The Picture in 2026
Panama offers crypto businesses a USD-denominated structure with a 25% corporate tax limited to Panama-source income, no dedicated virtual-asset licence to obtain, and a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the proposed 2022 framework. As of 2026, no successor bill has reached the floor for a vote.
The territorial principle looks automatic until you hit the DGI’s substance test: a Panama entity with Panama-resident developers or Panama-based operating teams faces 25% tax on foreign-customer revenue, not 0%. Panama works as a treasury or IP layer because the jurisdiction taxes where the work is done, not where the customer sits, so structure substance outside Panama if the rate matters to you.
Panama has used the US dollar as legal tender alongside the balboa since 1904. For crypto operators that means a USD-denominated holding or operating vehicle with no currency conversion friction and no dependence on a domestic central bank policy decision. The territorial tax principle in Article 694 of the Código Fiscal exempts foreign-source income from Panamanian corporate tax, so an entity that earns trading, exchange or treasury revenue economically outside Panama carries no tax liability inside the country.
The defining regulatory fact is what is absent. The Asamblea Nacional approved the 2022 Ley de Criptoactivos, but the Corte Suprema de Justicia declared the entire project inexequible “por razones de forma” on 6 June 2023, on the procedural ground that the Asamblea had introduced amendments beyond the scope of the Executive’s objections. A successor, Proyecto de Ley 247, was presented in March 2025 but has not been approved in any debate. Treat it as pending legislation, not current law. The prudent assumption is that some version will eventually pass, so a structure built today should be ready to apply for whatever authorisation emerges.
Panama suits a defined profile: founders targeting non-EU customers, treasury structures for tokens issued elsewhere, payment-processor and OTC infrastructure serving Latin American flows, and IP-holding vehicles where substance sits outside Panama. It does not suit institutional custodians needing a regulator-issued custody licence, businesses prioritising EU market access, or operators whose counterparties demand a supervised regime. Where any of those apply, a licensed jurisdiction is the better answer, and we deliver crypto licensing in several of them.
Regulatory Framework
Panama has no dedicated crypto regulatory framework in force. Crypto operations rely on Decreto Ley 1 of 1999 (securities, applicable only where a token meets the “valor” test), Ley 23 of 2015 (AML/CFT), Ley 32 of 1927 (corporate vehicles) and Ley 129 of 2020 (beneficial-ownership registry). The SMV has confirmed in four opinions that cryptocurrencies are not securities and fall outside its perimeter.
Four Regulators, No VASP Supervisor
Panama has not designated a single VASP supervisor. Four authorities touch the crypto perimeter from different angles:
- Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (SMV) regulates securities under Decreto Ley 1 of 1999. It has issued four formal opinions (2018 through 2025) concluding that cryptocurrencies are not “valores”. The most recent clarified that non-custodial crypto exchange and custody facilitation needs no SMV licence, and that licensed casas de valores may not custody crypto for clients.
- Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) supervises banks and other financial obligated subjects under Ley 23 of 2015. Its foundational public position, declining direct regulatory authority over crypto activity, dates from 2018 and has not been revisited.
- Unidad de Análisis Financiero (UAF) is Panama’s financial intelligence unit, receiving suspicious-transaction reports and coordinating with international FIUs across both financial and non-financial obligated subjects.
- Superintendencia de Sujetos No Financieros (SSNF), within the Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas, supervises designated non-financial businesses and administers the Registro Único de Beneficiarios Finales (RUBF) under Ley 129 of 2020.
VASP activity is not currently enumerated in Article 23 of Ley 23 of 2015. The practical effect is that a Panama crypto company has no specific supervisor checking its AML programme, until either Ley 23 is amended to add VASPs or a new regime is created.
Where Securities Law Still Bites
A token that meets the definition of “valor” under Decreto Ley 1 of 1999 (typically equity, debt, a profit-share or a derivative) triggers full SMV jurisdiction: prospectus, registration and intermediary licensing all apply. The common mistake is assuming the SMV’s “not a valor” position covers every token design. It does not; the test is applied token by token. There is also no Panama framework specific to stablecoins, so an issuer that does not take deposits or extend credit sits outside both the Banking Law and Securities Law perimeters as currently interpreted.
