The characterisation of digital assets under Australia’s financial services regulatory framework is complex.

Australia’s financial services regulatory framework continues to evolve in the crypto-sphere. Answering the question of when a digital or crypto related product is a financial product or credit facility is not always straightforward. 

Regulatory assistance on this question is provided in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Information Sheet 225 (ASIC Info Sheet 225) (which was reissued in October 2021) which provides guidance on when a crypto-asset constitutes a financial product.¹ Those who have read this guidance will be aware that such a determination is often not clear-cut or obvious and requires critical regulatory analysis to determine which of the following regulatory outcomes will apply:

1. If the crypto-asset is a financial product under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), then the relevant licensing, disclosure and conduct obligations under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act will apply. It could comprise a financial product as a security/debenture, derivative, managed investment scheme or even a non-cash payment facility.
2. If the crypto-asset is not a financial product and is a consumer credit facility or mortgage under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (NCCP Act), then the relevant licensing, disclosure and conduct obligations under NCCP Act and the ASIC Act will apply.
3. If the crypto-asset product is a credit facility or mortgage under the ASIC Act (but not a financial product under the Corporations Act and also not a consumer credit facility or mortgage under the NCCP Act), then the ASIC Act will apply. 

In each case (except in limited circumstances under 3. above) where the crypto-asset is regulated above and offered to retail clients, the design and distribution obligations under the Corporations Act will also apply.  

Recent cases brought by ASIC, with varying outcomes, have sought declarations from the Court that a relevant digital asset product should be characterised as a financial product or credit facility.² These recent ASIC prosecutions (and appeals – some of which remain undecided or are the subject of appeal) warn companies that ASIC will take action where it is concerned that a digital asset product offering is operating unlawfully outside the relevant licensing and regulatory regime.

Historical regulatory landscape in Australia

The birth of the blockchain revolution can be traced back to 2008 when Satoshi Nakamoto (pseudonym) released the first cryptocurrency whitepaper titled ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System’.³ Since then, regulators have been grappling with the legal complexity of regulating digital financial systems and digital assets, in particular, those that operate on a decentralised system. 

One of the fundamental issues with blockchain from a regulatory perspective is the lack of proprietary rights in digital assets on a blockchain ledger.⁴ If the crypto asset is not property, the consequence is that neither a chose in possession or a chose in action is created. Donald Robertson last year articulated that this creates a lack of legal certainty for investors in crypto-assets.⁵ In a recent Commercial Law Association paper, Justice Ian Jackman states that “the overall question of legal policy points strongly towards the recognition of cryptocurrency as property.”⁶ However, Justice Jackman also states that the question as to whether under common law a specific crypto asset is treated as property is also dependent upon the attributes of the relevant crypto asset being “definable, identifiable by third parties, capable of assumption by third parties, and permanent and stable.”⁷ The development of these legal concepts under common law combined with the ambiguity as to whether a digital asset may be a financial product (or credit facility) under applicable legislation puts consumers dealing with digital assets at an elevated risk if they are reliant on a regulatory framework which currently does not provide certainty of consumer protection.

The regulatory landscape in Australia for digital assets has developed significantly in the last ten years with some regulators and government agencies taking positions quickly, and others lagging. The table included at the end of this article provides an overview of Australia’s regulatory bodies and their role with respect to digital asset regulatory oversight. 

When a digital asset is caught under ASIC’s remit

Since issuing ASIC Info Sheet 225 (which provides guidance to entities and individuals on the application of the Corporations Act to crypto-assets and initial coin offerings (ICOs)), ASIC has been focused on identifying and regulating digital assets which constitute financial products under the Corporations Act. While ASIC Info Sheet 225 also refers to the application of Australian Consumer Law, considering ASIC’s delegated powers, it is not an exhaustive discussion of all the relevant Australian laws that apply to digital assets as it does not cover Australian legislation administered by other regulators who oversee crypto assets such as the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). 

