TRANSACTION PATTERNS………………….…………………………………………………………………………….......9
SENDERS OR RECIPIENTS..………………………………………………..……………………………………………......9
SOURCE OF FUND OR WEALTH ...................................................................................................................10
GEOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................................................................10
AML/CFT COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS ................................................................................11
STATUS OF VASPs/IITOs AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS .................................................................11
AML/CFT RISK BASED APPROACH..............................................................................................................11
CUSTOMER DUE DILIGENCE..........................................................................................................................12
ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE ..........................................................................................................................15
TRANSACTION MONITORING AND SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION REPORTING..................15
TARGETED FINANCIAL SANCTIONS………………………………………...……………………….………………...16

Acronyms
AML/CFT Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting the Financing of Terrorism CDD Customer Due Diligence EDD Enhanced Due Diligence FIAMLA Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act FIAMLR Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Regulations FATF Financial Action Task Force FSA Financial Services Act FSC Financial Services Commission ITO Initial Token Offering IITOs Issuers of Initial Token Offerings IP Internet Protocol KYC Know Your Customer ML/TF Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing NRA National Risk Assessment NSSec National Sanctions Secretariat PEPs Politically Exposed Persons PII Personally Identifiable Information RBA Risk-Based Approach STR Suspicious Transaction Reporting TFS Targeted Financial Sanctions UN United Nations UNSA United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act UNSC United Nations Security Council VAs Virtual Assets VAITOS Act Virtual Asset and Initial Token Offering Services Act VASPs Virtual Asset Service Providers

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Financial Services Commission, Mauritius (the “FSC”) is established under the
Financial Services Act (the “FSA”) and is mandated to regulate the non-bank financial services and global business sectors. The FSC is, by virtue of section 5 of the Virtual Assets and Initial Token Offering Services (“VAITOS”) Act, responsible for regulating and supervising Virtual Assets Service Providers (“VASPs”) and Issuers of Initial Token Offerings (“IITOs”).
1.2 The Guidance Notes are issued by the FSC pursuant to its powers under section
7(1)(a) of the FSA.
1.3 The Guidance Notes set out the measures which entities regulated under the VAITOS
Act should apply for the prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing (“ML/TF”) during the course of their business and operations.
1.4 The provisions of the Guidance Notes should be read in conjunction with the
VAITOS Act, the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (“FIAMLA”), the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (“FIAMLR”), the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act (“UNSA”) and the FSC’s Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting the Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) Handbook.
1.5 Terms used in these Guidance Notes shall, unless otherwise specified, have the same
meaning as under the relevant Acts.
2.0 PURPOSE
2.1 The Guidance Notes are established to:
2.1.1 provide an outlook on the significance of ML/TF risks associated with Virtual
Asset (“VA”) activities; and
2.1.2 guide VASPs and IITOs with an understanding of their specific AML/CFT
compliance obligations under the VAITOS Act.
3.0 EFFECTIVE DATE
3.1 The Guidance Notes shall be deemed to come into operation as from 28 February
2022.

3.2 The Guidance Notes may be subject to regular amendments or updates with a view
to reflect changes at the level of the domestic and international regulatory landscape, including the market dynamics of the VA sector, in or from Mauritius.
4.0 BACKGROUND OF VAITOS ACT
4.1 The VAITOS Act, which came into force on 7 February 2022, provides a
comprehensive legislative framework for VASPs and IITOs in line with the international standards of Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) with respect to managing, mitigating and preventing any ML/TF risks.
4.2 The VAITOS Act designates the FSC as the prudential and AML/CFT supervisory
authority, responsible for regulating and supervising the business activities of VASPs and IITOs respectively.
4.3 Any person carrying out the business activities of a VASP and IITO, in or from
Mauritius, shall hold a licence or registration, as appropriate, issued by the FSC.
4.4 VASPs and IITOs (hereinafter also collectively referred to as “regulated entities”) are
encouraged to:
4.4.1 reflect the elements of the Guidance Notes in their internal policies, procedures
and controls; and
4.4.2 consequently apply the Guidance Notes inter-alia for the assessment of
persons managing, controlling, directing, owning or performing key functions within their entities.
5.0 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGIES
5.1 The FATF, via its Recommendation 15 and relevant interpretative notes issued
thereunder, requires countries to ensure that VASPs are regulated for AML/CFT purposes, licensed, or registered and subject to effective systems for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the measures therein.
5.2 VASPs and other financial Institutions that engage in VA-related activities, are
required to identify, assess, and take effective actions to mitigate their ML/TF risks.
5.3 For any additional information, in that respect, please refer to the last or updated FATF
guidance: A risk based approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual asset service providers issued in October 2021.
5.4 Virtual Asset
5.4.1 A VA is a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or
transferred and may be used for payment or investment purposes. VA does not