How Crypto Is Treated Without a Licence
Panama issues no dedicated crypto licence. Crypto activity is treated under four parallel perimeters: securities law (only where a token is a valor); AML obligations (only where the operator is an enumerated obligated subject, which crypto businesses currently are not); banking law (only where the activity constitutes banking); and the general corporate and tax framework that applies to every Panama company.
| Perimeter | Governing law | What it means for a crypto business |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | Decreto Ley 1 of 1999 | SMV registration and intermediary licensing apply only where a token meets the “valor” test. Most native, utility and payment tokens do not. |
| AML/CFT | Ley 23 of 2015 | Crypto/VASP activity is not currently enumerated as an obligated subject. Pure exchange or custody operators are not formally obligated, though banking onboarding triggers de-facto AML standards. |
| Banking | Banking Law of 2008 (as reformed) | Exchange, custody and OTC do not constitute banking. A stablecoin issuer that does not take deposits sits outside the perimeter. |
| Corporate & Tax | Ley 32 of 1927 (S.A.); Código Fiscal | Standard resident-agent, accounting (Ley 52 of 2016, Ley 254 of 2021), beneficial-ownership (Ley 129 of 2020) and territorial-tax obligations always apply. |
Without a licence, a Panama Sociedad Anónima can conduct non-custodial exchange and brokerage, custody for non-Panama clients, OTC trading, token treasury management, IP holding for blockchain protocols, payment-processor activity that does not constitute banking, and consulting or SaaS provision. The honest reading is that a Panama structure is best understood as the operating or treasury layer for a business whose customers and substance sit elsewhere, not a standalone regulatory anchor a counterparty bank or institutional investor can rely on.
Structure and Requirements
Panama imposes no crypto-specific operating requirements. Standard corporate requirements apply to the Sociedad Anónima: a Panamanian resident agent, a minimum of three directors, beneficial-ownership registration via the RUBF within 15 business days, and accounting records under Ley 52 of 2016 as amended. There is no minimum capital, no fit-and-proper review and no regulator timeline, because no authorisation is granted.
| Requirement | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Resident agent | Mandatory Panamanian abogado or law firm holding idoneidad |
| Minimum directors | 3 (any nationality) |
| Minimum shareholders | 1 (corporate or individual; any nationality) |
| Authorised share capital | USD 10,000 standard (not required to be paid in) |
| Beneficial-ownership register | Resident agent files via RUBF within 15 business days; updates within 5 business days of any change |
| Accounting records | 5-year retention; annual submission to resident agent by 30 April |
| AML/CFT programme | Not legally mandated for VASPs; de facto required for banking onboarding |
| Fit-and-proper / capital adequacy | Not applicable (no licence issued) |
| Local office / local director | Not required for offshore-only operations |
No regulator applies a fit-and-proper review, but experienced operators still prepare a fit-and-proper-equivalent file (background checks on directors and beneficial owners, source-of-funds documentation, audited financials where available), because banking onboarding applies essentially the same standard a regulator would. The resident agent is the only mandatory local presence; it files the RUBF entry, holds the corporate book and receives any official notification.
On AML, crypto and VASP activity is not currently enumerated as an obligated subject under Ley 23 of 2015, and there is no statutory Travel Rule for Panama VASPs. In practice, banks and EMIs onboarding the business apply institutional AML standards by extension, so a full compliance set (AML manual, risk assessment, sanctions screening, KYC/KYB, transaction monitoring and SAR/STR procedures) is the practical onboarding gate even though no Panama supervisor reviews it.
Taxation
Panama applies a 25% corporate income tax to Panama-source income only, exempting foreign-source income under the territorial principle in Article 694 of the Código Fiscal. ITBMS (VAT) of 7% applies to Panama-source sales above USD 36,000 annual turnover. The DGI has not issued specific guidance on crypto income, so the general territorial framework governs.
