This time is really a bit different - detailed explanation of the eight departments' “Notice on Further Prevention and Disposal of Risks Related to Virtual Currencies”
Author Profile Liu Yang's 2022 “LEGALBAND” Recommended Digital Economy Lawyers 2024 and 2025 “THE LEGAL 500” China List Recommended Lawyers in the “Fintech” Field 2024 “THE LEGAL 500” Fintech Lawyer of the Year 2025 “LEGALBAND” Client First Choice: Top 15 Fintech Lawyers 2026 “THE LEGAL 500” Asia Pacific List: Two cases handled by recommended lawyers in the field of fintech won the “LEGAL 500” “LEGAL ONE” “Model Level” rating February 6, 2026. I originally thought it was a very normal day a year ago. In the morning, Bitcoin dropped drastically, and the lowest point was close to the 60,000 US dollar mark. In the evening, eight departments including the People's Bank of China, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the General Administration of Market Supervision, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange jointly issued the “Notice on Further Prevention and Handling of Virtual Currency and Other Related Risks” (Yinfa [2026] No. 42, hereinafter referred to as “Notice 2.6”), “2.6” is expected to be accounting Entering the annals of virtual currency history, it also seems that they have found the reason for this sharp decline. 1. Unlike previous regulatory documents such as the 94 Notice and 924 Notice, this 2.6 Notice has added an additional content to the final section: This Notice takes effect from the date it is issued. Ten departments including the People's Bank of China abolished the “Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risk of Hype in Virtual Currency Transactions” (Yinfa (2021) No. 237). This is the first time in the history of virtual currency regulation that previous regulatory documents have been abolished. At the Financial Street Forum at the end of last year, Central Bank Governor Pan Gongsheng named stablecoins and RWA. At the same time, he also emphasized that the regulatory policies since 2017 are still in effect. Now, eight departments have jointly issued a document to abolish the 924 Notice, so of course, the 94 announcement in the earlier regulatory document should also be abolished. Judging from the title, Notice 924 is the “Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risk of Hype in Virtual Currency Transactions”. What stands out is the risk of transaction speculation, while Notice 2.6 is simply summarized as “risks related to virtual currency, etc.,” which clearly covers a wider range of topics. 2. Looking at the issuing unit, compared to the 92410 departmental notice, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Supreme People's Court were missing from the current 2.6 notice. This actually greatly exceeded the author's expectations. Since 2024, the two high schools have successively declined, and extensive work has been carried out, starting with investigating the virtual currency disposal involved in the case. In the author's opinion, the legal policy on the disposal of the virtual currency involved in the case is also expected to be introduced as soon as possible. However, at the working meeting of the Central Political and Legislative Committee, it was clearly proposed that forward-looking research and legislation should be carried out on virtual currencies. The absence of the two leaders is even more surprising. However, the 2.6 notice also made it clear that “an agreement was reached with the Central Internet Information Office, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and approved by the State Council”. This statement has not appeared in previous virtual currency supervision documents, and the specific reasons and intentions cannot be interpreted and analyzed for the time being. My understanding is that I agree with the relevant content in principle, and I probably haven't thought of a specific way to express it yet. 3. Compared to previous statements, the biggest breakthrough in the 2.6 notice was that it was clarified for the first time that “stablecoins linked to fiat currencies perform part of the functions of fiat currency in disguise in circulation and use. No entity or individual at home or abroad may issue stablecoins linked to RMB abroad without the consent of the relevant departments in accordance with the law and regulations.” The latter half of this sentence is actually not difficult to understand. The literal meaning is very clear. The most important thing is that the first half of the sentence “disguised performs part of the function of fiat currency”. As a criminal defense lawyer, what I am most concerned about is whether in judicial practice, will this be used as a basis for thinking that the exchange between fiat currency and stablecoins is “trading foreign exchange in disguise”? What you need to know is that trading foreign exchange in disguise constitutes a crime of illegal operation, and the crime of illegal business can also be fined one to five times the illegal proceeds and surrender the illegal proceeds to the national treasury. The key point is whether the specific implementation process will deviate, deviate, or increase. If too much effort is used, the risk of the entire OTC industry surges. As we all know, OTC is also an essential industry in the virtual currency field. 4. Regarding RWA, in a nutshell, no one is allowed to work within the country, no domestic entities are allowed to work, and overseas companies and individuals cannot work domestically, nor can they provide services to domestic entities. However, if I could work overseas, I left a chance. The Securities Regulatory Commission issued the “Regulatory Guidelines for Domestic Assets and Overseas Issuance of Asset-Backed Securities Tokens”, which will be interpreted later. 5. Compared to previous regulatory documents, the 2.6 notice uses...