include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities, and other financial assets that fall under the purview of the Securities Act.
5.4.2 The VA should have an inherent value to be traded or transferred and used for
payment or investment or, is a means of recording or representing ownership of assets.
5.5 Virtual Asset Service Provider
5.5.1 A VASP means a person that, as a business, conducts one or more of the
following activities or operations, for, or on behalf of, another person:
5.5.1.1 Exchange between VAs and fiat currencies;
5.5.1.2 Exchange between one or more forms of VAs;
5.5.1.3 Transfer of VAs; (In the context of VAs, transfer means to conduct a
transaction on behalf of another person that moves VAs from one VA’s address or account to another)
5.5.1.4 Safekeeping and/or administration of VAs or instruments enabling
control over VAs; and
5.5.1.5 Participation in, and provision of, financial services related to an
issuer’s offer and/or sale of a VAs.
5.5.2 The Second Schedule of the VAITOS Act provides for the different classes of
VASP licence that may be issued by the FSC.
5.6 Initial Token Offering (“ITO”)
5.6.1 ITO refers to an offer for sale to the public, by an IITO of a virtual token in
exchange for fiat currency or another VA.
ITO is a means of raising funds for projects through innovative and digital platforms.
5.6.2 ITO involves persons who participate in, or provide financial services related to
issuers’ offer and/or sale of VAs through activities.
5.6.3 Such persons may be affiliated or unaffiliated with the issuer undertaking the
ITO in the context of the issuance, offer, sale, distribution, ongoing market circulation and trading of a VA.

6.0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT (“NRA”)
6.1 Mauritius concluded its NRA with respect to the VA sector in November 2021. This
risk assessment exercise relied upon the World Bank methodology and risk assessment tool.
6.2 The NRA has enabled for the identification and evaluation of the associated ML/TF
threats and vulnerabilities with VAs/VASPs through a sectoral approach.
6.3 At the time of the assessment, the overall ML/TF residual risk associated to
VAs/VASPs was considered to be “Very High” after the consideration of mitigating measures.
6.4 The combined ML/TF vulnerability ratings indicated a general tendency of “High to
Very High” vulnerabilities driven by factors such as the nature and complexity of the VASP businesses, country risks, customer types, products and services of the VA ecosystem and their operational features (for instance, anonymity, speed of settlement and whether the VASPs were registered).
6.5 The combined ML/TF threat ratings indicated a general tendency of “Medium to High”
threats driven by factors, such as the nature and profile of VAs, their sources of funding, the ease with which VA channels are accessible to criminals and their economic impacts.
6.6 VASPs and IITOs must ensure to take into account any relevant findings of the NRA
when conducting their business risk assessments. A copy of the NRA report is available here.
7.0 RED FLAG INDICATORS (ML/TF)
7.1 This section of the Guidance Notes depicts the salient ML/TF red flag indicators which
are associated with VAs. This will enable regulated entities under the VAITOS Act to better identify and prevent the ML/TF risks linked with their business activities and also, to set up adequate controls to mitigate those risks.
7.2 VAs have certain characteristics such as their global reach, capacity for rapid
settlement, ability to enable Peer-to-Peer (“P2P”) transactions, and potential for increased anonymity and obfuscation of transaction flows and counterparties that have created new opportunities for criminals and terrorists to launder their proceeds or finance their illicit activities.
7.3 The following paragraphs provide a summary of red flag indicators which indicate
suspicious VA activities. The presence of such indicators should raise further monitoring, examination and reporting, as appropriate, by regulated entities under the VAITOS Act.

