Choosing a KYC/AML provider for a blockchain project: a legal perspective

Legislation is adapting to new realities. Regulators are introducing strict frameworks: cryptocurrency regulation is becoming the norm even for small projects. Without verification standards, it is no longer possible to enter the market or stay in it. Even projects with decentralized architecture are forced to ensure compliance with customer identification and transaction control standards. In these conditions, KYC for blockchain projects is not just an additional option. It is a mandatory component of launching and scaling a business. In practice, compliance with these requirements comes down to one thing - choosing a reliable, effective and legally secure partner. How to choose a KYC provider for a cryptocurrency project, what should be in the contract with the KYC provider, how to monitor its work, protect personal data and resolve disputes - all these are no longer technical, but legal tasks.

This article will help you understand the key issues. It will tell you how to legally build relationships with a compliance service provider, what documents must be signed, what the basic conditions look like, what you need to know about the Master Services Agreement for crypto, and what guarantees are included in the Data Processing Agreement for blockchain. The material will be useful for those who launch a blockchain product, develop a DeFi platform, or want to ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk. The focus is on practical solutions aimed at protecting the project, business, and reputation.

Understanding KYC/AML in the Context of Blockchain

Cryptocurrency regulation is no longer limited to banking or fiat transactions. Blockchain-based projects are also subject to inspections if their architecture includes interaction with users, token circulation, exchange listings or financial flows. Today, AML compliance of cryptocurrencies has become one of the points of control not only by the state, but also by partners, investors and platforms. In order to act without unnecessary risks, it is important to understand how KYC and AML procedures work specifically in the context of Web3.

What is KYC and AML in the legal sense

KYC (or Know Your Customer) is a procedure for verifying the identity of a customer. It is used to identify who exactly is using a product or service. AML (Anti-Money Laundering) — is a set of legal and organizational measures aimed at identifying and preventing transactions with dubious origins of funds obtained in circumvention of the law, as well as blocking financial schemes related to the financing of prohibited activities. Together, they form a single control loop, which is regulated by both international agreements and the domestic legislation of each country.

In the blockchain environment, these principles work with digital specifics in mind. Projects have to implement mechanisms for identity verification in Web3, match wallet addresses with individuals, and track suspicious transactions. Without these elements, it is impossible to ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk.

Peculiarities of KYC/AML Application in Crypto Projects

Compliance in the crypto sphere is built differently than in traditional banks. Most projects do not have physical offices or branches. All checks are carried out online, and user data is transferred remotely. This requires strict rules for collecting, storing and transferring information. Identification is usually integrated through an external KYC service via API. In such cases, it is important to fix in advance in the contract who is responsible for the safety of the data, and how access to it by third parties is regulated.

An additional complexity arises in distributed systems. Unlike centralized platforms, blockchain networks can include multiple participants with access to personal information. This raises the question of who exactly is considered the data operator and who will be held liable in the event of a leak. When concluding an AML/KYC service agreement, it is necessary to define the roles of all parties and legally establish the order of interaction, including the situation with data processing in Web3.

Differences between crypto projects and classic financial organizations

Banks, investment companies and payment processors operate under licenses issued by regulators. These institutions are required to apply strictly defined identification procedures and undergo regular audits. Their compliance is built into the operating model and is monitored externally.

Crypto projects, especially those operating in the DeFi format, often do not have such a direct subordination model. User verification here is not regulated at the level of a specific law, but is based on the requirements of external partners: exchanges, investors, payment gateways. Nevertheless, even decentralized projects are forced to implement KYC for blockchain projects in order to meet the requirements for access to liquidity and maintain legal stability.

One of the key differences is the architecture of the verification system itself. Classic institutions use internal resources and a staff of compliance officers. Crypto projects often integrate an external service via API and build the entire model from scratch. This means a higher level of legal risks - from data confidentiality to liability for errors or leaks.

Comparison table: KYC/AML in classic financial organizations and crypto projects

In a flexible regulatory environment, crypto projects bear the same responsibility as traditional players, but operate in a less secure architecture. This makes the legal development of the AML platform integration for crypto projects especially important: from the wording in the contract to the delineation of responsibility and the protection of user data.