The territorial principle is the substantive advantage, but it is not a blanket exemption. The DGI applies a substance-and-source test: income from activities performed inside Panama is Panama-source even where the customer is foreign, and income from activities performed outside Panama is foreign-source even where the customer is Panamanian. A Panama crypto operator with Panama-resident developers and Panama-located operating substance does not get a blanket 0% rate on its foreign-customer revenue. The annual tasa única franchise tax of USD 300 applies to every entity regardless of source, alongside an annual income-tax return and ITBMS returns where registered.
On transparency, Panama signed the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework agreement (CARF-MCAA) and the Addendum to the Common Reporting Standard agreement (CRS-MCAA) on 2 December 2025. First effective CARF exchange is expected for the 2027 reporting year, subject to domestic implementation legislation that has not yet been enacted. This aligns Panama with the OECD transparency standard institutional counterparties now expect.
Banking
Banking access is the practical constraint in Panama, even though no statute prohibits crypto-business banking. Local banks apply enhanced due diligence to crypto-facing applicants, and the absence of a licence makes onboarding harder, not easier, because there is no authorisation to present. The dollarised system removes currency conversion friction but does not lower onboarding bars.
Local banking access tends to be binary: either a bank’s risk appetite includes the customer profile, or it does not. The de-risking reflex amplified by Panama’s historical listings is fading but has not disappeared, so most operators run a multi-layer architecture rather than a single account: a selective Panama account for local obligations; one or more accounts with a licensed EU EMI for customer flows; regional Latin American banking for LatAm fiat corridors; and stablecoin rails for cross-border settlement.
Banking is one of our core services. Where we deliver formation or licensing, we help clients structure and approach a credible banking architecture as part of the engagement, always through credit institutions and licensed EMIs we work with directly. We never name banks publicly and we never offload a client to an unverified introducer.
International Standing
Panama is currently clear of the major international AML watchlists. The Financial Action Task Force removed Panama from its “Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring” list on 27 October 2023, alongside Albania, the Cayman Islands and Jordan, after a multi-year remediation programme. The European Commission then removed Panama from the EU AML high-risk third-country list via Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184 of 10 June 2025, published in the Official Journal on 9 July 2025. As of 2026, Panama is on neither list and remains subject to the GAFILAT mutual-evaluation cycle.
EU Market Access
A Panama crypto entity confers no EU passporting rights; MiCA has no third-country equivalence regime. Article 61 permits third-country firms to serve EU clients only on the client’s genuinely unsolicited initiative, and ESMA’s guidelines read this narrowly: EU-targeted marketing, EU-language content, geo-targeted advertising or EU-based influencers all void it. It is meant for isolated contacts, not systematic market access. Operators with a material EU customer base need a CASP authorisation in an EU member state, which is exactly the kind of work we deliver. See Reverse Solicitation Under MiCA →.
Strengths and Limits
Panama trades institutional regulatory weight for cost, speed and territorial-tax efficiency. The strengths are real for operators whose customers and substance sit outside Panama; the limits matter most for operators needing a regulator-issued authorisation for institutional counterparties or EU market access.
- No dedicated crypto licence required. No application fee, no minimum capital, no regulator-set timeline, no fit-and-proper review.
- Territorial tax system. Foreign-source income is exempt under Article 694 of the Código Fiscal; Panama-source income is taxed at 25%.
- USD as legal tender. No currency conversion friction; the accounting and correspondent banking infrastructure runs in USD.
- Fast, low-cost setup. The corporate vehicle forms in a few weeks, with no licensing process to clear.
- FATF and EU AML clear. Off the FATF grey list since 2023 and the EU high-risk list since 2025; correspondent banking has largely normalised.
- × No regulator-issued authorisation. Counterparties and institutional investors who require one will find Panama insufficient. Better fit: a supervised regime such as a MiCA CASP for EU scope, structured alongside Panama only as a treasury layer.
- × No EU passporting. A Panama entity cannot market crypto-asset services to EU clients without breaching MiCA. Better fit: a CASP authorisation in an EU member state for full passporting.
- × Restrictive local banking. Panama banks apply enhanced due diligence; account opening can fail on customer-base geography or sector grounds. Mitigation: plan a multi-layer banking architecture from the start rather than relying on a single account.