7.4 VA products/services that facilitate pseudonymous or anonymity-enhanced
transactions pose significantly higher ML/TF risks since they can obstruct the ability of regulated entities to access beneficial ownership information, implement effective Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) and apply other appropriate AML/CFT measures.
7.5 The VA ecosystem has witnessed the rise of anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies,
mixers and tumblers, decentralised platforms and exchanges, privacy wallets, and other similar types of products.
7.6 Anonymity
The below non-exhaustive red flag indicators demonstrate how criminals can make use of technological features associated with VAs that increase anonymity.
7.6.1 Customers prepared to pay additional transaction fees for one or more types
of VAs with technological features providing higher anonymity.
7.6.2 Customers entering the digital platforms of VASPs and ITOs using an Internet
protocol (IP) address that allows anonymous communication such as the Onion router, I2P or IP associated with a darknet.
7.6.3 Receiving funds from or sending funds to VASPs and IITOs with weak or non￾existent CDD or Know Your Customer (“KYC”) requirements.
7.6.4 The use of decentralised/un-hosted, hardware or paper wallets to transport
VAs across borders. Decentralised VA systems are particularly vulnerable to anonymity risks compared to a centralised system where some risks are mitigated.
7.6.5 Transactions making use of mixing and tumbling services, suggesting an
intent to obscure the flow of illicit funds between known wallet addresses and darknet marketplaces.
7.6.6 Abnormal volume of VAs cashed out at exchanges from P2P platform￾associated wallets with no logical business explanation.
7.6.7 VA vendors, which facilitate VA activities via terminals, present higher risk, if
the machine or kiosk is located in a high-risk area and used for repeated small transactions.
7.7 Transactions
This second non-exhaustive list of indicators demonstrates how red flags traditionally associated with transactions involving more conventional means of payment, remain relevant in detecting potential illicit VA-related activities.

7.7.1 Structuring of VA transactions (e.g. exchange or transfer) in small amounts,
or in amounts under record-keeping or reporting thresholds, similar to structuring cash transactions.
7.7.2 Making multiple high-value transactions – in short succession, such as within
a 24-hour period, in a staggered and regular pattern, with no further transactions recorded during a long period afterwards, which are particularly common in ransomware cases related to VAs or to a newly created or to a previously inactive account.
7.8 Transaction patterns
The non-exhaustive list of indicators below further illustrates how the misuse of VAs for ML/TF purposes could be identified through irregular, unusual or uncommon patterns of transactions.
7.8.1 Conducting a large initial deposit to open a new relationship with a VASP,
while the amount funded is inconsistent with the customer profile.
7.8.2 Conducting a large initial deposit to open a new relationship with a VASP and
funding the entire deposit on the first day it is opened, and that the customer starts to trade the total amount or a large portion of the amount on that same day or the day after, or if the customer withdraws the whole amount the day after.
7.8.3 A new user attempts to trade the entire balance of VAs or withdraws the VAs
and attempts to send the entire balance off the platform.
7.8.4 Making frequent transfers of large amounts in a certain period of time (e.g. a
day, a week, a month, etc.) to the same VA account by more than one person; or from the same IP address by one or more persons.
7.8.5 Conducting VA-fiat currency exchange at a potential loss.
7.9 Senders or Recipients
The non-exhaustive indicators listed below relates to the profile and unusual behaviour of either the sender or the recipient of the illicit transactions including irregularities observed during account creation and CDD process.
7.9.1 Creating separate accounts under different names to circumvent restrictions
on trading or withdrawal limits imposed by VASPs.
7.9.2 Incomplete or insufficient KYC information, or a customer declines requests for
KYC documents or inquiries regarding source of funds.
7.9.3 Sender/recipient lacking knowledge or providing inaccurate information about
the transaction, the source of funds, or the relationship with the counterparty.