International Regulatory Framework: How Crypto Projects Enter the Regulatory Zone

Legal mechanisms for controlling cryptocurrencies and digital assets are developing according to a multi-level model. They are based on the FATF recommendations adopted in 2019, which introduced the term VASP (Virtual Asset Service Providers) and defined a list of requirements, including customer verification, internal control and exchange of information with supervisory authorities. Despite the fact that FATF documents do not have the force of law, they formed the basis of the legislation of most countries, including the EU, the USA and a number of Asian jurisdictions.

European Union: Comprehensive Regime for Crypto Market Regulation

The EU is developing a unified legal regime based on the MiCA Regulation, which covers the issuance, storage and circulation of digital assets. Requirements for crypto service providers are being established, including obligations for KYC/AML compliance and operational control. In parallel, the Sixth Directive AMLD6 continues to operate, introducing cross-border cooperation and criminal liability for companies that violate financial transparency rules. As a result, KYC and AML are no longer a theoretical prospect, but a clear normative reality.

US: Enforcement through regulators and courts

The U.S. model is built on a combination of oversight, case law, and law enforcement. The focus is on FinCEN, which views crypto platforms as “money transmitters.” This means that such organizations are required to maintain customer registries, record large transactions, and report suspicious transactions. Some states are tightening local regulation and requiring virtual currency licenses.

In addition to formal control, there is a mechanism of legal practice. Precedents related to violations of AML regimes form examples of unfair business activity. In these cases, the courts consider not only factual errors, but also the absence of contractual guarantees. Therefore, an agreement with a KYC provider must take into account American realities, especially if the project enters the US market.

Asian Jurisdictions: Flexible Approach and Digital Focus

Southeast Asian countries are taking a proactive stance on cryptocurrencies. Singapore’s cryptocurrency regulation is based on the Payment Services Act and central bank MAS regulations. Companies are required to conduct comprehensive user verification and monitor suspicious transactions. At the same time, they gain access to more lenient conditions for starting a business if they ensure internal controls.

Hong Kong has a similar approach. Supervisory authorities require licensing, but allow innovation. Implementing an AML platform for a crypto project is possible given flexible compliance criteria. However, the risks are high here too. In the absence of high-quality verification, users can file a complaint, and the regulator can suspend activities.

Personal data: processing rules in different regions

Along with financial monitoring requirements, compliance with data protection laws is of particular importance. Data processing in Web3 cannot ignore international standards. First of all, we are talking about the GDPR, which is in force in the European Union. It defines the rights of users, methods of data storage and the procedure for transferring between countries. Any leak of KYC data is equivalent to a violation, for which serious sanctions are imposed.

In the US, there is CCPA, in Asia, there are local regulations aimed at protecting citizens. In this part, compliance is achieved through signing data transfer agreements. For example, the Data Processing Agreement for blockchain allows you to record the obligations of the parties to protect information. These documents become part of the general legal framework, without which it is impossible to justify the legal security of the project.

Risks of non-compliance: more than a fine

Requirements for checking clients and monitoring transactions are not theoretical recommendations. Ignoring them entails not only fines, but also loss of access to financial infrastructure, freezing of assets, criminal liability and complete cessation of activities. Even with a high level of technology, the lack of legally formalized compliance puts the project at risk. Risk-free KYC/AML compliance is impossible without a precise understanding of what will happen in case of violations.

Banking risks and denial of service

Banks and payment providers do not work with projects that do not have a verified KYC platform. At the first sign of non-compliance, they suspend cooperation, close accounts, cancel transactions. This happens without prior notice. The bank is obliged to act according to internal control procedures, which describe the blocking algorithm in case of suspected violation.

In practice, this means that if a crypto project fails to select an AML platform that meets local requirements, the project loses the ability to accept funds, work with clients and investors. Even a short-term denial of service can result in a loss of liquidity and the breakdown of contracts. Restoring access requires legal evidence of good faith, including documents confirming the existence of a Master Services Agreement for crypto and a valid Data Processing Agreement for blockchain.

