The Evolution of the Regulation of Digital Assets and Licenses in Panama

Over the past few years, virtual assets and online finance grew without pause and today occupy an ever-larger share of the international financial world. That growth calls for the regulation of digital assets to move forward hand in hand with government bodies, in order to create a safe environment for the individuals or legal entities taking part in this niche. The category covers cryptocurrencies, custodial arrangements, exchange platforms, and the tokenization of goods, among other value instruments. Panama faces the challenge of setting a legal structure that allows it to make the most of the opportunities in digital assets.

The isthmus brings together several features that turn it into an appealing spot for companies looking to establish a footprint tied to crypto-assets. Even so, a complete regulation of digital assets applicable to virtual asset service providers does not yet exist.

That gap does not leave activities unaddressed. Depending on the business model, each undertaking can fall under anti-money laundering rules, consumer protection, or games of chance (iGaming). A platform that facilitates cryptocurrency exchange does not carry the same obligations as a firm that receives funds or holds custody of third-party assets. This article walks through the current landscape and the background that shapes the regulation of digital assets in Panama.

Bill 697 of 2021

Bill 697 of 2021 ranks among the first serious attempts to bring order to virtual assets, and it marked an early milestone in the regulation of digital assets. Its proposal proved broad: it contemplated the voluntary use of certain crypto-assets as a means of payment, the issuance of encrypted value, the tokenization of precious metals, smart contracts, DAOs, and the use of blockchain technology within public administration. It pursued greater legal, regulatory, and tax certainty for a sector that, until then, functioned with few legal references.

Although the National Assembly gave it approval, the Executive Branch objected to it and brought it before the Supreme Court of Justice. Under a ruling dated June 6, 2023, the high court declared the entire text unconstitutional on grounds tied to its legislative process, so it never took effect.

Even so, that effort carried weight within this evolution. Bill 697 of 2021, more than a rejection of tokenized assets, reveals the difficulty of fitting a new industry into a regulatory structure designed before these activities existed. The proposals that followed kept part of that spirit, but began to approach the regulation of digital assets in a more targeted, area-by-area way.

• Name*
  First Last
• Email*
• Country of residence*
  AfghanistanÅland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos IslandsColombiaComorosCongo, Democratic Republic of theCongo, Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d'IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEswatini (Swaziland)EthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly SeeHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRéunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthélemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth GeorgiaSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUS Minor Outlying IslandsUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe

Bill 247 of 2025

Bill 247 of 2025, titled “Establishing the Regulatory Structure for the Use of Cryptocurrencies and Promoting Digital Assets in Panama,” picked the debate back up from an angle centered on the practical use of virtual currencies. The text aims to recognize their voluntary use, set conditions for their commercialization, and address user protection, the tax treatment of transactions, and the advancement of that ecosystem.

That endorsement under Bill 247 would not force individuals or businesses to accept them as payment. The goal consists of allowing those who choose to adopt them to do so under previously agreed rules, without losing contractual freedom, a distinction that the regulation of digital assets tends to protect.

However, authorizing those currencies does not amount to overseeing the firms that provide services around them. A direct exchange between two individuals carries different risks than those of a company that receives funds, holds balances in custody, or moves transfers on clients’ behalf. That gap kept alive the need for a rule dedicated to providers, something that drives digital assets forward and that the next legislative proposal later addressed.

Bill 326 of 2025

Bill 326 of 2025 opens a more precise phase within the subject, since its central goal is to build a structure for the registration, oversight, and control of Virtual Asset Service Providers, known as PSAV or VASP by its English acronym. Unlike previous attempts, the focus of the regulation of digital assets shifts away from the assets themselves and moves toward the companies that work around them.

This shift matters because a good part of the risk arises when a third party handles other people’s balances or acts on behalf of clients. That is why the text covers the exchange between virtual assets and legal tender, the swap of different tokens, transfers, custody, and administration. The regulation of digital assets, depending on the service, would tie providers to certain registration and monitoring requirements.

As of March 2026, Bill 326 of 2025 remained under study by a subcommittee of the Economy and Finance Committee. As a result, the regulation of digital assets does not yet offer a broad license under this proposal. Forming a Panamanian company or registering it with the Public Registry is also not enough, on its own, to obtain state approval authorizing virtual asset services.

A Regulatory Structure Under Construction for Digital Assets

Panama is going through a decisive moment regarding tokenized assets. The nation still lacks a general, current authorization for virtual asset service providers, though the bills under debate reveal a clear purpose to close that gap. A future digital assets law would need to bring these fronts together. Bill 697 sought to integrate multiple angles of digital assets into a single rule; Bill 247 targeted the use of cryptocurrencies; and Bill 326 moved toward concrete control over providers.

A modern, balanced regime aligned with international standards could strengthen the isthmus standing as a center for technology and financial services. The regulation of digital assets will pay off only if the new rules provide legal certainty and leave room to innovate in a responsible, supervised setting.

Legal Guidance on the Regulation of Digital Assets in Panama

If your company is considering offering virtual asset services or adapting its model to the digital assets law taking shape, professional guidance proves decisive while that structure takes form. At Kraemer & Kraemer, we examine your case against the current rules on money laundering, consumer protection, and iGaming.

Our team follows the regulation of digital assets closely to anticipate your duties and prepare your business. Contact us today to review your business project against the scenario ahead.