Uruguay (UY)

Scope: This law is the Organic Charter of the Central Bank of Uruguay. It was amended to bring Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) under its regulatory scope, requiring them to obtain authorization to operate.

Gap or ambiguity: The law establishes a licensing framework for VASPs but lacks specific technical, security, or operational requirements. These details must be defined in future Central Bank regulations, creating an opportunity for certifiers to audit against forthcoming standards.

Gap or ambiguity: This 1948 law on financial corporations does not mention or contemplate crypto-assets, creating a gap regarding its applicability to the sector.

Scope: This text is the homepage for Uruguay's national AML/CFT body, SENACLAFT. It does not contain specific regulatory requirements for crypto-assets.

Scope: This 1995 law on the social security system does not contain any text related to crypto-assets or digital financial services.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is not a crypto-asset regulation and is completely silent on the matter, as it predates the technology.

Scope: This law addresses technical convergence for international tax transparency. The provided text does not contain any specific regulations for crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is entirely silent on the regulation of crypto-assets, virtual asset service providers, or related activities.

Scope: The provided text is a placeholder and does not contain substantive information about the regulation of crypto-assets.

Scope: This guidance from Uruguay's tax authority (DGI) classifies crypto-assets as 'incorporeal movable property' for tax purposes. It clarifies that crypto held in foreign wallets is typically considered a foreign-located asset.

Gap or ambiguity: The guidance does not define how to definitively determine the location or 'source' of a crypto-asset. The use of 'typically' for assets in foreign wallets creates ambiguity for determining tax liability under the territoriality principle.

Scope: This is a general law for the promotion and protection of investments from 2008 and does not contain specific provisions for crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The law does not address crypto-assets, as it predates their widespread adoption. There is a complete regulatory gap concerning specific requirements for this asset class within this text.

Scope: This 1998 law modifies the Wealth Tax. The provided text does not contain the articles of the law itself.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is a metadata shell and does not contain any substantive articles of the law, making it impossible to analyze for regulatory signals related to crypto-assets.

Scope: The provided text is a metadata entry for a 1997 National Budget Law and does not contain any substantive articles related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The text is a metadata stub and lacks any regulatory content, making it impossible to identify any gaps or ambiguities.

Scope: This is Uruguay's foundational Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (AML/CFT) law. It defines obligated entities and their duties for customer due diligence (CDD), monitoring, and suspicious transaction reporting.

Gap or ambiguity: The law provides a general AML/CFT framework but lacks specific rules for the crypto-asset sector. This creates ambiguity in applying principles like CDD or the Travel Rule to virtual asset service providers (VASPs).

Scope: This law regulates the fuel market in Uruguay. It does not contain any provisions related to crypto-assets or virtual asset service providers.

Gap or ambiguity: The text is not applicable to the crypto-asset sector, as its scope is explicitly limited to fuel market regulation.

Scope: This 2008 law governs the general cooperative system in Uruguay. The provided text does not contain specific articles or mention crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is a metadata stub and does not contain the law's articles. It is completely silent on crypto-assets, as expected from a 2008 general cooperative law.

Scope: This 1993 law regulates the insurance sector. The provided text does not contain specific articles related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The law predates the existence of crypto-assets and therefore does not address them, creating a regulatory gap for related activities.

Scope: This law establishes a legal framework for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), bringing them under the supervision of the Central Bank of Uruguay (BCU). It distinguishes between financial virtual assets, which are subject to prudential regulation, and non-financial ones.

Gap or ambiguity: The law distinguishes between 'financial' and 'non-financial' virtual assets, but the specific criteria for this classification are not detailed. This creates uncertainty about which assets and services fall under the stricter prudential supervision of the BCU.

Scope: This 2006 law enacts a major tax reform, creating the Personal Income Tax (IRPF) and modifying other taxes. It does not contain any provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The law is entirely silent on the regulation and taxation of crypto-assets, as it was enacted before their widespread adoption.

Scope: This law modifies the 'Monotributo' simplified tax regime. The provided text does not contain any articles or mention of crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is a metadata stub, not the full legal text, making it impossible to analyze for regulatory gaps or opportunities.

Scope: This law addresses national accountability and budget execution. The provided text does not contain any specific provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text does not regulate crypto-assets, so no specific regulatory gaps or ambiguities concerning this sector can be identified within it.

Scope: Based on its title, this decree regulates VAT refunds for tourists and does not pertain to crypto-assets. The provided body text contains no substantive information.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is an internal analysis template, not the legal norm itself. It is entirely irrelevant to crypto-asset regulation.

Scope: The provided text is a general budget law from 2012 and does not contain any provisions related to the regulation of crypto-assets.

Scope: This law addresses the national budget and fiscal accountability for 2015 and does not contain any provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is completely silent on the regulation of crypto-assets, as its scope is limited to public finance.

Scope: This is a proposed regulation for Virtual Asset Service Providers (PSAVF). It establishes a prior authorization regime with minimum capital, guarantee, cybersecurity, custody, and AML requirements.

Gap or ambiguity: The regulation mentions general cybersecurity and custody requirements. However, it does not specify the technical standards or frameworks, creating an opportunity for certifiers to provide assurance.

Scope: This law is a 2009 budget and accountability act and does not contain any provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text does not regulate crypto-assets, therefore it presents no specific regulatory gaps or ambiguities for this sector.

Scope: This law modifies the composition of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay and does not contain provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text does not contain the substantive articles of the law, making it impossible to analyze for specific crypto-asset regulations or gaps.

Scope: This law establishes a registration regime for the public offering of securities in Uruguay, supervised by the Superintendency of Financial Services (SSF). It was updated to explicitly cover securities issued on DLT, treating them as a form of book-entry security.

Gap or ambiguity: The law introduces 'decentralized book-entry securities' (DLT-based) but leaves the specific technical and security standards for these systems to future regulation by the Central Bank. This creates an opportunity for certifiers to assess compliance against forthcoming standards.

Scope: The law's title indicates a comprehensive anti-money laundering framework. The provided text does not contain the law's articles, so its specific scope is undetermined.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is only metadata and does not contain the articles of the law. It is impossible to determine if or how this AML law applies to crypto-assets.

Scope: The provided text is a metadata block, not the legal norm itself. It contains no substantive information about the regulation.

Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is a metadata block and does not contain the actual regulatory text, so no gaps can be identified.

Scope: This is a general law from 1989 that regulates commercial companies in Uruguay. The text does not contain any provisions related to crypto-assets.

Gap or ambiguity: The law was enacted before the existence of crypto-assets and therefore does not address them. This creates a complete regulatory gap regarding specific obligations for virtual asset service providers.