Delisting from exchanges and loss of market access

The largest centralized exchanges include in the listing criteria not only technical documentation, but also the presence of a full-fledged AML regime. The lack of procedures for checking clients and storing logs often leads to the exclusion of a token from the platform. At the same time, it is publicly announced that the reason was a violation of transparency standards.

If a project fails to ensure Web3 data processing in accordance with regulations or uses an outdated KYC service, its token stops trading. This is accompanied by a sharp decrease in value, loss of liquidity and a drop in investor interest. This is why defining what should be in a KYC provider agreement becomes important not only for legal protection, but also for market sustainability.

Investigations and criminal cases: risk of personal liability

Cases in recent years have shown that formal decentralization does not exempt from liability. Cases involving the BitMEX and Tornado Cash platforms are examples. Executives and developers were held accountable for failing to properly monitor user transactions. However, the main accusation was not that someone committed an offense through the platform, but that the system did not have built-in prevention mechanisms.

The argument about the absence of a legal personality or the presence of autonomous management through smart contracts is not accepted by the courts. Therefore, responsibility for AML procedures is assigned to specific persons, regardless of the form of organization. This reinforces the importance of the legal structure: the existence of a functioning KYC service, formal agreements and information processing protocols serves as a basis for protection in the event of legal claims.

Founders and Directors Under Control: Even in DAOs

Even if the project operates in the DAO format, the risks do not disappear. Token management does not exclude the presence of key decision-makers. In case of violation of the law, claims can be made against persons who managed wallets, published updates or communicated on behalf of the organization. They are considered beneficiaries and bear direct responsibility.

Without a legal framework, including jurisdiction for crypto projects, contractual protection, and a formalized process for identifying clients, the project becomes vulnerable. This is especially dangerous when operating cross-border. Agreeing on the terms of data storage and transfer, having event logs, and concluding SLAs and DPAs when working with AML are not only a technical obligation, but also a tool for personal legal protection.

Failure to comply with compliance jeopardizes not only the project, but also the personal safety of its participants. To avoid these consequences, a well-developed legal model, correct integration of a proven provider and careful attention to regulatory details are required. Choosing a KYC provider is a decision that determines not only the launch of a business, but also its legal future.

Key requirements when choosing a provider

When a crypto project uses user verification, it enters the sphere of legal obligations. In such cases, the KYC provider becomes not just a contractor, but a participant in legal relations. It is responsible for the accuracy of procedures, information protection, and compliance with regulatory standards. Therefore, how to choose a KYC provider for a crypto project is not just a technical issue, but part of a legal security strategy.

Regulatory Compliance: From Global Standards to Local Control

The main sign of a reliable provider is compliance with international standards. First of all, we are talking about the FATF recommendations for crypto, which indicate how clients should be verified and transactions tracked. In addition, there are the provisions of the MiCA Regulation, which in 2025 will become mandatory for all crypto service providers in the EU. When working in several countries, it is important to take into account local rules and regulations, including in the US, UAE or Singapore.

If a provider cannot confirm that its service is adapted to current legislation, then KYC/AML compliance without risk becomes impossible. This is why lawyers recommend checking in advance which jurisdictions the platform operates in, which countries it supports, and whether it can take into account differences in regulation. This is especially important for cross-border activities and working with several audiences at the same time.

Quality assurance and certification

The legal reliability of the provider is confirmed not only by the contract, but also by external audit assessments. The most important are ISO certificates for information management and SOC 2, which is related to the security of IT services. Without these documents, it is impossible to guarantee that the platform correctly processes and protects user data, including its encryption, storage and backup.

Additionally, if the project operates in the EU or with European citizens, it is important to have procedures in place to ensure KYC in accordance with the GDPR. This rule is especially strictly applied to crypto projects after the implementation of MiCA. The lack of certification calls into question not only the quality of services, but also the possibility of continuing to operate within the legal framework. Violation may result in the blocking or revocation of the project's license.

Contract and legal fixation

The key document is the Master Services Agreement for crypto. It sets out the framework of cooperation, the list of services, technical conditions, as well as the financial and legal obligations of the parties. For legal protection, it is important that the agreement includes two appendices: SLA — with a description of technical guarantees, and DPA — with the conditions for storing and protecting data. These documents record how exactly KYC procedures are carried out and who is responsible for what.

