LEGAL REGULATION OF VIRTUAL ASSETS IN THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the current legal regulation of virtual assets in the Principality of Liechtenstein. The authors analyse the advantages and disadvantages of the relevant legal framework, as well as the possibility and feasibility of implementing the most effective provisions of the legislative acts into Ukrainian legislation. Due to the absence of studies that would analyse the main regulatory norms and definitions, as well as the experience of harmonising the current legislation with the European Union regulations, it became necessary to examine the current legal system of the Principality of Liechtenstein, which is known for one of the most progressive virtual asset regulations in the world. To study the current state of legal regulation of virtual assets in the Principality of Liechtenstein, the authors used comparative, analytical, inductive, hypothetical and systemic methods. As a result of the study, specific features of tokens are identified and a possible classification of virtual assets is presented in accordance with the established approach in other jurisdictions. Features of the right to dispose of a virtual asset in comparison with other objects of private law relations are analysed. Further, the particularities of the legislation on Anti–money laundering in this area are outlined. Changes to be made to the existing legislation to harmonise it with the new EU MiCA regulation are considered, including changes to the rules for issuing and trading in virtual assets. It is concluded that the Principality of Liechtenstein has managed to create an adaptive system of legal regulation of virtual assets. The creation of separate legislation on virtual assets, which at the same time refers to the regulation of other objects of private law relations, made it possible to implement it quickly, although harmonisation with the EU MiCA Regulation also requires compliance with the established classification of virtual assets. Although this Regulation eliminates some of the advantages that a particular jurisdiction may have, it simplifies access to the EU market for participants in the circulation of virtual assets. Based on this experience, the Ukrainian legislator needs to create a regulatory system that can be harmonised with the EU regulations for this industry, but at the same time introduce certain preferences that will attract investment in the Ukrainian economy and will not contradict EU regulations.