ASIC Info Sheet 225 offers practical guidance around whether a digital asset is or involves a financial product, and what regulatory requirements will need to be considered. While this is a good starting point for businesses or individuals to consider, there is not a one-size fits all approach and the complexity in the analysis is dependent on the “specific facts in relation to the product, service and/or conduct” (as stated by ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland in his address at Blockchain APAC’s Policy Week in March 2024).⁸ The complexity of characterising digital assets under the financial services framework has caused confusion as to the laws and regulations that apply, leaving many high-risk businesses non-compliant and vulnerable consumers unprotected. 

The collapse of one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges worth $US32 billion ($46 billion), FTX in December 2022, has likely been one of the catalysts for ASIC’s recent focus on the sector. ASIC has prioritised its focus on “misconduct involving high risk products including crypto assets” and has commenced a series of prosecutorial actions⁹ against companies offering crypto-related products, including commencing action against BPS Financial in relation to its crypto-asset Qoin in 2022 and more recently against blockchain mining companies NGS Crypto Pty Ltd, NGS Digital Pty Ltd and NGS Group Ltd and each of the sole directors of the companies.¹⁰

The Australian Government has recognised the substantial risk borne by consumers dealing with digital assets and informed by Treasury’s token mapping exercise,¹¹ has proposed regulatory reforms to digital asset platforms in its ‘Regulated Digital Asset Platforms’ proposal paper (Digital Asset Platforms Reforms Paper). The Digital Asset Platforms Reforms Paper calls for the regulation of crypto asset holding intermediaries, also referred to as digital asset platforms, submitting that they are “in a position akin to financial services providers” by holding assets for consumers.¹²

This Paper proposes the creation of a new financial product category, ‘digital asset facility’, to capture companies offering digital assets under the current financial services’ regulatory framework. 

This is in the context of the current regulatory regime where ASIC regulates ‘financial products’ and ’consumer credit’ but it is not always clear whether a digital asset-related product or service is a financial product, financial service or a credit facility.  

Currently, there is no global consensus on the approach to regulating digital assets

Blockchain is decentralised and accounted for via a distributed ledger, meaning that digital assets are typically spread across global networks and multiple jurisdictions. This means that digital assets are subject to potential oversight in multiple jurisdictions and thus require harmonised regulatory oversight globally. 

International bodies such as the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSC) are actively engaged in coordinating global standards.¹³ Last November 2023, Australia joined just under 50 countries in a joint statement for the collective engagement to implement a global crypto-asset reporting framework, focused on prohibiting tax evasion.¹⁴

While these initiatives are working towards global regulatory harmonisation, the current legal landscape represents a patchwork of disparate regulatory frameworks and there is currently no global consensus on the approach to regulating digital assets. Instead, there are differences in approach which create layers of complexity in understanding the global regulation of digital assets. 

The United States (US) is one of the most active markets for crypto assets and actions by regulators have a flow-on effect in other jurisdictions. In our 2018 article on Decrypting Taxation of Cryptocurrency, Donald Robertson articulated that the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was quick to prevent cryptocurrency from becoming the subject of tax evasion and in 2014 the IRS made it clear that cryptocurrency would be subject to the same tax principles as property transactions.¹⁵ In the US, however, the main regulatory and licensing agencies are the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with jurisdiction over ‘commodities’ such as derivatives, future contracts and options, and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) with authority over ‘securities’ and instruments that may be sold as an investment.¹⁶ The key regulatory focus of these agencies is whether a crypto-asset constitutes a ‘commodity’ or a ‘security’ respectively, and similarly to the regulatory position in Australia, this requires a detailed analysis of the relevant characteristics of the product, having regards to the relevant legal definitions.

Singapore has made significant developments in addressing crypto-related regulations in relation to taking security over crypto-assets by confirming the common law position that crypto-assets are property and can facilitate secured financing.¹⁷ Dentons’ Singapore’s Doreen Sim and Keane Koh have outlined recent decisions that have led to this position and the practical enforcement implications that follow.¹⁸

The European Union has established a new regulatory regime Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, operating alongside the existing EU financial services legislation.¹⁹ MiCA is a bespoke framework introduced to regulate crypto asset services and providers, focusing on the regulation of digital asset facilities that provide services to third parties. As set out in the 2023 Treasury consultation in the United Kingdom (UK), the MiCA will provide significant implications on the future regulation of crypto-assets in the region as discussed in Episode 1 of Dentons’ Crypto Bytes Podcast Series.²⁰