- × Legislative uncertainty. A future bill may create a regime that retroactively requires AML, capital or supervisory upgrades. Mitigation: build the AML programme to the FATF Recommendation 15 standard from day one so any future regime can be entered without restructuring.
- × Reputational distance. Panama still carries weight from the 2016 Panama Papers and historical listings, even though both lists are now cleared. Mitigation: position Panama as a structuring or treasury jurisdiction, with operating substance and customer-facing brand located elsewhere.
How Panama Compares
Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Cayman Islands form a Central American and Caribbean cluster with sharply different regulatory postures. Panama and Costa Rica share the no-dedicated-licence posture; El Salvador has a real CNAD-led licensing regime; Cayman has the institutional-weight VASP Act. Estonia anchors the EU-MiCA comparison.
| Factor | Panama | Costa Rica | El Salvador | Cayman Islands | Estonia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licence Type | No dedicated crypto licence | No dedicated crypto licence (Bill 22.837 pending) | CNAD PSAD/PSB licence | VASP Registration (Phase 1) or VASP Licence (Phase 2) | MiCA CASP authorisation |
| Regulator | None designated for VASPs | None designated (SUGEF for AML if Bill 22.837 enacted) | Comisión Nacional de Activos Digitales (CNAD) | CIMA | Finantsinspektsioon |
| Timeline | 2–4 weeks corporate setup; no regulator timeline | 2–6 weeks corporate setup; no regulator timeline | 60–120 business days for CNAD authorisation | 6–9 months (Phase 1); 9–12 months (Phase 2 licence) | 6–12 months for MiCA CASP authorisation |
| Min. Capital | No fixed minimum | No fixed minimum | USD 250,000 (PSAD); USD 50,000 (PSB) | USD 100,000 typical for VASP Phase 2 | EUR 50,000–150,000 (MiCA Article 67) |
| Total Year 1 Cost | USD 8,000–25,000 | USD 6,000–20,000 (similar absence-of-licence cost stack) | USD 80,000–200,000 (regulator-supervised regime) | USD 75,000–200,000 (regulator-supervised regime) | EUR 150,000–400,000 (full MiCA process) |
| Corporate Tax | 25% on Panama-source only (territorial) | 30% on Costa Rica-source only (territorial) | 30% standard (with digital-asset incentives under LEAD) | 0% (Cayman has no corporate tax) | 0% retained earnings; 22%/78% on distribution |
| Local Presence | Resident agent + 3 directors | Resident agent + 1 director | Local presence + designated compliance officer | Local registered office, 3 directors, 1 independent (Phase 2) | UAB + local director + local AML officer for CASP |
| EU Passporting | No (reverse solicitation Article 61 only) | No (reverse solicitation Article 61 only) | No (reverse solicitation Article 61 only) | No (reverse solicitation Article 61 only) | Yes (MiCA passport to 30 EEA states) |
| FATF Status | Clear (October 2023 delisting) | Not on FATF grey list | Not on FATF grey list; under increased dialogue | Clear (October 2023 delisting) | EU/FATF member |
| Best For | USD treasury, LatAm flows, IP holding, low-cost setup | Similar profile to Panama, slightly cheaper | Operators seeking real authorisation + LatAm anchor | Institutional custody, fund infrastructure | EU customer access, MiCA passporting |
Panama and Costa Rica are the closest peer pair: both sit in the structuring quadrant rather than the licence-acquisition quadrant, with Panama’s USD legal tender as the main differentiator. El Salvador, with its real PSAD/PSB regime under the Ley de Emisión de Activos Digitales, is the credible peer for operators who want a genuine Latin American authorisation; Panama is the lighter-touch operating layer.
When Panama Fits, and When It Does Not
Panama fits where your substance, customers and counterparties sit outside Panama, a USD structure matters, no counterparty demands a regulator-issued authorisation, and you can accept the uncertainty around a future crypto law. A licensed jurisdiction is the better answer where you need institutional custody at scale (consider Cayman), a material EU customer base (an EU MiCA CASP, which we deliver), or a regulator-issued Latin American authorisation (El Salvador). If EU clients matter, license properly rather than relying on reverse solicitation as a marketing channel; treating Article 61 that way exposes operators to enforcement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is crypto legal in Panama?
