A crypto business sits between two compelling licensing destinations today. The AIFC (Astana International Financial Centre) in Kazakhstan offers common-law certainty, a digitally ambitious regulator and a cost structure that suits leaner builds. Singapore, governed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) under the Payment Services Act, offers global banking credibility and Asian market proximity – but at a more demanding entry threshold. Choose the wrong venue and the consequences arrive fast: enforcement action, correspondent banks withdrawing rails, token transfers flagged and frozen. The pages below map both regimes across the axes that matter to an operator: regulator posture, licence categories, substance requirements, AML obligations, banking and the tax interaction. There is no blanket verdict. There is a decision matrix by operator profile.
Two Regimes, One Decision
Both jurisdictions have purpose-built, statutory digital-asset regimes supervised by dedicated regulators – but they sit at different points on the ambition-versus-access spectrum. Kazakhstan's AIFC is overseen by the Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA), which operates under a common-law framework modelled loosely on English law and administered within the free-zone perimeter of the AIFC. Singapore's MAS administers the Payment Services Act, a risk-tiered licensing structure that has become one of Asia's most-watched standards for VASP (virtual asset service provider) supervision.
The structural distinction is significant. AFSA regulates a geographically bounded financial centre. MAS regulates a city-state whose financial system is globally connected. That difference propagates through every axis that follows.
In our cross-border practice, operators frequently approach both jurisdictions in parallel – often because their banking appetite or user-base geography ultimately determines the call rather than the regulatory design alone.
Regulator Posture and Political Economy
AFSA has positioned the AIFC as a proactive enabler of digital-asset business, offering direct engagement with applicants during the pre-application phase and, by regional standards, relatively accessible senior supervisory staff. The AIFC's founding instruments embed English common law as the governing law of the zone, which means contractual and property disputes travel through a familiar legal system. This posture has attracted a wave of regional operators seeking an EU-compatible AML profile without the full burden of a MiCA CASP authorisation process.
MAS has moved in a markedly different direction since 2021. The authority has publicly signalled a preference for quality over quantity in its licensing pipeline, tightening fit-and-proper standards, increasing the scrutiny of beneficial ownership, and requiring more detailed financial projections from applicants. Operators that cleared the MAS process describe it as rigorous – comparable in depth, if not in timeline, to an FCA application in the UK. That rigour is precisely what makes a MAS licence credible in the eyes of tier-one correspondent banks.
Neither posture is categorically superior. AFSA suits a business that needs to move to market within a defined window and is building toward broader credentialling. MAS suits a business that is prepared to invest in the application – because the banking and counterparty relationships on the other side justify that investment.
Licence Categories: What Each Regime Authorises
AFSA issues authorisations across a defined set of digital-asset activities, including operating a digital-asset trading facility, providing custody of digital assets, and carrying out related financial services within the AIFC perimeter. The activity-based structure means a business operating an exchange and a custody function will typically require separate authorisations or a combined application covering both activities. The legal framework distinguishes between regulated activities in the conventional sense and the digital-asset specific layer that AFSA has developed alongside it.
Under the Payment Services Act, MAS recognises three licence tiers: money-changing, standard payment institution and major payment institution. Digital payment token (DPT) services – the category most relevant to crypto exchanges and custodians – fall within the standard and major payment institution tiers depending on transaction volume and stored-value thresholds. The tier determines both the capital requirement and the compliance burden, and MAS has been explicit that businesses exceeding the major payment institution thresholds must hold the corresponding licence before operating.
A token issuer contemplating a public offering must also assess whether the token's rights profile brings it within the Securities and Futures Act in Singapore, or within AFSA's investment-product perimeter in the AIFC. Both regimes apply a substance-over-label test – the regulatory outcome turns on what the token does, not what the marketing materials say it is.
Who Needs a Licence in Each Jurisdiction?
In the AIFC, the licensing trigger is conducting a regulated digital-asset activity within the AIFC perimeter, or marketing those services from within the AIFC to clients outside it. A business incorporated in the AIFC that serves clients globally from that base falls within AFSA's scope. Purely offshore arrangements – an AIFC-incorporated holding entity with no actual activity in the zone – do not attract the full regulatory authorisation requirement, though they may still require registration depending on the activities involved.
In Singapore, the licensing trigger under the Payment Services Act is the provision of a payment service in Singapore. That phrase has been interpreted to include services provided from Singapore to overseas customers. A business with operations or staff in Singapore providing DPT services without a licence faces criminal exposure under the Act. MAS has also made clear that businesses operating under an exemption – which applied to some operators during a transitional window – must have concluded the licensing process to continue operating.
We regularly advise operators who assumed that their Singapore-incorporated entity was covered by an umbrella registration obtained elsewhere. That assumption is wrong. Each jurisdiction assesses the licensing question independently, and the cross-border reality is that serving users in Singapore from a Kazakhstan entity, or vice versa, does not eliminate the need for local authorisation where the activity is triggered.
