46 Amendments of France JAMET related to 2020/0265(COD)
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) In finance, crypto-assets are one of the major DLT applications. Crypto-assets are digital representations of value or rights that have the potential to bring significant benefits to both market participants and consumers. By streamlining capital-raising processes and enhancing competition, issuances of crypto-assets can allow for a cheaper, less burdensome and more inclusive way of financing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). When used as a means of payment, payment tokens canare meant to present opportunities in terms of cheaper, faster and more efficient payments, in particular on a cross- border basis, by limiting the number of intermediaries. However, crypto-assets as a means of payment give rise to legal and economic uncertainty in view of their considerable volatility and the possibility for firms to stop accepting them without notice.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Some crypto-assets qualify as financial instruments as defined in Article 4(1), point (15), of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council33. Because of the specific features linked to their innovative and technological aspects, however, it is necessary to clearly identify the requirements for classifying a crypto-asset as a financial instrument. For this purpose, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should be tasked by the European Commission with publishing guidelines in order to reduce legal uncertainty and guarantee a level playing field for market operators. The majority of crypto-assets, however, fall outside of the scope of Union legislation on financial services. There are no rules for services related to crypto-assets, including for the operation of trading platforms for crypto- assets, the service of exchanging crypto- assets against fiat currency or other crypto- assets, or the custody of crypto- assets. The lack of such rules leaves holders of crypto- assets exposed to risks, in particular in areas not covered by consumer protection rules. The lack of such rules can also lead to substantial risks to market integrity in the secondary market of crypto-assets, including market manipulation. To address those risks, some Member States have put in place specific rules for all – or a subset of – crypto-assets that fall outside Union legislation on financial services. Other Member States are considering to legislate in this area. _________________ 33Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349).
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The lack of an overall Union framework for crypto-assets can lead to a lack of users’ confidence in those assets, which will hinder the development of a market in those assets and can lead to missed opportunities in terms of innovative digital services, alternative payment instruments or new funding sources for Union companies. In addition, companies using crypto-assets will have no legal certainty on how their crypto-assets will be treated in the different Member States, which will undermine their efforts to use crypto-assets for digital innovation. The lack of an overall Union framework on crypto-assets could also lead to regulatory fragmentation, which will distort competition in the Single Market, make it more difficult for crypto-asset service providers to scale up their activities on a cross-border basis and will give rise to regulatory arbitrage. The crypto-asset market is still modest in size and does not yet pose a threat to financial stability. It is, however, likelyAs the crypto-asset market is increasingly accessible to individual investors, the issue of its impact on financial stability in the future must be addressed. It is possible that a subset of crypto- assets which aim to stabilise their price by linking their value to a specific asset or a basket of assets could be widely adopted by consumers. Such a development could raise additional challenges to financial stability, monetary policy transmission or monetary sovereignty.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) A dedicated and harmonised framework is therefore necessary at Union level to provide specific rules for crypto- assets and related activities and services and to clarify the applicable legal framework. Such harmonised framework should also cover services related to crypto-assets where these services are not yet covered by Union legislation on financial services. Such a framework should support innovation and fair competition, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection and market integrity in crypto-asset markets and respecting the sovereignty of the States. A clear framework should enable crypto-asset service providers to scale up their business on a cross-border basis and should facilitate their access to banking services to run their activities smoothly. It should also ensure financial stability and address monetary policy risks that could arise from crypto- assets that aim at stabilising their price by referencing a currency, an asset or a basket of such. While increasing consumer protection, market integrity and financial stability through the regulation of offers to the public of crypto-assets or services related to such crypto-assets, a Union framework on markets in crypto-assets should not regulate the underlying technology and should allow for the use of both permissionless and permission-based distributed ledgers.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Crypto-assets issued by central banks acting in their monetary authority capacityonsiders it necessary to carry out evaluations to determine whether virtual currency issues by the ECB or by other public authorities should not be subject to the Union framework covering crypto-assets, and neither should services related to crypto- assets that are provided by such central banks or other public authorities.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Any legislation adopted in the field of crypto-assets should be specific, future- proof and be able to keep pace with innovation and technological developments and be based on incentivising approaches in order to ensure a consistent national legal competence, as well as rapid development for the industry. ‘Crypto- assets’ and ‘distributed ledger technology’ should therefore be defined as widely as possible to capture all types of crypto- assets which currently fall outside the scope of current Union legislation on financial services. Such legislation should also contribute to the objective of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Any definition of ‘crypto-assets’ should therefore correspond to the definition of ‘virtual assets’ set out in the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)34. For the same reasonIn order to avoid damaging or infringing Member States’ national competences in relation to control over their fiscal and monetary policies, any list of crypto-asset services should also encompass virtual asset services that are likely to raise money- laundering concerns and that are identified as such by the FATF. _________________ 34FATF (2012-2019), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France (www.fatf- gafi.org/recommendations.html).