Yes. Cryptocurrency activity is not prohibited in Panama. The Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores has issued four formal opinions confirming that cryptocurrencies are not “valores” under Decreto Ley 1 of 1999 and therefore fall outside SMV jurisdiction. The Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá has not asserted supervisory authority over crypto activity since its 2018 communiqué. There is no Panama law that prohibits crypto exchange, custody, OTC trading or token issuance, but there is also no Panama law that creates a dedicated VASP authorisation regime.
Is there a crypto licence in Panama?
No. Panama issues no dedicated crypto or VASP licence as of 2026. The 2022 Ley Cripto was declared inexequible in full by the Corte Suprema de Justicia on 6 June 2023, and the successor bill (Proyecto de Ley 247, presented March 2025) has not advanced beyond commission. Crypto businesses use a standard Sociedad Anónima and operate within general corporate, securities and AML law. There is no application fee, no minimum capital and no fit-and-proper review, because no authorisation is granted.
Is crypto income taxed in Panama?
Panama applies a territorial tax system. Foreign-source income is exempt from the 25% corporate tax under Article 694 of the Código Fiscal; Panama-source income is taxed at 25%. The DGI has not issued specific public guidance on crypto income as of 2026, so the general territorial framework applies: crypto income earned through activities performed outside Panama is foreign-source and exempt, while income from activities performed inside Panama is Panama-source and taxed. ITBMS (VAT) of 7% applies to Panama-source sales above USD 36,000 annual turnover.
Can a Panama crypto company serve EU clients?
A Panama crypto entity has no EU passporting rights. MiCA contains no third-country equivalence regime, so there is no mechanism for the European Commission to recognise a non-EU licence as equivalent to a MiCA CASP authorisation. MiCA Article 61 permits third-country firms to serve EU clients only when the client initiates contact entirely on their own initiative, and ESMA’s guidelines interpret this exemption restrictively: any EU-targeted marketing, EU-language website content, geo-targeted advertising or use of EU-based influencers voids it. Operators seeking systematic EU market access should obtain a separate CASP authorisation in an EU member state. See Reverse Solicitation Under MiCA →.
Is Panama still on the FATF grey list?
No. The Financial Action Task Force removed Panama from its “Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring” list on 27 October 2023, alongside Albania, the Cayman Islands and Jordan. Panama was also removed from the EU AML high-risk third-country list via Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184 of 10 June 2025, published in the Official Journal on 9 July 2025. As of 2026, Panama is clear of both lists.
What happens if Panama passes a crypto law?
If Proyecto de Ley 247 or a successor is approved and signed into law, Panama will create a dedicated VASP or crypto-asset service provider authorisation regime. Existing operators would be subject to whatever transition window the law specifies (typically 6–18 months for FATF-compliant regimes) before applying for the new authorisation. Operators who build their AML programme to the FATF Recommendation 15 standard from the start are positioned to enter any future regime without restructuring. As of 2026 the bill has not advanced beyond commission prohijado.
Is Panama the right base for you?
We can tell you whether a Panama structure fits your operation or whether a licensed jurisdiction serves you better, and then deliver it. We obtain crypto licences in Lithuania, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Poland and Switzerland, and we form companies in Panama itself.
Banking & Payments
A company and a licence still need a bank account
Banking is one of our three core services. We help high-risk and regulated businesses open the bank and payment accounts that others refuse: we work directly with EU EMIs, payment institutions and crypto-aware banks, confirm appetite before you apply, and make the introduction. Take it with your company and licence, or on its own.
Related
- Panama Company Formation: Sociedad Anónima setup, which we do deliver
- Crypto Licensing Overview: the jurisdictions where we obtain authorisations
- Reverse Solicitation Under MiCA: EU market access for non-EU operators
- High-Risk Business Solutions: structuring for high-risk verticals