The UK has recently extended UK’s Financial Promotions Regime to cover crypto asset related financial activities, explained in Dentons’ comprehensive everything-you-need-to-know about the UK’s financial promotions regime article. A key aspect of this regime is that it is a criminal offence to communicate a financial promotion unless it has been made or approved, or qualifies for an exemption, under the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).²¹ Since the law focuses on the communication of financial promotions, overseas firms need to be aware that the laws can apply to digital asset firms outside of the UK if they are engaging investment activity within the UK.²² The UK courts have also considered the question of whether crypto assets are property, finding that they meet the test at common law, as a “crypto asset can be said to be capable of assumption by a third party by way of access to the private key.”²³ For more on the regulation and enforcement of crypto assets in the UK, listen to Dentons’ Crypto Bytes podcast series.²⁴ 

Australia’s complex regulatory landscape and the impact on entities offering crypto financial products

At the time of writing this article, there is significant uncertainty as to the treatment of certain crypto asset products due to the number of ASIC prosecutions underway,²⁵ including an appeal by ASIC as the result of the Federal Court decision in the Finder Wallet (Finder) case.²⁶ The judgment in the Finder case  evidences the complexity of issues which crypto-related products raise in the absence of prescriptive regulatory rules. 

Overview of the Finder case

The key question in the Finder case was whether the Finder Earn product was a debenture and accordingly a financial product, requiring an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and compliance with the Corporations Act. ASIC contended that the product was a debenture, however, notably, the Court was not asked to consider whether Finder’s Earn product had the characteristics of another financial product such as a derivative, non-cash payment facility or other miscellaneous financial product. 

To use the Finder Earn product, customers could deposit fiat currency into their account with Finder and could then elect to allocate an amount of cash (an allocation) to ‘transfer and convert’ into Finder’s stablecoin pegged against the Australian dollar called TrueAUD. Finder would hold the allocated TrueAUD, which could be pooled together with allocations from other customers and had the right to use the allocation without limitation. Upon the transfer and conversion of the fiat currency from the customer to TrueAUD held by Finder, the customer was conferred ‘a contractual right to an amount of cryptocurrency equal to the ‘allocation’ and the ‘return’ at the end of the ‘Earn Term’’, the return being 4.01% p.a. or 6.01% p.a. (Return). ²⁷

The key elements of the Finder Earn product were analysed to determine whether it constituted a debenture under s 9 of the Corporations Act by considering the following distinctive features:

(a) whether there was chose in action; 

(b) whether there was money deposited with, or lent to, Finder; and 

(c) if so, whether the chose in action included an undertaking by Finder to repay as a debt the money deposited or lent.²⁸

The Federal Court found that it was not a debenture, including by concluding that there was not a deposit of money or loan to Finder when a customer used the Finder Earn product.

In response, ASIC has appealed the Federal Court’s ruling²⁹ and has claimed that the primary judge erred in finding that the customer did not provide a deposit of money or loan to Finder in using the Finder Earn product. On this point, ASIC contends that there ought to be a deposit or loan to Finder upon the proper construction of the Finder Earn terms and conditions, or, alternatively pursuant to section 761B of the Corporations Act the arrangements of acquiring TrueAUD and transferring and allocating TrueAUD to Finder, should be treated as a single arrangement for the purposes of determining that the Earn product was a debenture. Additionally, ASIC  contends that the primary judge erred in concluding that (c) above could not be established by way of reasoning that the contractual obligation to repay the TrueAUD allocated to Finder Wallet by a customer and the Return earned on that allocation (or investment) is “different from that which is contemplated by the usual fundraising activities traditionally associated with the issue of debentures”.³⁰ Further, ASIC has claimed that the definition of debenture does not import the requirement that the money be used for Finder’s working capital, or in the alternative, that the money deposited or lent was in fact used as working capital. 

In its appeal, ASIC has reiterated its position that “it is concerned that the Finder Earn product was offered without the appropriate licence or authorisation and therefore without the benefit of important consumer protections”.³¹

The outcome of this appeal will be an important Australian Court decision with respect to how crypto-assets may be classified as ‘financial products’ and we will keep you updated on outcomes and further developments. 

