# Bangladesh

> Bangladesh (Bangladesh Bank): Barred through exchange control, not a crypto law. Region: Asia-Pacific. Attribution required: A regulated firm must be able to attribute activity to an identified person, and assets or accounts that make that impossible are barred at the licensed perimeter. This is a rule about attribution, not about whether amounts are public.

Part of the Soda Labs Privacy Hub regulation map, which reads the instruments
themselves rather than summarising the summaries: https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation

## Key facts

- Entry type: Jurisdiction
- Region: Asia-Pacific
- Subject: Barred through exchange control, not a crypto law
- Authority: Bangladesh Bank
- Stance on on-chain confidentiality: Attribution required. A regulated firm must be able to attribute activity to an identified person, and assets or accounts that make that impossible are barred at the licensed perimeter. This is a rule about attribution, not about whether amounts are public.
- Tags: prohibition, exchange control, FER Act 1947, no CBDC found
- Canonical page: https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-bangladesh

## What it actually says

Bangladesh is a useful reminder that a country does not need a crypto statute to prohibit crypto. The bar here runs through exchange control: because virtual currencies are not currency within the meaning of the 1947 foreign exchange law, dealing in them is not an approved transaction, and the central bank's 2022 circular states plainly that such transactions and any facilitation of them are not permitted. Breach is cognizable under the same 1947 Act. There is no licensing path and no state digital currency offering an alternative, so the practical effect is that residents transact on fully identified bank and mobile money rails. Confidentiality is not restricted here so much as the entire asset class is.

## The instruments that matter

- **FE Circular No. 24, 15 September 2022**: transactions in, from or to Bangladesh for obtaining virtual assets, and providing any kind of facilitation for such business, are not permitted
- **The reasoning is definitional**: virtual currencies are not recognised as currency under section 2(b)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, and are neither approved foreign exchange nor an approved transaction
- **Criminally enforceable**: violations contravene section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act and are cognizable under section 23(1)
- **No substitute channel**: no crypto-specific licensing route exists and we located no central bank digital currency pilot, so activity is pushed onto fully identified banking and mobile financial service rails

## Sources

- [FE Circular No. 24](https://www.bb.org.bd/mediaroom/circulars/fepd/sep152022fepd24e.pdf)

## Related entries

- [China](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-china): Crypto banned, and a state currency designed for anonymity
- [India](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-india): No crypto statute, regulated through AML and tax
- [Japan](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-japan): Untraceability barred by self-regulation, now moving into ordinance
- [Malaysia](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-malaysia): A categorical ban written by definition, not by coin name
- [South Korea](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-south-korea): Identity-maximalist, and exporting the model
- [Thailand](https://www.sodalabs.xyz/privacy-hub/regulation/jur-thailand): Closed by whitelist, not by prohibition