Cryptocurrency Payment Entry License Premium Selection — Australia DCE

This license is essential for businesses looking to implement secure and compliant cryptocurrency payment solutions in Australia. The DCE (Digital Currency Exchange) license from Australia provides a trusted framework for operating legally within the country’s regulatory environment. Obtaining this license demonstrates your commitment to security, transparency, and adherence to local laws, helping to build customer trust and expand your market reach. Whether you're a startup or an established enterprise, securing the DCE license is a strategic step toward integrating digital currency payments into your services efficiently and confidently.

null

Original author: Shao Jiadian Lawyer

Introduction

In recent years, during the compliance discussions surrounding crypto payments and stablecoin projects, the Australian DCE (Digital Currency Exchange) has often been viewed as a relatively “friendly” entry point: no financial license is required, as long as registration is completed with AUSTRAC and an anti-money laundering system is established, enabling the exchange of cryptocurrencies and fiat currency.

However, if we continue to interpret it this way at the 2026 time point, our judgments may be biased. Because what is happening in Australian regulation is not an adjustment of a single “license,” but a reconstruction of the overall regulatory logic for virtual asset services.

The real question to answer has shifted from “Is DCE easy to do?” to: Under the new regulatory framework, what is DCE’s position? What problems can it still solve, and what problems is it clearly unable to solve?

Legal positioning of current Australian DCE: Anti-Money Laundering (AML) supervision status, not a financial license

Under the current system, the so-called “Australian DCE” is primarily based on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act) and its supporting regulations. Legally, DCE is not a financial service license under the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001, nor does it mean that the enterprise is recognized as a financial institution. Its essence is: when a company provides exchange services between digital currencies and fiat currency for others, it is incorporated into AUSTRAC’s AML supervision system and becomes a reporting entity.

The focus of this supervision is very clear:

• Whether the enterprise performs customer identification (KYC/CDD);
• Whether it can monitor transactions and identify anomalies;
• Whether it fulfills ongoing obligations such as suspicious transaction reporting.

At this stage, AUSTRAC does not make value judgments on the business model itself, nor does it review whether the enterprise is “suitable” to engage in such business. The regulatory logic is typical ex post (post-event) supervision: allowing the market to operate first, then correcting through law enforcement, audits, and penalties. It is in this regulatory context that DCE has long been used as a compliance “entry” point for crypto payments, OTC, stablecoin payments, and other projects.

Key change in 2026: Upgrading the AML/CTF framework and “registration confirmation” mechanism

The real turning point comes from a systematic revision of Australia’s AML/CTF regime. At the end of 2024, Australia passed the AML/CTF Amendment Act 2024, and with the support of the Department of Home Affairs and AUSTRAC, updated supporting regulations, explicitly incorporating virtual asset-related designated services into the AML supervision framework more systematically. According to the announced implementation schedule, a key reform milestone related to virtual assets is set for March 31, 2026. This round of reforms brings at least three substantive changes:

1. The scope of supervision expands from “DCE single point” to “virtual asset service collection.” Fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat exchanges remain under supervision, but are no longer the sole core. Exchanges between virtual assets, value transfers, payment executions, and other behaviors are also included in AUSTRAC’s risk assessment and supervision scope.

2. The regulatory pace shifts from ex post to ex ante. Under the new framework, merely completing enrollment (registration) is no longer sufficient to qualify for business operations. For relevant virtual asset services, enterprises must obtain AUSTRAC’s registration confirmation before providing services.

3. The compliance focus shifts from “whether registered” to “whether capable of sustainable compliance.” AUSTRAC’s concern is no longer just formal compliance documents but whether enterprises truly understand their service types, fund flows, and risk exposures, and whether they have the capacity to continuously fulfill AML/CTF obligations.

This means that the previous “launch first, then supplement compliance” space has been significantly compressed at the institutional level.

