Abstract/Summary

This article contrasts legislator led and regulator led approaches to regulatory reform and contends that the determining factor for a jurisdiction in choosing an approach rests with the regulator. The article also argues that the approach taken, and the efficacy of the regulation, is dependent upon the proactivity of the regulator. The commitment of the regulator, whether it leads the development of anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regulation or not, will have a significant impact upon the success or failure of the reforms. The contrasting reactions of three jurisdictions to the money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by the development of cryptocurrencies is explored. The benefits and drawbacks of regulator led and legislator led approaches to regulating cryptocurrency activity are appraised, contrasting the efficiency and efficacy, the stimuli for responding, and the common inadequacies in regulatory attempts thus far.