ASIC’s action against crypto-offering BPS Financial (BPS) (commencing in 2022) is another example of ASIC taking a position with respect to a crypto-asset product offering. While it was undisputed that the product offered by BPS was a non-cash payment (NCP) facility, the Court considered which elements of the product constituted the NCP. ASIC alleged that the company’s crypto-asset token, Qoin, as a combination of tokens, a digital wallet and a distributed ledger implemented using blockchain, was an NPC facility. The Federal Court, however, held that only the mechanisms within the product which allowed the user to make non-cash payments constituted a NCP and therefore the Qoin Wallet (which was customised from a crypto-wallet product) constituted the NCP under section 763D of the Corporations Act.^{32 33}

Bit Trade is also facing civil penalty proceedings brought by ASIC in the Federal Court on the basis that their crypto offering constitutes a credit facility. ASIC has alleged that the company has failed to comply with the design and distribution obligations under the Corporations Act, based on a classification of Bit Trade’s trading product as a credit facility and thus a financial product under the ASIC Act. 

ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court said, “[t]hese proceedings should send a message to the crypto industry that products will continue to be scrutinised by ASIC to ensure they comply with regulatory obligations in order to protect consumers.”³⁴ ASIC’s pro-active approach to prosecuting crypto-providers demonstrates ASIC’s commitment to protecting consumers within a regulatory regime with  inescapable complexity given that “every crypto-asset is different, often making it difficult to compare with each other - or anything else.”³⁵

What regulation will come in 2024?

Amidst this backdrop of regulatory action, ASIC together with the Reserve Bank of Australia, worked closely in 2023 on Australia’s Central Bank Digital Currency pilot,³⁶ with ASIC supporting the trial by assessing use cases and providing relief from the Corporations Act to participants. And in early 2024, ASIC Commissioner, Mr Kirkland, has indicated that regulation of real world asset tokenisation is coming, where some types of tokenisation will be regulated under the current regulatory regime, while others will be regulated through the Australian Government’s digital asset platform reforms.³⁷

The Australian Government is expected to release the draft legislation for digital asset platform regulation (informed by Treasury’s token mapping exercise and the Digital Asset Platforms Reforms Paper) in the second half of 2024. We will keep you updated on any developments.

An overview of Australia’s regulatory bodies and their role with respect to digital asset regulatory oversight

ASIC

In 2014, ASIC held the view that cryptocurrencies were not financial products for financial regulation purposes.³⁸ ASIC has since modified its approach, such that digital-related products fall into ASIC’s remit when the relevant digital product is a financial product under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, or a consumer credit facility under the NCCP Act or a credit facility under the ASIC Act. The ASIC Info Sheet 255 provides guidance on whether a digital product is a financial product (including a non-cash payment facility), although ultimately the characterisation depends on the specific facts and use of the product (see section 763A of the Corporations Act). The definition of ‘financial product’ under the Corporations Act is broad and can include a miscellaneous financial facility. If the digital asset is a financial product, then the AFSL regime will apply, and if it is a consumer credit facility, then the Australian Credit Licence regime will apply. A person involved in marketing, advising on, issuing, dealing or providing custody with respect to such a digital asset will need to carefully assess the relevant licensing, disclosure and conduct obligations and when dealing with retail clients, the design and distribution obligations under the Corporations Act.

Australian Tax Office

The information below provides some high-level information on certain of the GST and CGT implications of investing in digital assets at the time of writing. This information is general in nature and does not provide an overview of all relevant taxation issues and readers should seek guidance and advice on taxation issues relating to digital assets. This is a complex area of law regards to relevant factual circumstances and the laws and regulations may change from time to time.