Without these documents, it is impossible to determine exactly what should be in the contract with the KYC provider and who is responsible in case of an error or failure. This is especially important for crypto exchanges and platforms with daily load. If the contract does not specify fines, notification procedures and the procedure for termination of services, the project will not have a legal instrument of protection. All risks can be transferred to the customer by default.

Possibility of audit and legal control over actions

Interaction with the provider must be supported by the ability to control. This means the right of the project to conduct an audit, check compliance with standards, receive technical documentation and access to logs. Such conditions must be recorded in the contract. Without this, it is impossible to check the correctness of the provider's actions. This is especially critical if the project receives a request from the regulator or is preparing for an external audit.

The quality of the KYC provider's services must be checked regularly. This is not only a right, but also part of the project's own protection strategy. If the contract does not require the provider to store technical logs, provide reports, or participate in audits, there is a gap in legal protection. In the event of litigation or claims, the project will not have evidence of its good faith.

Data storage and logs

For legal reliability, it is important that the KYC service logs all operations and events related to user verification. Such data is stored for at least three years, and in some countries - up to five. At the same time, the project must have access to these logs and backups in the event of a dispute or regulatory audit. This condition must be clearly spelled out in the agreement.

Violation of this principle may result in liability for personal data leakage in cryptofintech. This is especially acute in the EU, where serious sanctions can be imposed for violating KYC in accordance with the GDPR. In addition, without proper storage of logs, it is impossible to track the actions during an incident, prove the fact of hacking, or try to compensate for damages.

Transfer of data abroad

For many crypto projects, the issue of cross-border data transfer is relevant. If the provider places servers outside the customer's country or in countries with a low level of protection, there is a risk of violating the law. For example, data processing in Web3, carried out through American or Asian data centers without proper guarantees, may contradict the requirements of the GDPR or CCPA.

To avoid problems, it is necessary to conclude a Data Processing Agreement for blockchain in advance, which will describe all the conditions for storing, encrypting, transferring and deleting data. This document must be legally tied to the main agreement. In its absence, in the event of a leak or claim, the provider can refuse liability, and all claims will be made to the project as the data controller.

Any questions?

Contact our specialists

Send your application

Popular KYC/AML Providers : A Brief Analysis

At the stage of implementing compliance procedures, it is important not only to connect the technological solution, but also to assess its legal viability. The KYC/AML provider becomes part of the legal architecture of the project. The company's position in the event of an audit or dispute depends on its reliability, certification, availability of event logs and jurisdiction.

Below is a comparative analysis of providers, with an emphasis on criteria that affect legal protection. The table takes into account the availability of international standards, support for legal audit, compliance with data storage requirements and the possibility of integration into the Web3 infrastructure.

Sumsub offers flexible customization and recognized ISO certification, which is critical for projects focused on personal data on the blockchain, while the UK jurisdiction provides a stable legal framework and access to a civilized dispute resolution process.

Chainalysis focuses on blockchain transaction analytics and has a high degree of legal transparency. SOC 2 certification and extensive practice of cooperation with regulators make it a safe choice in terms of liability for AML procedures.

Coinfirm is active in the EU, but does not have a full set of international certifications. This reduces the level of legal predictability in cross-border data transfer. It is important to separately stipulate in contracts the issues of log storage and access to audits.

Elliptic demonstrates a balanced approach. ISO certification and audit tracking support make it suitable for integration into AML platforms for crypto projects. At the same time, convenient integration into Web3 structures increases its relevance for startups.

IdentityMind (now part of Acuant/GBG) offers limited flexibility and lacks up-to-date certifications. This makes it difficult to justify the legality of using the service in the event of complaints. For international projects, this solution is associated with increased legal risks.

How to legally formalize relations with a KYC/AML provider for a blockchain project

Choosing a KYC/AML provider is not just connecting an external solution. It is the beginning of a legal relationship on which the operation of the entire compliance system depends. Formal procedures, data storage, access to logs, response to requests - all this must be legally recorded.