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Despite their similarities, electronic money and crypto-assets referencing a single fiat currency differ in some important aspectare two fundamentally different things. Holders of electronic money as defined in Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2009/110/EC are always provided with a claim on the electronic money institution and have a contractual right to redeem their electronic money at any moment against fiat currency that is legal tender at par value with that currency. By contrast, some of the crypto-assets referencing one fiat currency which is legal tender do not provide their holders with such a claim on the issuers of such assets and could fall outside the scope of Directive 2009/110/EC. Other crypto-asset referencing one fiat currency do not provide a claim at par with the currency they are referencing or limit the redemption period. The fact that holders of such crypto-assets do not have a claim on the issuers of such assets, or that such claim is not at par with the currency those crypto-assets are referencing, could undermine the confidence of users of those crypto-assets. To avoid circumvention of the rules laid down in Directive 2009/110/EC, any definition of ‘e-money tokens’ should be as wide as possible to capture all the types of crypto-assets referencing one single fiat currency that is legal tender. To avoid regulatory arbitrage, strict conditions on the issuance of e- money tokens should be laid down, including the obligation for such e-money tokens to be issued either by a credit institution as defined in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council36, or by an electronic money institution authorised under Directive 2009/110/EC. For the same reason, issuers of such e-money tokens should also grant the users of such tokens with a claim to redeem their tokens at any moment and at par value against the currency referencing those tokens. Because e-money tokens are also crypto-assets and can also raise new challenges in terms of consumer protection and market integrity specific to crypto-assets, they should also be subject to rules laid down in this Regulation to address these challenges to consumer protection and market integrity. _________________ 36Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Despite their similarities, electronic money and crypto-assets referencing a single fiat currency differ in some important aspects. Holders of electronic money as defined in Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2009/110/EC are always provided with a claim on the electronic money institution and have a contractual right to redeem their electronic money at any moment against fiat currency that is legal tender at par value with that currency. By contrast, some of the crypto-assets referencing one fiat currency which is legal tender do not provide their holders with such a claim on the issuers of such assets and could fall outside the scope of Directive 2009/110/EC. Other crypto-asset referencing one fiat currency do not provide a claim at par with the currency they are referencing or limit the redemption period. The fact that holders of such crypto-assets do not have a claim on the issuers of such assets, or that such claim is not at par with the currency those crypto-assets are referencing, could undermine the confidence of users of those crypto-assets. To avoid circumvention of the rules laid down in Directive 2009/110/EC, any definition of ‘e-money tokens’ should be as wide as possible to capture all the types of crypto-assets referencing one single fiat currency that is legal tender. To avoid regulatory arbitrage, strict conditions on the issuance of e- money tokens should be laid down, including the obligation for such e-money tokens to be issued either by a credit institution as defined in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council36, or by an electronic money institution authorised under Directive 2009/110/EC. For the same reason, issuers of such e-money tokens should also grant the users of such tokens with a claim to redeem their tokens at any moment and at par value against the currency referencing those tokens. E- money tokens should reference any global currency that is legal tender. Because e- money tokens are also crypto-assets and can also raise new challenges in terms of consumer protection and market integrity specific to crypto-assets, they should also be subject to rules laid down in this Regulation to address these challenges to consumer protection and market integrity. However, since the various crypto-assets pose different risks and challenges for national economies, partly because of unknown factors in determining their value, stabilising crypto-assets to a single legal currency provides more secure uses for consumers and investors. _________________ 36Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Notes that regulations confined to crypto-asset issuers alone do not resolve all the problems. Rules for holders of crypto-assets are vital, particularly in order to prevent market manipulation.