The ATO has developed its position on the taxation of cryptocurrency over the past ten years, specifically in relation to the goods and services tax (GST) and capital gains tax (CGT) schemes:

1. GST: GST is not payable on trading cryptocurrency for money.³⁹ The ATO’s position has developed since 2014 when the ATO announced its position that cryptocurrency was a form of property rather than money and therefore acquiring cryptocurrency was taxable under GST.
2. CGT: Under the current framework, the disposal of a crypto asset for goods, cash or other crypto, where either a capital gain or capital loss occurs is a ‘CGT event’ taxable under the capital gains tax.⁴⁰ If crypto assets are used mainly for personal use, the crypto asset may be exempt from CGT.⁴¹

Businesses using crypto assets may also be subject to pay taxes depending on how the business uses and holds the crypto assets. See the ATO’s website for more information.⁴²

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

The ACCC has been investigating digital platform markets since 2017 but delegated its regulatory powers in relation to digital currencies and digital tokens under Australian Consumer Law to ASIC in 2018. The ACCC can still enforce consumer laws with respect to digital assets that are not financial products, but the delegation enables ASIC to consider consumer protection issues regardless of whether the crypto asset falls under ASIC’s regulatory remit. Essentially, digital assets fall under the ACCC’s remit when the crypto-asset is not a financial product and the ACCC enforces the Australian Consumer Law with respect to digital assets to provide consumer protections such as a consumer guarantee.

The ACCC is currently focused on tightening regulations after the ACCC’s Scamwatch has revealed an increasing trend in the relationship between scammers and cryptocurrency. In the regulatory body’s ‘Report of the ACCC on scams activity 2022’, it was reported that 3,910 people used cryptocurrency as the payment method for the scam and cryptocurrency was the most common payment method for investment scams.⁴³

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

Individuals trading in crypto-assets personally are not required to comply with any relevant AUSTRAC registration or other requirements.

However, businesses providing digital currency or crypto asset exchanges through a registration system are subject to AUSTRAC’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) laws requiring registration with AUSTRAC before the designated service can be provided (and also requiring an AML/CTF Part A and Part B Program in accordance with AML/CTF regulatory requirements). Any other financial services provider dealing in digital or crypto-related products needs to assess whether they are undertaking a designated service with respect to a financial product to determine whether they are subject to the AML/CTF regulatory regime.

AUSTRAC has the right to refuse, suspend or cancel registration of a crypto-related digital exchange or other financial services provider, giving AUSTRAC control over the digital exchanges in the market and other crypto-related financial services providers.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)

APRA has lagged in providing specific regulations for digital assets, but digital assets will fall under APRA’s remit where they intersect with the banking industry.

In APRA’s 2024 priorities, crypto assets have been identified as a new type of potential exposure for banks.⁴⁴ The basis for APRA’s prudential requirements will be the Basel Committee’s international standard for the prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to crypto-assets as finalised in late 2022. The new requirements are expected to come into effect from 2025.

The Australian Government/Treasury

The Australian Government has recently announced incoming reforms of Australia’s digital asset regulations with the release of its Proposal Paper, Regulating Digital Asset Platforms (referred to above as the Digital Asset Platforms Reforms Paper). The new legislation is expected to be released later in 2024.

In 2021, the Australian Government agreed with the recommendations made by the Senate Select Committee on crypto-asset secondary service providers, and engaged in consultation processes with industry. From February 2023 to March 2023, the consultation process focused on token mapping to better understand crypto-assets in the context of financial services and Australia’s regulatory landscape. The consultation process from March 2022 to May 2022 focused on regulating digital asset services providers (Dentons’ partner Amber Warren outlined the focus of the 2022 consultation process in her article New regulation for Australia’s Digital Economy).⁴⁵

Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)

Since Governor Lowe’s speech ‘An eAUD?’ delivered at the Australian Payment Summit in 2017, the RBA has progressed its research and position for a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a tokenised currency being issued as a complement to existing forms of money.⁴⁶ The RBA issued a white paper in 2022,⁴⁷ conducted a pilot program for a CBDC (collaborating with ASIC) in 2023 and is currently involved in a project assessing how different forms of digital money and infrastructure could support the development of tokenised asset markets in Australia.⁴⁸ The RBA has stated it will release a paper in mid-2024 with information about the outcome of the CBDC pilot⁴⁹ and a forward workplan on CBDC in the broader context of the future of digital money in Australia, however, at the time of writing, this paper has not yet been released.

