Digital asset regulation and tokenization in Switzerland

Switzerland regulates digital assets through existing financial legislation and a reform that recognizes ledger-based securities and enables licensed distributed ledger technology (DLT) trading infrastructures. For a tokenization project, this creates two connected assessments: what right the holder acquires and which activities the issuer and intermediaries perform. The ledger’s legal validity and the service provider’s authorization need separate examination.

The starting point varies with the business model. Securities issuance, client custody and a trading platform may trigger different requirements overseen by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, FINMA. Some intermediaries are also subject to anti-money laundering supervision through self-regulatory organizations. This guide explains those routes and their limits, including access to European Union clients from a jurisdiction outside the European Economic Area.

How a project fits within Swiss financial legislation

Switzerland's DLT reform amended several federal acts. According to the State Secretariat for International Finance, SIF, ledger-based securities provisions entered into force on 1 February 2021 and the remaining package on 1 August. The framework combines civil recognition, financial infrastructure and insolvency rules. There is no single authorization covering every digital asset business.

Token and service functions determine applicable financial rules. The starting point for that classification remains FINMA's 2018 guidelines on initial coin offerings, which distinguish payment, utility and asset tokens and allow for hybrid forms. An instrument providing investment rights may require securities and investment services analysis; accepting deposits and certain custody arrangements require a different assessment. Switzerland is outside the EEA. A Swiss authorization does not itself provide MiCA passporting or allow marketing without addressing destination-market rules.

How FINMA differs from self-regulatory organizations

FINMA grants and supervises authorizations under financial legislation. For intermediaries under Article 2(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, membership of a self-regulatory organization, SRO, provides an AML supervision route. FINMA recognizes and oversees those organizations; the SROs supervise their members within that remit.

This distinction affects how providers present themselves to clients and counterparties. SRO membership does not mean FINMA has granted the intermediary a prudential license or approved its products. Project assessment must identify the custodian, client contracting entity and the permissions or affiliations covering each activity.

Which permission each activity requires

The appropriate route depends on what happens to client assets and instructions. Maintaining a securities ledger does not necessarily amount to accepting deposits; facilitating multilateral trading raises different issues from distributing an issuance. The application should describe those functions and responsible parties so that the technical architecture does not introduce an activity outside the intended permission.

The Article 1b Banking Act FinTech license covers public deposits up to CHF 100 million or crypto-based assets under its conditions. Covered assets may neither be invested nor bear interest. Registered office and operations must meet Swiss requirements. The deposit limit must not be presented as a general trading authorization or as deposit protection for clients. Stablecoins call for their own analysis.

In its supervisory guidance 06/2024, FINMA considers that the holder's redemption claim is usually categorized as a deposit under banking law (or, depending on the structure, as a collective investment scheme), so issuance generally requires a banking license, subject to exceptions such as a default guarantee provided by a bank under the conditions the guidance sets out. FINMA also highlights increased risks of money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions circumvention. Issuing a stablecoin from Switzerland is therefore not an unregulated activity.

A DLT trading facility license concerns multilateral trading of DLT securities under financial infrastructure legislation. Classification also considers admission of certain participants, central custody or clearing and settlement. FINMA assesses the model and requires an audit before granting permission. A secondary market does not become authorized simply because it uses blockchain.

The March 2025 BX Digital authorization announcement demonstrates practical use of this category. Its permission cannot be extended to other platforms. Different models may require banking, securities firm or manager licenses. FINMA regulatory status inquiries allow a project to be presented but must be distinguished from an application and a formal authorization decision.

How a tokenized security acquires legal effect

Article 973d of the Code of Obligations defines ledger-based securities through an agreement between the parties. The right is entered in a securities ledger and exercised and transferred through it. The ledger must give creditors power of disposal, protect its integrity and provide access to the rights, system operation and registration agreement.

Deploying a smart contract or calling a product a security token is insufficient. The agreement, corporate or contractual structure and ledger operation must work together. Article 973f connects transfer to the registration agreement. For property or other goods, the right embodied in the security must be distinguished from ownership of the underlying asset and its transfer formalities.

What custody and insolvency protection require

FINMA Guidance 01/2026 on custody examines technical infrastructure, private key protection, custodian selection and asset segregation in insolvency. Two points carry most of its practical value. A Swiss bank generally does not have to hold capital against crypto-assets it keeps for clients with a foreign sub-custodian, provided that third party is subject to prudential supervision and foreign law guarantees bankruptcy protection for the assets. And a Swiss portfolio manager may include crypto-assets held abroad in its management only if the custodian is subject to equivalent supervision and bankruptcy protection. A provider's assurance that wallets are separate is insufficient where insolvency rights have not been established.

The guidance distinguishes banking, individual portfolio management, collective investment and structured products. It must therefore not be reduced to a universal ban on custody by SRO-affiliated entities. Authorized institutions retain responsibilities when using third parties. AML and transfer controls, conflicts and risk information must be appropriate to the service and client category.

What to resolve before structuring a project

Before choosing a structure, define the right to be issued, how it will transfer and who is responsible for performing it. This identifies the issuance, distribution, custody and trading functions. For ledger-based securities, the legal agreement and system operation must fit together: software that allows tokens to move between wallets is insufficient on its own.

Custodian selection requires checking legal asset protection alongside technical measures. Homburger’s analysis of FINMA 01/2026 examines the implications for different institutions; it does not treat every custody arrangement as the same case. Contracting entities, insolvency laws and the specific conditions of any sub-custody chain require assessment.

Documentation should also identify the countries where clients will be solicited and the distribution requirements in each market. The Financial Institutions Act reform put to consultation in October 2025, with the consultation period closed in February 2026, is still a proposal rather than a license already in operation, but it should be followed.

It proposes two new license categories: the payment instrument institution, which would replace the FinTech license and be the only entity permitted to issue value-stable crypto-based means of payment, and the crypto-institution, which would cover custody, including the possibility of staking, trading on behalf of clients and proprietary trading with price quotation. Under the draft, banking and securities firm licenses would also permit acting as a crypto-institution; portfolio manager, trustee and collective asset manager licenses would not. Issuance conditions, exemptions and tax treatment need individual verification; the informative English translation of the Code of Obligations does not replace legally authoritative texts.

To understand how this framework applies to your project, discuss your case with our team.