7.9.4 A customer provides identification or account credentials shared by another
account.
7.9.5 Discrepancies arise between IP addresses associated with the customer’s
profile and the IP addresses from which transactions are being initiated.
7.10 Source of Funds or Wealth
Below are some additional and common red flags, which are related to the source of funds or wealth, resulting from criminal activities, in the context of VAs:
7.10.1 Transacting with VA addresses that are connected to known fraud, extortion,
or ransomware schemes, sanctioned addresses, darknet marketplaces, or other illicit websites.
7.10.2 VA transactions originating from or destined to online gambling services.
7.10.3 The use of one or multiple credit and/or debit cards that are linked to a VA
wallet to withdraw large amounts of fiat currency (crypto-to-plastic), or funds for purchasing VAs are sourced from cash deposits into credit cards.
7.10.4 Deposits into a VA address are significantly higher than ordinary with an
unknown source of funds, followed by conversion to fiat currency, which may indicate theft of funds.
7.10.5 Lack of transparency or insufficient information on the origin and owners of the
funds, such as those involving the use of shell companies or those funds placed in an ITO where personal data of investors may not be available or incoming transactions from online payments system through credit/pre-paid cards followed by instant withdrawal.
7.10.6 A customer’s funds which are sourced directly from third-party mixing services
or wallet tumblers.
7.10.7 Bulk of a customer’s source of wealth is derived from investments in fraudulent
VAs or ITOs.
7.10.8 A customer’s source of wealth is disproportionately drawn from VAs or Virtual
Tokens originating from other VASPs or IITOs that lack AML/CFT controls.
7.11 Geography
This last set of non-exhaustive red flag indicators stress on how criminals, when moving their illicit funds, can take advantage of the varying stages of implementation across jurisdictions.
7.11.1 Criminals can potentially exploit the gaps in AML/CFT regimes which are
applicable to the VA sector, by moving their illicit funds to VASPs or IITOs

domiciled or operated in jurisdictions with non-existent or minimal AML/CFT regulations.
7.11.2 These jurisdictions may not have a licensing/registration regime, or have not
extended Suspicious Transaction Reporting (“STR”) requirements to cover VA activities, or may not have otherwise introduced the full spectrum of preventive measures.
7.12 Regulated entities which provide financial and other services that are related to VAs
(including the issuance of ITOs) or have customers involved in VAs, should therefore consider the salient vulnerabilities, as described in this section of the Guidance Notes, and assess whether the ML/TF risks can be mitigated and managed appropriately.
7.13 However, these red flag indicators are constantly evolving and should not be viewed in
isolation but should rather be considered in context.
7.14 These areas/examples are furthermore not exhaustive. Every VASP or IITO will
accordingly have unique circumstances and contexts that will determine its exposure to ML/TF risks. It will ultimately be necessary to make its own informed decision.
8.0 AML/CFT COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS
8.1 This final section of the Guidance Notes outlines the key AML/CFT compliance
obligations to be observed by VASPs and IITOs once/after being licensed or registered, as appropriate, under the VAITOS Act. A VASP and an IITO shall, under section 34 of the VAITOS Act, in carrying out its respective business activities, have measures in place to comply with the Applicable Acts, namely the FIAMLA, FSA and UNSA. They must also comply with the FSC’s AML/CFT Handbook.
8.2 Status of (VASPs/IITOs) as Financial Institutions
8.2.1 It is critically important to emphasise that, with the coming into force of the
VAITOS Act, the FIAMLA has been amended to enable for the categorisation of VASPs and IITOs as ‘financial institutions’.
8.2.2 By virtue of this status, VASPs and IITOs will be required to be compliant with
AML/CFT obligations similar to any other ‘financial institutions’ under the FIAMLA.
8.3 AML/CFT Risk-Based Approach (“RBA”)
8.3.1 Against the backdrop of the foregoing and specific ML/TF risks, vulnerabilities
and threats for the VA sector (as detailed in section 7 of these Guidance Notes), it is therefore compelling for VASPs and IITOs, which are licensed or registered under the VAITOS Act, to systematically apply a RBA whenever considering to establish or continue business relationships with other VASPs and IITOs, customers involved in VA activities or other outsourced/third parties, in general.