Without a clearly defined contract, even the best AML platform for a blockchain startup will not be able to protect the project from sanctions, audits, and blocking. It is impossible to justify the legality of actions if the contract does not describe liability, audit, and dispute resolution procedures. To ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk, it is necessary to build a relationship with the provider as carefully as with a bank or investment partner.

Legal format of cooperation: types of agreements

The entry of a project into the market using an AML platform for crypto projects begins with the signing of legal documents. These documents set the framework for the relationship between the parties. Without them, it is impossible to control the provider's actions, prove compliance with the law, or protect rights in the event of a conflict. Even with full technical compatibility, KYC for blockchain projects cannot be considered safe without formal registration.

This agreement becomes the basis for all subsequent interactions between the project and the KYC/AML provider. MSA is a framework contract that sets out the key elements of cooperation: the legal status of the parties, the general logic of service provision, the boundaries of responsibility, and the principles of dispute resolution. It does not detail each technical operation, but sets the structure within which these operations are carried out.

The text of the Master Services Agreement for crypto usually includes links to individual documents, including SLA, DPA, and other annexes. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptation of individual terms to specific tasks — for example, when entering new markets or integrating new functions. This is especially important for projects operating in the Web3 environment, where the legal burden is distributed among several participants.

MSA defines how the service works, the timeframes for its provision, and the sanctions that apply in the event of a failure or violation of the terms. Such an agreement allows for legally formalizing the relationship based on the logic of long-term partnership. In the event of a dispute, it will be considered the main document regulating the fulfillment of obligations.

If a KYC platform processes personal data, its work is necessarily accompanied by the signing of a DPA. This document is needed to determine who is responsible for collecting, storing and transferring information. It establishes who is the controller and who is the processor. This allows for the distribution of responsibility and avoidance of violations.

The DPA also regulates the data storage territory and the conditions for transferring data abroad. This is especially important for KYC compliance under the GDPR. Without such an agreement, it is impossible to justify the legality of data processing in jurisdictions with increased privacy requirements. In the event of a data leak, the responsibility for the leak of personal data in crypto fintech falls on the company if there is no DPA.

A separate document defines the service level. The SLA specifies response times for requests, downtime, availability guarantees, and incident handling rules. It also records technical parameters, penalties for non-compliance, and a notification mechanism.

SLA protects the interests of the project in case of interruptions in the platform operation. If the service is unavailable or the data transfer protocol is violated, the company will be able to file a claim based on specific clauses of the agreement. This format of interaction is especially important when automating verification and API integration of the KYC service.

Terms, extension and termination: what is important to consider

The duration of the contract with the KYC provider directly affects the flexibility of the project and its legal stability. The issue of validity and termination rules requires special attention. Especially in conditions where working with users requires stable compliance services.

In practice, two approaches are used. The most common is an annual contract with automatic renewal. This is convenient for calculating the budget and planning the legal workload. In some cases, monthly agreements are used, but they do not always support the full cycle of auditing and data storage.

It is important to consider that short-term contracts do not always provide protection during international audits. For stable interaction with exchanges, investors and auditors, it is necessary to confirm the duration of cooperation and compliance with standards. This becomes especially relevant in the context of regulatory requirements for cryptocurrencies.

The rules for terminating the KYC/AML agreement must be clearly described. In a standard situation, the parties may terminate the contract by mutual consent with notice. Usually, it is sent 30 days before the expected date of completion of cooperation.

The immediate termination mode is highlighted separately. It occurs in case of a gross violation of the terms: data leakage, refusal to provide logs, blocking access to the service. The agreement can also be terminated in case of a change in jurisdiction or bankruptcy of the provider. To ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk, it is important to provide a mechanism for switching to a new service.

After the contract is terminated, the company must retain access to archives, audit tapes, and personal information. This is necessary for protection in the event of an audit or a client request. The contract must specify that the provider is obliged to transfer all logs, export data, and ensure legal storage for a specified period.

The absence of this clause may lead to the loss of evidence. And in the event of a dispute with the regulator or the client, the company will not be able to confirm that the actions were in accordance with the law. Therefore, such provisions must be included in what must be in the contract with the KYC provider without fail.