Changes in the role of DCE: from “pass” to “service type label”

Under the new AML/CTF structure, DCE will not be abolished, but its legal significance has changed. Before 2026, “whether holding a DCE registration” was almost equivalent to “whether one can legally conduct crypto exchange business in Australia”; after 2026, a more accurate positioning of DCE is as a specific service type within the AUSTRAC virtual asset service supervision system. Whether a company can operate legally depends on three more substantive issues:

• What virtual asset-related services are actually provided;
• Whether these services have obtained registration confirmation;
• Whether the AML/CTF system matches the service risks.

In this context, simply emphasizing “whether DCE exists” is no longer sufficient to fully describe a company’s compliance status.

Second regulatory line: Why does ASIC need to introduce the “Digital Asset Platform and Custody” framework

If AUSTRAC’s reform addresses “whether funds flow compliantly,” then ASIC’s core concern is: who holds and controls assets for clients, and who bears legal responsibility when risks occur. This logic is reflected in the Australian Treasury’s 2025 release of the “Regulating Digital Asset Platforms–Exposure Draft Legislation.” The draft proposes amending the Corporations Act 2001 to explicitly include certain types of digital asset platforms and custody arrangements within the financial products and services regulatory framework. The regulatory approach adopted is not centered on “whether virtual assets are securities,” but on functions and control rights. The key judgments are:

• Whether the platform holds private keys on behalf of clients;
• Whether it manages account balances or internal ledgers;
• Whether it has substantive control over asset transfers.

Once the business touches on these elements, the legal role of the platform is no longer just a technical intermediary or AML obligor but enters the realm of “managing assets for clients” financial services, usually requiring an AFSL and subject to stricter conduct, governance, and client asset protection requirements.

Australia’s virtual asset regulation: the critical dividing line

Australia adopts a highly functional layered regulation for virtual assets. The core judgment is not whether virtual assets are involved but whether the platform begins to manage and control assets on behalf of others. When the business only involves exchange, transfer, or payment execution of virtual assets, the main risk is fund flow compliance, and the focus is naturally on AML and counter-terrorism financing. Such businesses can operate by completing registration with AUSTRAC, obtaining registration confirmation, and continuously fulfilling AML/CTF obligations.

However, once the business model evolves to holding private keys for clients, centrally managing assets, or forming client balance rights through account arrangements, the risk nature changes. At this point, client reliance on platform credit becomes a core issue, and the relevant business will no longer be just an AML obligor but must fall under ASIC’s financial services regulatory framework and obtain an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL).

In other words, simple value transfer is under AUSTRAC; once managing assets for others, it must enter ASIC’s financial services regulation track. This dividing line constitutes the basic logic of Australia’s virtual asset regulatory system.

Standing at the beginning of 2026, is it still necessary to complete DCE registration now?

In this context, whether to “register DCE now” is no longer a matter of right or wrong but a phased strategic choice. For enterprises with a clear plan to conduct long-term genuine crypto exchange or payment business in Australia, and with a relatively clear business model, completing the current DCE registration early still has practical significance: it helps establish a compliance record, initiate AML/CTF systems early, and lay the foundation for subsequent registration confirmation.

But it must be clearly understood: the current DCE can only be regarded as a transitional base, not the final compliance after 2026. Whether registered now or not, in the future, enterprises will inevitably need to complete registration confirmation under the new framework and accept more proactive regulatory scrutiny.

The core of Australia’s path: not DCE, but the regulatory logic itself

If we are to give a higher-level judgment on Australia’s virtual asset regulation, the conclusion might be: Australia is not trying to solve all problems with a new license but is gradually incorporating virtual asset services into the existing legal system through functional layering. DCE still exists, but it is only an entry label within this system. The real determinant of compliance pathways depends on how enterprises handle key issues like “exchange, transfer, custody, and control rights” in their business design. After 2026, understanding the regulatory logic itself will be far more important than fixating on a specific registration or license.