The process above describes the standard path. Your facts – the entity structure, the user base, the banking relationships – change the analysis. To map the licence stack for your build before you commit resources to either jurisdiction, contact OBOLUS at info@oboluslaw.com.
Application Process and Timeline
AFSA operates a structured pre-application engagement model: an operator submits a detailed business plan, a financial projection and a regulatory business plan before the formal application opens. That pre-application phase is substantive but, in our experience, moves faster than comparable processes in tier-one EU jurisdictions. AFSA examiners will flag substantive deficiencies during pre-application review rather than waiting for formal submission – a practical efficiency that shortens iteration cycles. The total timeline from clean pre-application submission to authorisation varies by complexity and is best understood as a matter of several months rather than weeks, though straightforward applications at the less complex end of the activity spectrum tend to move more quickly.
MAS operates a more sequential process. The formal application portal requires a complete submission before review commences; supplementary information requests are issued in rounds. The MAS process is well-documented and predictable in structure, but timeline pressure is real: the authority has a queue, and operators should model the licensing window into their funding and go-to-market plans. In our cross-border practice, we have seen applicants underestimate the preparation burden – particularly around AML/CFT policy documentation and the financial crime risk assessment – and lose months to revision cycles that a more thorough initial submission would have avoided.
Practically, both regimes require an in-jurisdiction substance footprint. AFSA requires AIFC-incorporated entities with genuine operational presence. MAS expects Singapore-based directors with relevant expertise and, for major payment institution applicants, a demonstrable compliance function in-country. Neither venue is hospitable to letter-box structures.
AML, Travel Rule and Compliance Posture
Both jurisdictions implement the Travel Rule – the FATF obligation requiring originator and beneficiary data to travel with a virtual asset transfer – though the detailed implementation rules differ and operators must verify current thresholds in each regime before designing their technical compliance architecture. FATF Recommendation 15, which extended the Travel Rule to virtual assets, is the baseline; both AFSA and MAS have enacted domestic instruments that operationalise it.
AFSA's AML framework draws on international FATF standards and applies them through AIFC-specific AML rules. The compliance expectations are substantive but, by major-jurisdiction comparison, the AML supervisory cadence during early operations is less intensive than what a MAS licensee should expect. MAS has publicly stated that AML/CFT compliance is a threshold condition, not a secondary concern, and its supervisory examinations of licensed DPT service providers have been detailed.
For operators building or sourcing a transaction monitoring stack, the practical consequence is this: a MAS application requires a fully documented, technically implemented AML/CFT system at submission. An AFSA application may permit a phased implementation plan – but that is an operational judgment to be confirmed with current supervisory guidance, not assumed. In both cases, weak compliance documentation is the single most common cause of application delay.
Banking, Tax and the Cross-Border Stack
Banking access is, in practice, a more decisive factor than many operators acknowledge before they begin. A MAS licence carries strong signal value with tier-one Asian and international correspondent banks. Singapore's banking system is deep, USD-denominated settlement is accessible, and licensed MAS entities have a credible pathway to multi-currency accounts with institutions that matter to institutional counterparties. The trade-off is that onboarding remains demanding: Singapore banks apply their own CDD standards on top of the MAS licence, and the process can take several months after authorisation.
AIFC-licensed entities bank primarily through Kazakhstani banks and, increasingly, through UAE-corridor banking relationships. The correspondent banking reach is narrower than Singapore's, though the AIFC has invested in improving banking infrastructure for zone residents. For a business whose primary clients are in the CIS region, Central Asia or the Gulf, this may be entirely workable. For a business that needs USD correspondent access into North America or Asia-Pacific, the banking constraint is a real consideration.
On tax, both jurisdictions offer favourable treatment for AIFC and Singapore-based entities respectively, though the details are jurisdiction-specific and the interaction with the operator's home-country tax residency – and any substance-over-form analysis by that home jurisdiction – requires separate advice. Neither jurisdiction's tax advantage should be assumed to flow automatically from the licence; the structure matters as much as the venue. Operators planning a pre-exit restructuring or a fund-raising round should model the tax stack alongside the licence stack from day one.
If a prior application stalled or a banking relationship closed unexpectedly, a structural review can identify the cause and the route back. Reach OBOLUS at info@oboluslaw.com or via t.me/oboluslaw.
Decision Matrix by Operator Profile
No single jurisdiction wins across all operator profiles. The decision turns on four factors: where your users are, where your banking needs to land, how much timeline flexibility your funding runway permits, and how much regulatory credentialling weight your institutional counterparties will apply to your licence.
Retail or institutional crypto exchange with Asian user concentration. A MAS major payment institution licence is the target authorisation. Timeline and capital commitment are material, but the banking access and counterparty credibility justify the investment. An AIFC authorisation alone will not satisfy a tier-one Asian exchange partner's compliance requirements.
Exchange or brokerage targeting CIS, Central Asian or Gulf markets. The AIFC presents a strong first-mover advantage. AFSA's common-law environment, the lower entry friction relative to MAS, and the AIFC's geographic positioning make it a natural fit. Banking is workable within the corridor. A MAS licence can follow as the business scales westward.