Quality Assurance and Control: How to Ensure Reliability

Integrating a KYC/AML service is just the beginning. The reliability of such a provider is checked during the work process. To ensure business protection, it is necessary to foresee in advance who and how will monitor the fulfillment of obligations. This applies to both technical parameters and legal reporting. Without a control system, it is impossible to build KYC/AML compliance without risk.

The first line of control is the internal compliance or legal department. They monitor the quality of verification, response times, and risk processing. These employees analyze reports, store logs, and prepare reports for investors and regulators.

The second line is independent auditors. They can be connected by agreement. They check the settings, audit protocols, event data. Often such an audit requires access to servers or action logs. This should be specified in advance in the Master Services Agreement.

The third line of control is government authorities. If there is a suspicion of a violation of the law, regulators request information directly. Refusal to provide data or its absence may entail sanctions. Therefore, it is important that the contract with the KYC provider includes the right to audit and the obligation to cooperate with supervision.

Regular reports remain a key evaluation tool. They are usually provided monthly or weekly. They contain information on the number of checks, transaction status, failure statistics and risk flags. Such reports allow you to see the real effectiveness of the service.

Logs are no less important. They record who, when and how the check was carried out. This makes it possible to restore the sequence of actions and prove compliance with procedures. For crypto projects, this is especially important, since logging is associated with control over tokens, smart contracts and user addresses. A full event log is becoming a mandatory element of the KYC platform audit.

In case of failures or incidents, the provider is obliged to notify the customer. This allows for a quick response and documentation of events. For this purpose, notification protocols are created, which indicate response times, persons responsible for the solution, and the measures taken. If the service does not report problems, this increases the legal risks of KYC and can lead to accusations of concealment of information.

Provider's liability: how to secure protection

Without responsibility on the part of the KYC platform, it is impossible to ensure the protection of the interests of the project. The legal structure of interaction must include a direct reference to sanctions, compensations and obligations. Only this creates the basis for claims in the event of a dispute. The legal responsibility of the KYC provider is not a declaration, but a business protection measure fixed in the contract.

If a service has leaked information, it must compensate for the damage. To do this, the contract must specify fixed amounts or a procedure for assessing losses. This is especially important when it comes to protecting personal data in the blockchain, since a leak can entail administrative fines, reputational losses, and legal claims.

There should also be an obligation to immediately notify. If a leak is detected, the provider is obliged to notify the client within 24-48 hours. This will allow for timely notification to the regulatory authority, minimize the consequences and demonstrate good faith. Such provisions are included in the Data Processing Agreement for blockchain and should be synchronized with local law.

Technical failures are not always related to violation of the law, but they can lead to platform failures and business process interruptions. Therefore, SLA and DPA when working with AML should contain liability measures for service unavailability. These may be fines, refunds, or additional free days.

Additionally, it is recommended to secure the requirement for backup channels. The presence of backups, alternative connection points and external logs reduces the risk of complete data loss. This is especially relevant when automating user verification and high load.

To strengthen the legal position, it is worth including a clause in the contract that the provider is obliged to transfer all logs and archives at the first request of the regulator. This ensures compliance with regulatory requirements for cryptocurrencies and allows you to confirm the legality of actions as part of the audit.

Disputes and conflict resolution

Even with a carefully drafted contract, disputes may arise. The reason for this may be technical failures, data leaks, missed deadlines, or failure to provide logs. Such cases require a clear and pre-agreed algorithm for resolving the conflict. Without this, the project remains unprotected, and the dispute is protracted and costly. In the context of cross-border compliance, it is especially important to determine in advance what rules and in what jurisdiction the case will be resolved. This is the basis for a legal assessment of the contract with an AML partner.

The settlement process begins with the pre-trial stage. It involves a written claim. It specifies the grounds, a reference to the contract and a list of violations. Without such a claim, most arbitration courts will not accept the case for consideration.

The next step is negotiations. This stage may be mandatory if it is provided for in the Master Services Agreement for crypto. Negotiations are recorded in writing. The goal is to find a solution without involving a third party. If the parties do not agree, the dispute is referred to court or arbitration.

