Bethany Walsh Sep 08, 2021 （ 1 ） description of virtual means and VASP The revised FATF Standard introduces new terms" virtual asset" and" virtual asset service provider". still, it's still unclear how each governance should classify it, If an arising asset is classified as a traditional fiscal asset according to the standard but relies on" virtual asset" at the specialized position. either, regions believe that the compass covered by the description of VASP should be farther explained to insure the general thickness of the description of VASP, which is veritably important for the applicable norms of drivers and service providers in the governance.
（ 2 ） Peer to blink deals and private/non-public holdalls
At present, without the participation of VASP or fiscal institutions, the peer- to- peer deals of virtual means aren't easily subject to theanti-money laundering scores under the revised FATF Standard. Since the revised FATF Standard focuses on placinganti-money laundering scores on interposers between individualities and the fiscal system, there's no clear provision for similar virtual asset deals. still, there isn't enough substantiation to show that the number and value of anonymous peer- to- peer deals have changed greatly since June 2019. At the same time,
the preface of new virtual means may greatly enhance the threat of plutocrat laundering/ terrorist backing, especially when virtual means are extensively used for peer- to- peer anonymous deals. When countries believe that the threat of plutocrat laundering/ terrorist backing is too high, they can take measures similar as relaxed portmanteau transfer, limit the number of deals, or force the use of VASP or fiscal institutions to reduce the threat. But so far there's no harmonious transnational practice.
