On 17 March 2025, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (UK FCA) refused Zeux Limited’s application for registration as a cryptoasset exchange provider under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017). The regulator cited risks of harm to the public due to the firm’s failure to implement anti-money laundering controls and effective risk management.
Zeux Limited submitted its application for registration in June 2022, seeking approval to operate as a cryptoasset exchange provider in the UK. After a detailed assessment, the UK FCA determined that the firm’s anti-money laundering controls fell well short of legislative requirements. According to the UKFCA the application had several deficiencies, including, failure to understand, identify, and document risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing, failure to consider the National Risk Assessment, which outlines key money laundering and terrorist financing threats in the UK, customer risk assessment deficiencies, lack of enhanced due diligence, and failures in suspicious activity reporting (SAR).
The UK FCA stated that these deficiencies are crucial in mitigating the risks of money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion. In rejecting Zeux Limited’s application, the UK FCA reinforced its commitment to ensuring that only firms meeting the UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) regulations are permitted to operate in the cryptoasset sector.
Under the UK’s money laundering regulations, all cryptoasset exchange providers must be registered with the UK FCA and comply with AML laws to operate legally in the country. The regulator has encouraged firms considering crypto registration to engage with its team early in the application process and seek pre-application guidance to meet compliance standards.
The UK FCA’s decision follows an review process initiated after Zeux Limited’s submission in June 2022. Despite the extended evaluation period, the regulator determined that the firm’s proposed anti-money laundering measures were insufficient to meet statutory obligations.