8.3.2 The application of a RBA provides a strategy for VASPs and IITOs to manage
potential risks by enabling them to subject customers to proportionate controls and oversight.
8.3.3 A key component of their RBAs will entail that they should:
8.3.3.1 Identify areas where their products/services could be exposed to
ML/TF risks; and
8.3.3.2 Take appropriate steps to ensure that any identified risks are
managed and mitigated through the establishment of appropriate and effective policies, procedures and controls.
8.3.4 VASPs and IITOs should apply the RBA properly and should not resort to the
wholesale termination or exclusion of business relationships within their sector or operations, without an appropriately targeted risk assessment.
8.3.5 The documented risk assessments that are necessary to be undertaken
pursuant to section 17 of the FIAMLA will, in fact, support VASPs and IITOs in developing their RBAs.
8.3.6 A risk assessment should typically take into account all of the risk factors that
the VASP or IITO consider relevant, including the types of services, products, transactions or technologies involved; customer risks; geographical factors; types of VAs traded, among other factors.
8.3.6.1 A VASP or IITO must, inter alia, under section 17(1) of the FIAMLA,
identify, assess, understand and monitor ML/TF risks for its customers.
8.3.6.2 As stressed in the Guidance Notes and pursuant to section 17(2) (b)
of the FIAMLA, a VASP or IITO shall also take into account the findings of the NRA for appropriate guidance in the adoption of its business risk assessment.
8.3.7 In accordance with Regulation 31 of the FIAMLR, any risk assessment systems
undertaken by ‘financial institutions’ (including VASPs and IITOs) should be further reviewed regularly to ensure an effective system is in place and swift action should be taken to remedy any identified deficiencies.
8.4 Customer Due Diligence
8.4.1 VASPs and IITOs should maintain accurate and up-to-date customer
information. This would include scrutinising their source of funds and wealth.
8.4.2 Pursuant to section 17(C) of the FIAMLA, VASPs or IITOs have the obligation
to identify their customers, and where applicable, their beneficial owners and then verify their identities, which is essential for the prevention of ML/TF.

8.4.3 CDD is effectively the means by which regulated entities under the VAITOS
Act will achieve such knowledge and is a key element of any internal AML/CFT system.
8.4.4 VASPs and IITOs must collect the relevant CDD information when they provide
services to or engage in VA-related activities for or on behalf of their customers.
8.4.4.1 The CDD should help VASPs and IITOs, as well as, other obliged
entities that engage in VA-related activities in assessing the ML/TF risks associated with such activities.
8.4.4.2 This process comprises of identifying the customers and, where
applicable, the customers’ beneficial owner(s) and also understanding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, where relevant, and obtaining further information in higher risk situations.
8.4.5 Following consequential amendments made to the FIAMLA under the VAITOS
Act, VASPs and IITOs will be, as reporting persons, able to undertake CDD measures by means of such reliable and independent digital identification system, where customers are not physically present.
8.4.5.1 VASPs and IITOs must assess the veracity of the controls inherent
within these digital identification systems, in order to determine whether they can place reliance on the results produced, or if additional steps are necessary to complement the existing controls.
8.4.5.2 The FSC’s AML/CFT Handbook highlights (at section 5.10) the steps
that should be taken by reporting persons (including VASPs and IITOs) to ensure that the electronic KYC documents are authentic and adequately verify that the customers are who they say they are.
8.4.6 The requirements of ‘Travel Rule’, as recommended by FATF for VASPs, that
is, the obligation to obtain, hold, and transmit required and accurate originator and beneficiary information, as the case may be, immediately and securely, when conducting any virtual asset transfers has further been provided under
section 19 of the VAITOS Act.
8.4.6.1 Section 19(4) of the VAITOS Act expressly provides that an originating
VASP shall not execute a transfer of a VA where the required and accurate information, as the case may be, has not been obtained.
8.4.6.2 The Travel Rule requirements also extend to a financial institution,
acting as intermediary, when sending or receiving virtual asset transfers on behalf of a customer as they would have applied to a VASP.
8.4.6.3 VASPs would be expected to make use of relevant software to:

