Explore Travel Rule Implementation
Stay ahead of Travel Rule regulatory changes. Check implementation deadlines, thresholds and main requirements for your country.
Stay ahead of Travel Rule regulatory changes. Check implementation deadlines, thresholds and main requirements for your country.
The Crypto Travel Rule, based on FATF Recommendation 16, is a global standard designed to combat money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF). It requires Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and financial institutions handling virtual asset (VA) transfers to collect and share sender and recipient details before or during a transaction.
The rule ensures that personal data “travels” with a crypto or fiat transaction, increasing transparency and traceability. While originally this only applied to traditional finance, it now extends to crypto transactions, requiring VASPs around the world to implement robust compliance measures.
The Crypto Travel Rule, based on FATF Recommendation 16, is a global standard designed to combat money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF). It requires Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and financial institutions handling virtual asset (VA) transfers to collect and share sender and recipient details before or during a transaction.
The rule ensures that personal data “travels” with a crypto or fiat transaction, increasing transparency and traceability. While originally this only applied to traditional finance, it now extends to crypto transactions, requiring VASPs around the world to implement robust compliance measures.
The Travel Rule applies to all Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and financial institutions that are engaged in VA transfers. The Travel Rule may apply to decentralized services (DeFi) and other P2P platforms under certain conditions.
A business is considered to be a VASP if it provides the following services:
The Travel Rule applies to businesses when:
The Travel Rule’s main requirements are:
For transfers under 1,000 USD/EUR, VASPs must collect:
For transfers above 1,000 USD/EUR, VASPs must also collect:
The Travel Rule threshold applies to transactions, with the FATF recommending a $1,000/€1,000 de minimis limit. However, countries set their own thresholds or may not have one at all (as seen in our Travel Rule country map).
This results in different cases: information is shared only above the threshold, varying requirements apply below it, or all transactions require reporting.
For a smooth Travel Rule implementation that ensures you stay compliant, there are several elements the Travel Rule solution should cover.
These include:
The FATF does not advise the use of a specific data sharing technology, so there is no single protocol or network standard for data transfers. While a number of networks for encrypted data transfer exist, there are issues like protocol compatibility. A solution that combines data gathering and data sharing is optimal for businesses to stay compliant.
The FATF Travel Rule and the BSA Travel Rule both require financial institutions and VASPs to collect and share transaction details for AML/CTF compliance, but they differ in key aspects. The BSA Travel Rule (U.S.) applies to transactions ≥ $3,000 and mandates additional details such as execution date, transaction amount, and financial institution identity. The FATF Travel Rule (global standard) recommends a $1,000/€1,000 threshold, with fewer required data points. While FATF sets guidelines adopted by different countries, the BSA Travel Rule is U.S.-specific and enforced by FinCEN.
Travel Rule implementation faces several key challenges. Technology suitability is a major hurdle, as FATF does not mandate a specific solution, leading to fragmented, country-specific systems that may not support all virtual assets or require third-party approvals. Interoperability remains an issue, with differing global standards and conflicting data privacy laws like GDPR. The "sunrise issue" complicates compliance, as VASPs in some jurisdictions must follow the rule while others are not yet obligated. Finally, counterparty identification poses difficulties, as VASPs must verify whether they are transacting with another regulated VASP or an unhosted wallet, with no universal framework in place.