Fennoscandic comparison on KYC obligations of a virtual currency provider

Purpose - This paper aims to analyse the virtual currency regulation especially in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Different member states had a bit differently incorporated regulation of AMLD5. Finland has gone the furthest in regulation and even issuers of virtual currency are under the Finnish regulation. Design/methodology/approach - In one hand, the study approach is legal dogmatics, but in other hand it is comparative legal research. Both approaches can be found in this paper. Findings - The EEA is going from a more fragmented regulatory landscape based on 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive to a more uniform regulatory approach provided by a legislative package that regulates crypto assets more broadly, coupled with an overhaul of the anti-money laundering rules, bringing them into a single European rulebook. Finland has taken a step further in this matter. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the AMLD5 scope to be expanded in this respect. It is a welcome development that the regulation will be unified and that investor protection will be better taken into account in the future as well. Originality/value - This paper gives a picture of what kind of challenges is there in Fennoscandic in terms of money laundering regulation of virtual currencies. On the other hand, this paper brings into the discussion the rather clever solutions of Fennoscandic (especially Finland) regarding money laundering of virtual currencies.