Non-Fungible Tokens: Guidance notes issued in Mauritius

Published: 20 Dec 2022
Type: Insight

The Financial Services Commission (FSC) continues to propel its Fintech sector with a view to strengthen its regulatory framework to enable safe and secure virtual asset transaction and in this pursuit, the FSC took a further step by clarifying its regulatory stance with respect to Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs).


On 30 November 2022, the FSC issued Guidance Notes on the regulatory treatment of NFTs. Failure to comply with these Guidance Notes may entail regulatory sanctions and may constitute an offence where any person acts against a direction from the FSC to comply with these Guidance Notes.

NFTs may take different forms and are often linked to items such as artworks, music or videos. The Guidance Notes define an NFT as a token recorded using distributed ledger technology such as Blockchain, whereby each recorded NFT is distinct with unique features from any other NFT and can be associated with a distinct physical or virtual asset.

In formulating these Guidance Notes, the FSC has considered the guidance issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FAFT) relating to Virtual Assets and Virtual Assets Services Providers. NFTs are generally not considered to be Virtual Assets under the FATF definition.

According to such guidance, NFTs are: “digital assets that are unique, rather than interchangeable, and that are in practice used as collectibles rather than as payment or investments instruments”. However, they may fall under the Virtual Assets definition “if they are to be used for payment or investment purposes in practice”.

For the purpose of providing more clarity into what would be regulated under the Virtual Asset and Initial Token Offering Services Act 2021 (VAITOS), the FSC laid down 3 scenarios in its Guidance Notes shedding some more light on its regulatory position with respect to NFTs:

1. NFTs as digital representations of collectibles with no payment or investment characteristics

The carrying of activities such as marketing and issuance of NFTs as only a genuine digital collectible which is not used for payment or investment purposes shall not fall within the regulatory purview of the FSC. It is worth highlighting that the FSC equally specifies that such NFTs may be linked to an underlying asset.

2. NFTs with securities characteristics

Some NFTs may have overlapping characteristics of a digital collectible and a transferable financial asset which would then bring such NFTs under the definition of securities as defined under the Securities Act 2005.

Likewise, where the NTFs constitute a share or confers ownership or economic rights, they shall be deemed as a Security Token and shall constitute a regulated business activity, in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Act 2005, Securities (Collective Investment Schemes and Closed-end Funds) Regulations 2008 and the Guidance Notes relating to Security Token Offerings and Security Token Trading Systems issued by the FSC on 15 June 2020 and which has been updated on 23 August 2022.

Such regulated business activity whether in Mauritius or targeting Mauritian residents would require an appropriate licence issued by the FSC.

3. All other NFTs

This third scenario seeks to capture the NFTs which fall under the category of virtual assets. (i.e. those which are not digital collectibles and are not securities). Such NFTs are therefore regulated under the VAITOS. The issuer of such virtual token needs to apply for registration as an issuer of initial token offerings with the FSC in accordance with section 24 of the VAITOS. In addition, any person who administers, hold, transfer or exchange such virtual token is required to apply for the relevant licence as a Virtual Asset Service Provider as per Section 8 of the VAITOS.

Conclusion

In today’s world, NFTs are the latest trend and are attracting huge investments. It is important to consider the nature of the NFT and its function in practice and not what terminology or marketing terms are used to describe it.

In that context, the functional approach taken by the FSC should be applied on a case by case basis to determine into what scenario type an NFT would fall into.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Financial-Services
8 Oct 2025

Enforcing Integrity: The UK’s Legal Arsenal Against Market Abuse

The legal concept of market abuse and the twin concept of upholding market integrity are not new as these were prevalent since the 17th century ¹. As a matter of fact, there is a belief that insider dealing was the root cause of demise of the South Sea Company in the 18th century.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
9 Sep 2025

Dual Remedies Afforded against the Granting of Injunctions

Actis Consumer Grooming Products Ltd v Super-Max Mauritius [2025 SCJ 388]

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
27 Aug 2025

The Mauritian National Budget 2025/2026 - From abyss to prosperity: Rebuilding the bridge to future

On 05 June 2025, Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK, FRCP, Prime Minister of Mauritius, in his capacity as Minister of Finance (Minister of Finance) tabled the National Budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026 under the theme “From Abyss to Prosperity: Rebuilding the Bridge to the Future”.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
18 Aug 2025

Mauritius as an Ideal Seat for Arbitration

In one of its recent determinations, the Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirmed a line of decisions which confirmed its support to arbitration, whether international or domestic. These determinations reflect its understanding of the needs of business community, characterised by a marked choice to resolve disputes through a private mechanism to allow existing business relationships to thrive.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
25 Jul 2025

Insider Dealing: A Review of the Treatment in Mauritius, EU and US Federal law

A review of the treatment in Mauritius, the United States and the European Union of the offence of insider trading confirms the contrasting approaches which these jurisdictions have adopted on the issue even though all three jurisdictions share two fundamental concerns namely, (i) the prohibition on an insider to take an unfair advantage by reason of information which he has obtained to the detriment of third parties who are unaware of such information and, (ii) the protection of the integrity of financial markets and investor confidence ¹.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
20 Jun 2025

Professional emails are personal data

Case Commentary – France, Cour de cassation, 18 June 2025, 23-19.022 Professional emails are personal data.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
11 Jun 2025

Are our Courts tilting towards procedural flexibility?

Case Commentary: R.K.G FRUITS CO LTD v MAERSK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED 2025 SCJ 220. In a significant decision reaffirming the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, the Court of Civil Appeal allowed an appeal overturning an interlocutory judgment of the Bankruptcy Division that had dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of a contested board resolution.

Appleby-Website-Technology-and-Innovation
19 Mar 2025

Is Cryptocurrency security - the Mauritian and USA perspectives?

As any of the emerging technologies, cryptocurrency has been disruptive to the market and has challenged regulators globally. Unsurprisingly, it has been commented that “a little more than a decade ago, cryptocurrencies were essentially an academic concept. The idea seemed far-fetched to most people. But that all changed in 2009 with the creation of Bitcoin …/… [today] the world’s cryptocurrency market is worth more than USD 3 trillion …/… there’s no question that crypto is here to stay, and it will undoubtedly continue to disrupt countless industries ”.

IWD Grid Capture
8 Mar 2025

International Women’s Day 2025 roundtable: Rights. Equality. Empowerment.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
28 Jan 2025

Case Commentary: Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31

On 22 January 2025, the full bench of the Court of Civil Appeal in the matter of Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31 decided on the scope of Section 6 of the Court of Civil Appeal Act 1963, also common referred as the “similar purpose application” section. Unsurprisingly, the Court has pathed the way for judicial activism holding that the: “Court would therefore readily intervene, in the absence of any appropriate or adequate legal remedy, where the immediate and urgent intervention of the Court is warranted for the due administration of justice through the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.”