From the journal

Australia: 30 June 2026 deadline for digital asset firms to apply for an AFS licence

ASIC has set 30 June 2026 as the cut-off for digital asset financial service providers in Australia to apply for an Australian Financial Services licence, or risk operating in breach of the law.

2 min read

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has flagged 30 June 2026 as a key date. By that date, providers of services involving digital asset financial products must apply for an Australian Financial Services licence. The same deadline applies to firms seeking a variation of an existing licence.

A framework set by the 2026 Act

The deadline sits inside the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026. Parliament passed the Act on 1 April 2026. Royal Assent followed on 8 April. The substantive provisions commence on 9 April 2027. ASIC is using a no action position to give industry an 18 month window to align with the new regime.

ASIC has updated its guidance on which products are now treated as financial products. Stablecoins, wrapped tokens, tokenised securities and digital asset wallets all fall inside the perimeter. Any firm offering services in relation to these products should assess whether an AFS authorisation is required.

The cost of missing the date

Firms that should hold a licence but fail to apply risk operating in breach of the financial services laws. Civil and criminal penalties are available. Fines reach up to ten percent of annual turnover for serious non compliance.

Operators of an Australian Market Licence or a Clearing and Settlement facility face an extra step. They must notify ASIC in writing of their intention to apply, and hold a pre meeting with the regulator. Both must happen by 30 June 2026.

What firms should do now

For digital asset firms active in Australia, this is a planning issue rather than a wait and see issue. The next two months should be used to scope the regulatory analysis. Application packages should be prepared in parallel. Where the licensing position is unclear, early engagement with ASIC is the practical course.

The full ASIC roadmap and the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 are published on the ASIC website and the Federal Register of Legislation. Those remain the authoritative sources.

CryptoAustraliaLicensing

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).

Illia Prokopiev

Stablecoin regulation in the US, Hong Kong and Singapore

Stablecoin and digital-token regulation now combines market-entry authorization with continuous financial-crime controls in daily operations. The question is whether the United States’ proposed payment-stablecoin customer identification program, Hong Kong’s narrow first licensing round, and Singapore’s digital payment token (DPT) directory support a bank-like compliance characterization. They do, with material limits. The more accurate proposition is that compliance is moving beyond approval into continuous financial-institution-grade operations.