Amendment 94 #
(29) A competent authority should be obliged to refuse authorisation where the prospective issuer of asset-referenced tokens’ business model may pose a serious threat to financial stability, monetary policy transmission and monetary sovereignty. The competent authority should be obliged to consult the EBA and ESMA and, where the asset- referenced tokens isare referencing Union currencies, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central bank of issue of such currencies before granting an authorisation or refusing an authorisation. The EBA, ESMA, and, where applicable, the ECB and the national central banks should provide the competent authority with a non-bindingn opinion on the prospective issuer’s application. Opinions should be non- binding with the exception of those of the ECB and the Member States’ central banks on monetary policy enforcement and ensuring the secure handling of payments. Where authorising a prospective issuer of asset- referenced tokens, the competent authority should also approve the crypto-asset white paper produced by that entity. The authorisation by the competent authority should be valid throughout the Union and should allow the issuer of asset-referenced tokens to offer such crypto-assets in the Single Market and to seek an admission to trading on a trading platform for crypto- assets. In the same way, the crypto-asset white paper should also be valid for the entire Union, without possibility for Member States to impose additional requirements.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31 a (new)
Recital 31 a (new)
(31a) In order to strengthen investor protection, considers that all holders of crypto-assets exceeding a specific share of the crypto-asset market in question should have an obligation to declare this to the regulatory authorities and the issuer so that new entrants may be fully informed and in a position to appreciate the risks of market manipulation.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Issuers of asset-referenced tokens should have robust governance arrangements, including a clear organisational structure with well-defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility and effective processes to identify, manage, monitor and report the risks to which they are or might be exposed. The management body of such issuers and their shareholders should have good repute and sufficient expertise and be fit and probe properly equipperd for the purpose of anti- money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism. Issuers of asset- referenced tokens should also employ resources proportionate to the scale of their activities and should always ensure continuity and regularity in the performance of their activities. In order to prevent market manipulation, considers that it is the responsibility of the issuer or the platform for the purchase or trading of crypto-assets to maintain its services without undue interruptions. Considers that investors and consumers must be able to pursue remedies against an issuer or platform that has unilaterally interrupted its services following a market event, without having received authorisation for such action from the regulatory authority. For that purpose, issuers of asset- referenced tokens should establish a business continuity policy aimed at ensuring, in the case of an interruption to their systems and procedures, the performance of their core payment activities. Issuers of asset- referenced tokens should also have a strong internal control and risk assessment mechanism, as well as a system that guarantees the integrity and confidentiality of information received.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Crypto-asset services should only be provided by legal entities that have a registered office in a Member State, and thatre fiscally resident in that State and have been authorised as a crypto-asset service provider by the competent authority of the Member State where its registered office is located.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) Given the relatively small scale of crypto-asset service providers to date, the power to authorise and supervise such service providers should be conferred to national competent authorities. The authorisation should be granted, refused or withdrawn by the competent authority of the Member State where the entity has its registered office. Such an authorisation should indicate the crypto-asset services for which the crypto-asset service provider is authorised and should be valid for the entire Union.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) Crypto-asset service providers should be subject to strong organisational requirements. Their managers and main shareholders should be fit and properhave the competence required for the purpose of anti-money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism. Crypto-asset service providers should employ management and staff with adequate skills, knowledge and expertise and should take all reasonable steps to perform their functions, including through the preparation of a business continuity plan. They should have sound internal control and risk assessment mechanisms as well as adequate systems and procedures to ensure integrity and confidentiality of information received. Crypto-asset service providers should have appropriate arrangements to keep records of all transactions, orders and services related to crypto-assets that they provide. They should also have systems in place to detect potential market abuse committed by clients.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) Competent national authorities should be conferred with sufficient powers to supervise the issuance of crypto-assets, including asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens, as well as crypto-asset service providers, including the power to suspend or prohibit an issuance of crypto- assets or the provision of a crypto-asset service, and to investigate infringements of the rules on market abuse. Given the cross- border nature of crypto-asset markets, competent authorities should cooperate with each other to detect and deter any infringements of the legal framework governing crypto-assets and markets for crypto-assets. Competent authorities should also have the power to impose sanctions on issuers of crypto-assets, including asset-referenced tokens or e- money tokens and crypto-asset service providers.