Which provisions of Japan matter for confidential transactions?

JVCEA handling rules, Article 4(3), from 30 July 2018: members must not handle a crypto asset whose transfer records cannot be traced or are markedly difficult to trace; the test is traceability, not the asset's name. Green List, updated 5 August 2026: 30 assets, none of them Monero, Zcash or Dash; note this is a widely-handled list rather than the permitted universe, so absence is evidence and not proof of prohibition. FIEA migration enacted 15 July 2026: moves crypto trading out of the Payment Services Act into the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act as a product distinct from securities, creates crypto insider trading, and raises the unregistered-operator penalty to ten years. Amended FIEA Article 43-7: bars handling assets failing user-protection standards, with the criteria (including transfer-record management) delegated to Cabinet Office Ordinance rather than set in the statute

Where does Japan apply?

Asia-Pacific, administered by FSA · JVCEA · Personal Information Protection Commission. Subject: Untraceability barred by self-regulation, now moving into ordinance.

Japan

Q: Can confidential on-chain transactions comply with Japan?

Restricts anonymity. Anonymity-enhancing assets or unattributed transfers are barred outright, or barred for regulated firms.

Untraceability barred by self-regulation, now moving into ordinance

All regulation entries

JurisdictionAsia-PacificRestricts anonymity

Anonymity-enhancing assets or unattributed transfers are barred outright, or barred for regulated firms.

What Japan actually says

Japan shows the pattern in this section at its clearest: the rule is written against untraceability, never against named assets. The industry body's handling rules have barred members since 2018 from dealing in any crypto asset whose transfer records cannot be traced or are markedly difficult to trace, which is why Monero, Zcash and Dash have been absent from Japanese venues for years without any instrument naming them. Legislation enacted in July 2026 moves crypto trading out of payments law and into the securities framework. Worth being precise about what that does to traceability: the statute bars assets failing user-protection standards, but the criteria, including transfer-record management, are delegated to Cabinet Office Ordinance and have not been written yet.

The instruments that matter

JVCEA handling rules, Article 4(3), from 30 July 2018: members must not handle a crypto asset whose transfer records cannot be traced or are markedly difficult to trace; the test is traceability, not the asset's name
Green List, updated 5 August 2026: 30 assets, none of them Monero, Zcash or Dash; note this is a widely-handled list rather than the permitted universe, so absence is evidence and not proof of prohibition
FIEA migration enacted 15 July 2026: moves crypto trading out of the Payment Services Act into the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act as a product distinct from securities, creates crypto insider trading, and raises the unregistered-operator penalty to ten years
Amended FIEA Article 43-7: bars handling assets failing user-protection standards, with the criteria (including transfer-record management) delegated to Cabinet Office Ordinance rather than set in the statute

What this means for confidential transactions

Bubble is built for exactly this shape of obligation: amounts and balances live on chain as ciphertexts, computation happens without decryption, and the only disclosure path is an on-chain access list through which an authorized party - an auditor, a supervisor, a counterparty - can request scoped decryption. That is confidentiality from the public, not from the regulator.

Security & compliance How Bubble works

Related entries

Compliant by default.

See how selective disclosure satisfies a supervisor without publishing your book to the world.

Book a demo Back to the regulation map