Trade authenticity and settlement legality are two separate reviews
First verify the buyer and seller, the goods or services, the amount and the payment obligation, and then verify the payment instrument and the service pathway. The first item answers "why the payment is made"; the second answers "who pays lawfully, and by what means." If a platform has only a trade contract but cannot clearly explain who owns the wallet receiving the tokens, who bears exchange losses, and who pays the seller, then even if the order is genuine, the issues concerning customer assets and licensing remain unresolved.
Where mainland enterprises are involved, orders cannot substitute for foreign exchange requirements
Yinfa [2026] No. 42 restricts the relevant virtual currency business and supporting settlement, while Articles 12 to 14 of the Regulations on the Administration of Foreign Exchange separately set out the genuine and lawful basis for current account transactions and the requirements for purchasing and paying foreign exchange. Suppose a mainland exporter has the buyer deliver stablecoins to an offshore channel, and then an unrelated domestic individual transfers RMB to the exporter. This not only requires an explanation of the source of the payment for goods, but may also involve prohibited services and illegal foreign exchange. An invoice cannot be treated as a document that eliminates all risks.
Offshore arrangements must specify the point at which payment is completed
For buyers and sellers genuinely operating outside the mainland, it should first be confirmed that the applicable law permits the instrument and that the service provider holds the required qualifications. For example, the EU's MiCA distinguishes crypto-asset services from related payment services, and obtaining a crypto licence does not automatically permit handling all fiat currency steps. The contract should also specify whether the seller accepts stablecoins or fiat currency, whether on-chain confirmation equals completion of payment, who handles de-pegging or freezing, and in what currency and amount refunds are to be made.
Use a single order to link four categories of records
Before launch, a hypothetical order may be selected to simulate how contractual obligations, on-chain transfers, exchange receipts and fiat currency credits correspond one to one, and then to test scenarios of underpayment, refunds and address errors. Such an exercise is an implementation recommendation, not proof of regulatory approval. If the finance team can provide only an on-chain hash but cannot prove the attribution of the funds and the commercial reason, tax, bank review and dispute resolution will all lack evidence, and the gaps should be filled first rather than launching with unresolved issues.
Recommended actions
- Distinguish the actual locations of the buyer and seller, and confirm whether mainland funds or service recipients are involved.
- Establish a unified numbering system linking trade contracts, orders, wallet records, exchange records and bank receipts.
- Specify in the contract the party bearing completion of receipt, refunds, fees and de-pegging risk.
Information note: This article provides general information only and does not replace legal advice based on specific facts.
References
- Notice on Further Preventing and Addressing Risks Associated with Virtual Currency and Related Matters (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42) — People's Bank of China and seven other departments
- Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Exchange Administration (2008 Revision) — State Council / National Database of Administrative Regulations, Ministry of Justice
- MiCA Article 59: Authorisation — European Parliament, Council of the European Union / ESMA official rulebook
- MiCA Article 70: Safekeeping of clients' crypto-assets and funds — European Parliament, Council of the European Union / ESMA official rulebook