(i) Perform robust due diligence or KYC process on counterpart institutions; (ii) Identify counterparty wallet type (pre-transaction); (iii) Identify risk-related details about the beneficiary through blockchain analytics and sanctions screening providers; (iv) Allow to safely send or receive encrypted customer’s Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) through various messaging protocols; (v) Store encrypted customer’s PII for up to seven years; and (vi) Allow to generate reports to the FSC on a timely basis, upon request.
8.4.6.4 As far as occasional transactions are concerned, following
consequential amendments made in the FIAMLA, a VASP is required to:
(i) apply CDD measures in respect to an occasional transaction in an amount equal to or above 1000 US dollars or an equivalent amount in foreign currency where the exchange rate to be used to calculate the US dollar equivalent shall be the selling rate in force at the time of the transaction, whether conducted as a single transaction or several transactions that appear to be linked; and (ii) record, in respect to an occasional transaction in an amount below 1000 US dollars, the name of the originator and the beneficiary; and the virtual asset wallet address for each or a unique transaction reference number.
8.4.7 VASPs and IITOs are also expected to conduct CDD in line with Regulation 10
of the FIAMLR and in addition, adhere to compliance obligations as stipulated under Regulation 20 of the FIAMLR.
8.4.8 All identification documents secured through the CDD measures should be
retained by VASPs and IITOs for a period of at least 7 years as recommended under Chapter 11 of the FSC’s AML/CFT Handbook.
8.4.9 The inadequacy or absence of satisfactory CDD measures can subject a VASP
or IITO to serious customer and counterparty risks, as well as reputational, operational, legal and regulatory risks, any of which can result in significant financial cost to its business.
8.4.10 VASPs and IITOs must consider, on a regular frequency, the risks that all such
relationships pose to them and the manner in which those risks can be limited.
8.4.11 In accordance with Regulation 3(1) (e) (ii) of the FIAMLR, the requirement to
conduct ongoing CDD will ensure that the regulated entities under the VAITOS Act (i.e. VASPs and IITOs) are aware of any changes in the development of a business relationship.

8.4.11.1 The extent of the ongoing CDD measures applied by VASPs and
IITOs should be determined on a risk-sensitive basis.
8.4.11.2 However, VASPs and IITOs should be aware that as a business
relationship develops, the ML/TF risks may change.
8.5 Enhanced Due Diligence (“EDD”)
8.5.1 Due to the potential for increased anonymity or obfuscation of VA financial
flows and the challenges associated with conducting effective supervision and CDD, including customer identification and verification, VA activities may be regarded as posing higher ML/TF risks that may potentially require the application of monitoring and EDD measures, where appropriate.
8.5.2 VASPs and IITOs will, pursuant to Regulation 12 of the FIAMLR, be required
to implement internal controls and other procedures to combat ML/TF, including EDD procedures with respect to high-risk persons, business relations and transactions and persons established in jurisdictions that do not have adequate systems in place to combat ML/TF. Where the ML/TF risks are identified to be higher, a financial institution shall take EDD measures to mitigate and manage those risks.
8.5.3 VASPs and IITOs should also apply the requirements of Regulation 15 of the
FIAMLR with respect to their business relationships with Politically Exposed Persons (“PEPs”).
8.5.4 In case where a VASP or IITO is not able to undertake the required EDD, the
latter shall terminate the business relationship and file a suspicious transaction report under section 14 of the FIAMLA.
8.6 Transaction Monitoring and Suspicious Transaction Reporting
8.6.1 The transaction recording of VA transactions is often linked to, or based on,
Distributed ledgers.
8.6.2 VASPs and IITOs are required to develop, implement and maintain effective
transactional monitoring systems to determine the origin of a VA and to monitor its destination, and to apply strong KYC measures that enable detection of possible ML/TF activities.
8.6.3 VASPs and IITOs are expected to act responsibly and always be vigilant in
ensuring that their business activities are not subject to any misuse by participants transacting with VAs and to report any suspicious activity.
8.6.4 Where a VASP or IITO identifies any suspicious activity or has reasonable
ground to suspect that a transaction is suspicious in the course of a business relationship or occasional transaction, it should, pursuant to Regulation 28(1) of the FIAMLR:

a) obtain EDD, in accordance with Regulation 12 of the FIAMLR; and b) make an internal disclosure, in accordance with the procedures provided under Regulation 27 of the FIAMLR.
8.6.5 The reporting procedures, as outlined above, must also apply to prospective
customers and transactions that were attempted but that did not take place.
8.6.6 The Money Laundering Reporting Officer should then consider the internal
disclosure to assess whether a STR needs to be made to the Financial Intelligence Unit.
8.7 Targeted Financial Sanctions (“TFS”)
8.7.1 The UNSA provides the legal framework for the implementation of UN
sanctions as adopted by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. VASPs, IITOs or any other financial institution engaged in VA-related activities are required to ensure compliance with the UNSA.
8.7.2 In line with section 41 of the UNSA, VASPs and IITOs are required to
implement internal controls and other procedures to effectively comply with their obligations thereof. As such, VASPs and IITOs should establish effective and up-to-date systems to screen clients and transactions appropriate to the nature, size and risk of the business in accordance with the UN Sanctions List and list of designated parties issued by the National Sanctions Secretariat.
8.7.3 The screening system should enable VASPs and IITOs to maintain an up-to￾date understanding of its clients through the life cycle of the client relationship
and, whenever a client’s identification data changes. Screening should be undertaken when establishing a new relationship at and subsequently, regular but sufficiently frequent intervals, and upon trigger events (for instance when there is a change in directorship or ownership) and when the UN and/or domestic sanctions lists are updated.
8.7.4 Sanctions apply to all clients and transactions, and there is no minimum
financial limit or other threshold to conduct screening. VASPs, IITOs or other financial institutions engaging in VA-related activities should ensure that they are screening clients and transactions relating to VA transfers to ensure compliance with their TFS obligations.
8.7.4.1 The ordering and beneficiary institutions should screen their
customer’s name for compliance with TFS obligations at the time of on-boarding (and upon name changes).
8.7.4.2 The beneficiary’s name (the name of the person who will own the
virtual asset on completion of a transfer as per VAITOS Act) or the originator’s name (with ‘originator’ having the same meaning as in

the VAITOS Act) should also be screened when conducting the VA transfer.
8.7.5 Considering the nature of VAs, illicit actors may abuse VASPs for sanctions
evasions. Therefore:
8.7.5.1 Each incoming and outgoing transaction should be screened for a
potential match with the sanctions lists; and
8.7.5.2 The screening should be focused on the transaction where
detection of sanctions risk is actionable, where a transaction can be stopped and funds are frozen, if required, and before a potential violation occurs.
8.7.6 For a VASP and IITO to transmit the required information (i.e. on the originators
and beneficiaries) to another VASP and IITO, as the case may be, it is necessary to identify their counterparty VASP. A VASP and IITO would also need to conduct due diligence on their counterparty VASP/IITO before they transmit such information to avoid dealing with illicit actors or sanctioned actors unknowingly.
8.7.7 VASPs and IITOs should have adequate procedures to swiftly identify whether
name matches are a true match and for freezing assets, where appropriate.
8.7.8 If a match is detected and if a VASP and IITO, as a reporting person, maintains
accounts, or otherwise holds or controls funds and other assets of listed1 and designated2 parties (or any person who holds, controls or has in his custody or possession any funds or other assets of a designated or listed party or acting on behalf of or, at the direction of a designated or listed party), it should immediately, without delay and within 24 hours:
8.7.8.1 not deal with those funds and other assets, pursuant to section 23
of the UNSA;
8.7.8.2 not make those funds and other assets available to or for the
benefit of designated and listed parties available in accordance with section 24 of the UNSA; and
8.7.8.3 investigate further and take necessary measures in line with the
relevant sections of the UNSA, alert senior management, report to the NSSec and the FSC (section 25 of the UNSA), and file an STR (section 39 of the UNSA). Reporting templates for sections 23(4) and 25(2) of the UNSA are accessible here.

1 Listed party has the same meaning as in section 2 of the UNSA. 2 Designated party has the same meaning as in section 2 of the UNSA.

8.7.9 In line with section 26 of the UNSA, upon declaration of a designated party by
the Secretary for Home Affairs, the latter shall, within a reasonable time of that declaration, make an ex parte application to the Designated Judge for a freezing order of the funds or other assets of the designated party. Once the freezing order is granted, the Secretary for Home Affairs shall give public notice of the freezing order by electronic means and in a daily newspaper having wide circulation and notify any VASP, IITO or any other financial institution engaged in VA-related activities that holds, controls or has in his or its custody or possession the funds or other assets, including VAs, of the designated party. Please refer to the FSC’s AML/CFT Handbook for additional information on AML/CFT obligations. FSC House, 54 Cybercity, Ebene, Republic of Mauritius Tel: (230) 403 7000 Fax: (230) 467 7172 E-mail: fscmauritius@intnet.mu, Website: www.fscmauritius.org