1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225) Crypto-assets (October 2021). 
2. Relevant cases (among others) are ASIC v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd & ORS: QUD178/2024; ASIC v Bit Trade Pty Ltd: NSD1039/2023; ASIC v Finder Wallet Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 228; ASIC v Finder Wallet Pty Ltd: NSD406/2024; ASIC v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 457; ASIC v BPS Financial Pty Ltd: QUD331/2024.
3. Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System (2008).
4. Donald Robertson, ‘Crypto enters new phase: New regulatory laws to manage risks and issues’, Dentons (1 February 2023). 
5. Ibid. 
6. Justice Ian Jackman, Is Cryptocurrency Property?, Commercial Law Association of Australia (21 June 2024), page 14. 
7. Ibid.
8. Alan Kirkland, ‘The Brief – Open Forum’ (Speech, Blockchain APAC Policy Week, 20 March 2024). 
9. See footnote 2.
   
10. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd, Federal Court, QUD178/2024. 
11. Australian Government token mapping exercise - Google Search
12. The Treasury, Regulating Digital Asset Platforms (October 2023) 10.
13. The Treasury, Regulating Digital Asset Platforms (October 2023). 
14. The Treasury (10 November 2023) Collective engagement to implement the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, Treasury Website, accessed 29 April 2024.
15. Donald Robertson, ‘Decrypting Taxation of Cryptocurrency’, Dentons (7 February 2018). 
16. Ibid. 
17. Rules of Court (Singapore, cap 322, 2021), ord 22. 
18. Doreen Sim and Keane Koh, ‘Taking Security over Cryptoassets’, Dentons (20 March 2024). 
    
19. Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation [2023] OJ L 150.
20. ‘Episode 1: What does the recent Treasury consultation mean for the future regulation of cryptoassets’, Crypto Bytes (Dentons, 27 April 2023). 
    
21. Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (UK). 
22. ‘Episode 3: The UK Financial Promotions Regime – what UK and overseas firms need to know?’, Crypto Bytes (Dentons, 21 February 2024). 
    
23. Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV [2023] 4 W.L.R. 16.
24. Crypto Bytes Podcast Series, Dentons Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
25. See footnote 2.
    
26. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Finder Wallet Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 228. 
27. Ibid, [32] 3.2(c). 
28. Ibid, [40]. 
29. NSD406/2024.
    
30. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Finder Wallet Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 228, [100].
31. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (10 April 2024) ‘ASIC appeals Finder Wallet decision’, ASIC Website, accessed 27 June 2024.
    
32. ASIC v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 457, [109-112]. 
33. It is important to note that the BPS case also considered other issues related to the operation of the licensing exemptions for corporate authorised representatives under section 911A(2)(a) and 911A(2)(b) of the Corporations Act, which are subject to an appeal by ASIC.  
34. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (September 2023) ASIC sues crypto exchange alleging design and distribution failures, ASIC Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
35. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (October 2022) ASIC sues BPS Financial for alleged misleading statements about crypto-asset Qoin, ASIC Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
36. A Tokenised Future for the Australian Financial System? | Speeches | RBA
37. Crypto and digital assets: policy, regulation and innovation | ASIC
38. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Submission No 44 to Senate Standing Committees on Economics, Parliament of Australia, Senate Inquiry Into Digital Currency (December 2014). 
39. Australian Taxation Office (July 2023) GST and trading digital currency, ATO Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
40. Australian Taxation Office (30 June 2023) Crypto asset transactions, ATO Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
41. Australian Taxation Office (9 November 2023) Crypto asset as a personal use asset, ATO Website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
42. Australian Taxation Office (29 June 2022) Crypto assets used in business, ATO Website, accessed 29 April 2024.
43. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Targeting scams: Report of the ACCC on scams activity 2022 (Report April 2023) 6, 11. 
44. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (January 2024), Interim Policy and Supervision Priorities update, APRA website, accessed 29 April 2024. 
45. Amber Warren, ‘New Regulation for Australia’s Digital Economy’, Dentons (21 March 2022). 
46. Philip Lowe, ‘An eAUD?’ (Speech, Address to the 2017 Australian Payment Summit, 13 December 2017).
47. australian-cbdc-pilot-for-digital-finance-innovation-white-paper.pdf (rba.gov.au)
48. A Tokenised Future for the Australian Financial System? | Speeches | RBA
49. Australian CBDC Pilot for Digital Finance Innovation - Project Report (rba.gov.au)