Bitcoins Under European and German Banking and Capital Markets Laws

Lars Klöhn, Nicolas Parhofer
{"title":"Bitcoins Under European and German Banking and Capital Markets Laws","authors":"Lars Klöhn, Nicolas Parhofer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3287189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ether are perhaps the most dazzling phenomena of current capital market activity. The boom at the end of 2017 was followed by a spectacular crash soon after. Nonetheless, the total capitalization of cryptocurrencies is more than $ 200 billion. Regulators around the world have warned investors of the dangers associated with virtual currencies due to high volatility, pseudonymity and lack of government control. But to what extent is state control really missing? The German regulatory authority (BaFin) classifies Bitcoins as units of account (Rechnungseinheiten) under German law and thus as financial instruments. The consequence is, inter alia, that the operators of Bitcoin trading venues are subject to authorization requirements. The practice had adjusted to accommodate this view. A recent judgment of the Kammergericht Berlin (KG) is therefore all the more disruptive. In this criminal case the court opposed the view of the German supervisory authority BaFin and acquitted the operator of an unlicensed Bitcoin trading platform from allegations of unauthorized banking operations. The present article frames a broader question and examines whether and to what extent Bitcoins can be captured using the categories of applicable German and European banking and capital markets law. Are Bitcoins financial instruments as defined by MiFID II? Payment Instruments as defined by the Payment Services Directive? Units of account within the meaning of the German Banking Act (KWG)? It concludes with an outlook on the expected consequences of the KG ruling.","PeriodicalId":171289,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law eJournal","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3287189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ether are perhaps the most dazzling phenomena of current capital market activity. The boom at the end of 2017 was followed by a spectacular crash soon after. Nonetheless, the total capitalization of cryptocurrencies is more than $ 200 billion. Regulators around the world have warned investors of the dangers associated with virtual currencies due to high volatility, pseudonymity and lack of government control. But to what extent is state control really missing? The German regulatory authority (BaFin) classifies Bitcoins as units of account (Rechnungseinheiten) under German law and thus as financial instruments. The consequence is, inter alia, that the operators of Bitcoin trading venues are subject to authorization requirements. The practice had adjusted to accommodate this view. A recent judgment of the Kammergericht Berlin (KG) is therefore all the more disruptive. In this criminal case the court opposed the view of the German supervisory authority BaFin and acquitted the operator of an unlicensed Bitcoin trading platform from allegations of unauthorized banking operations. The present article frames a broader question and examines whether and to what extent Bitcoins can be captured using the categories of applicable German and European banking and capital markets law. Are Bitcoins financial instruments as defined by MiFID II? Payment Instruments as defined by the Payment Services Directive? Units of account within the meaning of the German Banking Act (KWG)? It concludes with an outlook on the expected consequences of the KG ruling.
比特币根据欧洲和德国的银行和资本市场法
比特币和以太币等加密货币可能是当前资本市场活动中最令人眼花缭乱的现象。2017年底的繁荣之后,不久就出现了一场壮观的崩盘。尽管如此,加密货币的总市值超过2000亿美元。世界各地的监管机构都警告投资者,由于高波动性、假名性和缺乏政府控制,虚拟货币存在风险。但是国家控制到底缺失到什么程度呢?德国监管机构(BaFin)根据德国法律将比特币分类为记账单位(rechunungseinheiten),因此是金融工具。其结果是,除其他外,比特币交易场所的运营商必须遵守授权要求。实践已经调整以适应这一观点。因此,最近柏林议会(KG)的一项判决更具破坏性。在这起刑事案件中,法院反对德国监管机构BaFin的观点,并宣告一家无牌比特币交易平台的运营商无罪,指控其未经授权的银行业务。本文提出了一个更广泛的问题,并研究了是否以及在多大程度上可以使用适用的德国和欧洲银行和资本市场法来捕获比特币。比特币是MiFID II定义的金融工具吗?支付服务指令定义的支付工具?德国银行法(KWG)意义上的记账单位?文章最后展望了KG裁决的预期后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信