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) Significant asset-referenced tokens can be used as a means of exchange and to make large volumes of payment transactions on a cross-border basis. To avoid supervisory arbitrage across Member States, it is appropriate to assign to the EBA, in cooperation with Member States, the task of supervising the issuers of significant asset-referenced tokens, once such asset-referenced tokens have been classified as significant.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to persons that are engaged in the issuance or holding of crypto- assets or provide services related to crypto- assets in the Union.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point e
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point g
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point g
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point h
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point h
(h) providing paid advice on crypto- assets;
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 17
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 17
(17) ‘providing paid advice on crypto- assets’ means offering, giving or agreeing to givegiving personalised or specific recommendations to a third party, in exchange for remuneration, either at the third party’s request or on the initiative of the crypto- asset service provider providing the advice, concerning the acquisition or the sale of one or more crypto-assets, or the use of crypto-asset services;
Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The crypto-asset white paper shall not contain any assertions on the future value of the crypto-assets, other than the statement referred to in paragraph 5, unless the issuer of those crypto-assets can guarantee such future value and assumes legal liability if this guarantee is not met.
Amendment 337 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 9
Article 5 – paragraph 9
9. The crypto-asset white paper shall be drawn up in at least one of the official languages of the home Member State or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the offer to the public of the asset- referenced tokens is solely addressed to qualifiedinstitutional investors and the asset- referenced tokens can only be held by such qualifiedinstitutional investors.
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. The crypto-asset white paper shall be drawn up in at least one of the official languages of the home Member State or in a language customary in the sphere of international finance.
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 12 –subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 12 –subparagraph 1 – introductory part
12. The EBA, in close cooperation with ESMA and Member States, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum content of the governance arrangements on:
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) 25% of the average amount of the reserve assets referred to in Article 32.
Amendment 537 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 34 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 616 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the interconnectedness with the financial system and its potential for systemic risk.
Amendment 843 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 59 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Crypto-asset providers shall undertake to maintain continuity of their service and not to interrupt it because of a market event without having received the approval of the competent regulatory authority, failing which they may incur liability, particularly with regard to the rules on market manipulation.
Amendment 868 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Article 61 – paragraph 1
1. Members of the management body of crypto-asset service providers shall have the necessary good repute and competence, in terms of qualifications, experience and skills to perform their duties. They shall demonstrate that they are capable of committing sufficient time to effectively carry out their functions.
Amendment 871 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2
Article 61 – paragraph 2
2. Natural persons who either own, directly or indirectly, more than 20% of the crypto-asset service provider’s share capital or voting rights, or who exercise, by any other means, a power of control over the said crypto-asset service provider shall provide evidence that they have the necessary good repute and competence.
Amendment 920 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Article 68 – paragraph 2
2. These operating rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall be drafted in one of the official languages of the home Member States or in another language that is customary in the sphere of finance. Those operating rules shall be made public on the website of the crypto-asset service provider concerned.
Amendment 946 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – title
Article 73 – title
73 APaid advice on crypto-assets
Amendment 966 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title VI
Title VI
Prevention and Repression of Market Abuse involving crypto-assets
Amendment 967 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 76 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 76 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 973 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Amendment 991 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) disseminating information through the media, including the internet and social networks, or by any other means, which gives, or is likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of a crypto- asset, or is likely to secure, the price of one or several crypto-assets, at an abnormal or artificial level, including the dissemination of rumours, where the person who made the dissemination knew, or ought to have known, that the information was false or misleading;