The format of the proceedings depends on the terms of the contract. If nothing is specified, the law of the defendant's place of registration applies. This can be inconvenient and expensive. In order not to end up in someone else's legal system, it is better to foresee in advance where and how arbitration disputes with the AML service provider will be considered.

By default, many providers indicate their country as the main one. Most often, it is the USA or Singapore. Such jurisdictions are not always beneficial for the project. In American law, legal proceedings are lengthy and expensive. For small startups or foreign companies, this model creates barriers.

It is recommended to agree on a neutral legal territory. The UK and the Netherlands are considered optimal. They provide a predictable procedure, access to arbitration and protection for both parties. Such jurisdiction is especially relevant for projects focused on the international market and regulatory requirements for cryptocurrencies.

It is advisable to include a precise wording of the applicable law and the court. Example: " All disputes shall be resolved under the laws of England and Wales in the courts of London. " This will avoid disputes over jurisdiction and speed up the protection of the project's interests. It is also worth specifying the language of the proceedings and the applicable procedure - this is the part of what should be in the contract with the KYC provider, affecting the legal stability of the project.

Main legal risks and how to avoid them

Working with a KYC/AML provider is always associated with risks. They arise not because of technical errors, but because of the absence of necessary conditions in the contract. Most problems can be prevented at the stage of contract approval. If the necessary provisions are not included in the Master Services Agreement for crypto or in the Data Processing Agreement for blockchain, protecting interests becomes impossible.

To ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk, it is necessary to analyze in advance what threats may arise and what wording to include in the agreement text. Below are the most common legal risks and ways to eliminate them through clearly defined obligations.

A leak of personal data can lead to audits, fines, and loss of trust. Therefore, personal data in the blockchain must be protected not only technically, but also legally. The contract must stipulate that the provider is responsible and compensates for losses in case of violation of the storage regime.

Unavailability of the service can stop the entire project. In this case, SLA helps, where availability levels and measures in case of failures are recorded. The priority is to provide backups and alternative communication channels. This is important when automating user verification and high load.

Sharing data with third parties without the customer's consent violates KYC standards under the GDPR and other laws. It is necessary to include a direct ban and penalties in case of non-compliance. This protects the project in case of complaints or audits.

Failure to provide logs blocks the ability to prove the legality of actions. Logs are a key element for auditing the KYC platform and responding to requests from the regulator. The MSA must establish the obligation to store and transfer them.

The inability to resolve a dispute is most often due to the fact that the contract does not specify a specific jurisdiction. This creates uncertainty and delays the process. To avoid this, it is important to determine in advance where the case will be heard and under what rules. This is part of the section on the jurisdiction of disputes with the KYC provider and an important precaution.

Conclusion

Working with the KYC/AML service goes beyond technical integration. It is an element of the legal structure on which the entire project will be based - from working with clients to interacting with regulators. KYC and AML: what regulators require from blockchain projects is no longer a question of the future, but a direct condition for access to the market, investments and infrastructure.

The provider becomes part of the chain of legal responsibility. It processes data, logs actions, confirms verifications and protects against risks. That is why how to choose a KYC provider for a cryptocurrency project, what conditions are fixed in the contract and how guarantees are drawn up is not a technical but a legal issue.

Mistakes in selection and design can have consequences - from sanctions to denial of service. It is important to consider who will store the logs, who will transfer the data at the request of the supervisory authority, who will be responsible for the leakage of personal data in cryptofintech, and how the project will be able to defend its position in the event of an audit.

To ensure KYC/AML compliance without risk, it is necessary not only to connect the platform, but also to formalize the relationship correctly. Only with the participation of a qualified lawyer can you build an agreement that will protect the project in conditions of uncertainty, cross-border regulation and technological burden. Therefore, when connecting a compliance provider, it is advisable to contact specialists who understand the specifics of cryptocurrency regulation, know how to analyze the Master Services Agreement for crypto, check the Data Processing Agreement for blockchain and support the project during negotiations, audits and disputes. It is this kind of legal support that allows you to reduce risks and focus on development, rather than on eliminating the consequences.