Custodian seeking institutional clients globally. The custody activity category exists in both regimes. For institutional clients in Asia and the broader international market, a MAS-regulated custodian carries stronger signal. For a custodian serving regional clients with a phased growth plan, AFSA offers a credible entry point with a less intensive initial compliance overhead.
Token issuer – utility or asset-referenced token. The token classification analysis must precede the jurisdictional choice. If the token falls within the securities perimeter of either regime, the licensing pathway changes significantly. Both AFSA and MAS apply a substance-over-label analysis; neither framework permits a utility label to override an economic substance that resembles a collective investment scheme or a regulated instrument. In our practice, we regularly advise issuers who made the jurisdictional choice before completing the classification analysis and then discovered mid-process that the chosen regime applied a different test than they anticipated.
Crypto fund or fund-of-funds structure. Fund management is a regulated activity in both jurisdictions. Singapore's established fund management framework under MAS offers a well-tested route for fund managers seeking institutional investors. The AIFC fund management regime is developing; for smaller or more specialised structures, it can offer a workable alternative. The fund's investor base and the expectations of those investors' own compliance teams will often be the deciding factor.
A micro-matter illustrates the cross-border complexity. In a recent structuring engagement, a payments company operating between the Gulf and Southeast Asia held an AIFC authorisation and assumed it was sufficient to on-board Singapore-based institutional clients. We identified that the specific DPT service being provided triggered MAS jurisdiction, mapped a compliant re-structuring of the service delivery model, and the client commenced the MAS pre-application process before any enforcement exposure crystallised. The resolution was achieved within a single commercial quarter.
A Common Assumption Addressed
A common assumption among operators is that a single offshore licence – whether AIFC, BVI, Cayman or another venue – is sufficient to serve clients globally without additional authorisation. That assumption is incorrect. Most major financial centres assess the licensing question on the basis of where the service is provided and where the client is located, not only where the entity is incorporated. MAS has prosecuted this point explicitly. The FCA, VARA and MiCA NCAs apply equivalent logic. Operating without the right licence exposes a business to enforcement action, frozen banking rails and – in the worst case – criminal liability for directors and officers. Regulatory authorisation must be assessed on a per-market, per-activity basis.
The practical answer is a licence-stack analysis: mapping which activities, in which markets, trigger which regime, and sequencing the applications in order of commercial priority and regulatory risk. That analysis precedes – not follows – the business launch.
Related at OBOLUS
- Licensing & Registration for Digital-Asset Businesses – our full-service licensing practice across 70+ jurisdictions, from pre-application strategy to authorisation.
- How to Apply for a VASP Licence: A Step-by-Step Guide – a sequential walkthrough of the application process, from entity structuring to submission.
- Pre-Exit Tax Restructuring for Regulated Entities – aligning the tax stack with the licensing structure ahead of a round or exit.
About OBOLUS
OBOLUS is an independent digital-asset law boutique acting exclusively for businesses. We advise exchanges, custodians, token issuers and funds on licensing across 70+ jurisdictions, on disputes and on-chain asset recovery across 25+ forums, and on the tax, banking and compliance that sit around them. Digital assets are the whole of our practice. We map the licence stack across operating, custody and payment layers before you commit – and our disputes team coordinates freezing relief and on-chain tracing across leading common-law forums when issues arise. To discuss your situation, contact info@oboluslaw.com.
FAQ
How long does a crypto licence take to obtain?
Timeline varies by jurisdiction, activity category and the completeness of the initial submission. AFSA in the AIFC operates a pre-application engagement model that, for well-prepared applicants, can move materially faster than EU-equivalent processes. MAS is structured and well-documented but queued; operators should build several months into their planning horizon. Weak AML documentation and incomplete financial projections are the most common causes of delay in both regimes.
Which jurisdiction is best for licensing my crypto business?
There is no universal answer. The right venue depends on where your users are located, where your banking relationships need to land, the nature of the activities you are conducting, and the timeline your funding runway permits. For Asian institutional markets, a MAS licence carries strong counterparty signal. For CIS, Central Asian or Gulf-oriented businesses, the AIFC offers a well-developed common-law environment with lower initial friction. The two are not mutually exclusive – a phased strategy is a legitimate approach.
Do I need a separate custody licence?
In most flagship jurisdictions, custody of digital assets is a regulated activity distinct from operating a trading platform or providing payment services. Both AFSA and MAS treat custody as a separate authorisation category. A business providing both exchange and custody services from the same entity will generally require authorisation covering both activities. The precise structuring – whether through a single authorisation or separate entities – is a matter of jurisdictional design and commercial preference, and should be assessed before entity formation.
By Aisha Tan, Licensing & Jurisdictions Analyst – specialist in cross-border digital-asset licensing strategy across the AIFC, Singapore, Malta and the UAE, with a focus on pre-application structuring and licence-stack design for exchanges, custodians and token issuers.
This publication is general information about the law and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for advice tailored to your circumstances. OBOLUS accepts no liability for action taken or not taken on the basis of this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@oboluslaw.com.