#Blog

Token Sales, ICOs & Securities Analysis — Are Tokens Securities under Nepali Law?

November 1, 2025 Uncategorized by admin_lawsagar

Table of Contents

Introduction

Blockchain token offerings — from utility tokens to security tokens — have been used worldwide to raise capital, create networks and fund projects. But whether a specific token is a security depends on legal tests and regulator interpretation. For Nepalese counsel, two legal realities must be considered up front:

NRB’s position: Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) has repeatedly stated that cryptocurrency trading and transactions are illegal in Nepal; enforcement actions and arrests have followed. That makes many crypto activities high-risk by default.
Securities regime: The Securities Act, 2007 (Securities Act, 2063) defines “securities” broadly (shares, bonds and “such other securities as may be specified by the Board”), and empowers SEBON to regulate issuances and transactions. SEBON could therefore treat certain tokens as securities.

This article explains the legal mechanics, compares international tests, applies them to token sales and ICOs, and gives practical guidance for lawyers, investors and founders operating in or entering Nepal.

1. Short primer: Tokens, ICOs and the common categories

Before legal analysis, we must be clear about token types — because the legal answer depends on what the token does.

Utility tokens: Access to a product or service (e.g., a token that pays for usage in a decentralized app). Often marketed as “not securities.”
Security tokens: Represent investment contracts, equity, debt, profit-sharing or other financial returns. These commonly meet securities tests.
Payment tokens / cryptocurrencies: Intended as a medium of exchange (Bitcoin or stablecoins). NRB has explicitly restricted such uses.
Hybrid / governance tokens / NFTs: These blur lines — some may function as investments depending on structure.

Whether a token is a security under Nepalese law will depend on substance over form: how the token is marketed, expected returns, control rights, and whether a promoter’s efforts drive value.

2. Nepal’s legal architecture: NRB, SEBON and the Securities Act

Two separate regulator strands matter:

2.1 Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) — fiat banking, FX and crypto ban

NRB has issued public notices and guidance stating that cryptocurrency trading and related activities are not permitted in Nepal. NRB’s public advisories warn banks, payment operators and the public that cryptocurrency transactions may breach foreign exchange and banking laws; criminal prosecutions for illegal trading have occurred. For practical purposes, any token sale that involves exchange with Nepali rupees or settlement through Nepali banks will face direct NRB scrutiny and possible investigation.

2.2 Securities Board of Nepal (SEBON) & Securities Act, 2007 — broad securities powers

The Securities Act, 2007 defines “securities” to include shares, stocks, bonds, debentures and “such other securities as may be specified by the Board” (SEBON). SEBON has statutory authority to register securities, regulate issuance, and supervise market conduct. That statutory phrase — “such other securities as may be specified by the Board” — is pivotal: SEBON could classify certain token offerings as securities within its rulemaking competence. If SEBON classifies an ICO as issuance of securities, then registration duties, prospectus requirements, disclosures, and licensing obligations will apply.

Practical legal effect: A token issuer in Nepal risks both (a) NRB enforcement if the token is used as a payment medium or exchanged for fiat in Nepal, and (b) SEBON enforcement/registration obligations if the token’s economic substance is a security.

3. How do jurisdictions decide whether tokens are securities? (international tests)

Because Nepal’s statutes are sectoral (NRB for banking/FX, SEBON for securities) and currently lack specific token rules, comparative law helps define the test.

3.1 The Howey test (United States)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. created the classic “investment contract” test: an instrument is an investment contract (and thus a security) if it involves (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits, (4) to come from the efforts of others. American regulators (SEC) apply this test to token offerings; many ICOs have been regulated as securities under Howey.

3.2 SEC Framework (DAO Report and subsequent guidance)

The U.S. SEC has published frameworks for analyzing whether digital assets are securities (applying Howey in a digital context). The SEC examines marketing, promises of profits, distribution of returns, and whether the issuer’s efforts materially affect token value. The SEC’s approach is fact-specific — some tokens (Bitcoin) may not be securities; others (tokenized equity) clearly are.

3.3 EU MiCA & global approaches

The European Union’s MiCA regulates many crypto assets and creates categories (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, utility tokens) with specific obligations for issuers and service providers. MiCA emphasizes consumer protection, operational resilience and issuer responsibilities. Other jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong) use a mix of activity-based regulation and securities-law analysis. MiCA is instructive because it shows how token categories can be regulated on a single framework rather than by ad hoc enforcement.

4. Applying the tests to token sales and ICOs in Nepal — step by step

4.1 Step 1 — Is the token a “payment token” (crypto) used as money?

If the token is used or intended to substitute fiat for transactions and is converted into Nepali rupees — NRB’s guidance treats such activity as unlawful. Any token sale that creates an on-ramps/off-ramps into Nepali banking channels or is used for foreign exchange-like functions will face immediate NRB enforcement risk. Practically: do not market tokens as a means of payment in Nepal without NRB clearance.

4.2 Step 2 — Does the token economically function like an investment?

If the token is marketed promising profits (future token price appreciation, dividends, share of profits, revenue share), or if buyers expect returns based on promoter efforts, the token meets the investment prong of Howey-type analyses. In that case SEBON could consider it a “security” (either by invoking the general securities definition or by specifying tokens as “other securities” in rules). The issuer would then face disclosure, prospectus and registration requirements under the Securities Act.

4.3 Step 3 — Is there a common enterprise and reliance on promoter efforts?

If token value depends on central management, development roadmap execution by promoters, or company profit (not purely user activity), regulators will view the structure as a common enterprise with profit expectation — classic securities characteristics. The more centralized the governance and the clearer the profit expectation, the higher the securities risk.

4.4 Step 4 — Distribution mechanics and secondary trading

If tokens are advertised as tradable assets and there is an organized secondary market (or the issuer facilitates trading), SEBON’s market oversight mandate may be triggered. SEBON could require registration or mandate that trading occur through licensed platforms and intermediaries.

5. Practical situations & worked examples (advisor’s view)

Below are realistic token structures and their likely Nepalese legal risk:

Pure utility token that only unlocks a service, non-refundable, no profit promises, decentralized network: Lower likelihood of being a security; but still carries NRB risk if traded for fiat or used as payment. Always ensure token does not become an instrument for speculation.
Token sold with promises of revenue share / dividends: High risk of being a security; SEBON registration/ prospectus obligations likely apply; criminal risk if NRB view on related fiat flows is breached.
Security token explicitly representing equity or debt: Clearly a security — must be registered and issued per Securities Act; possibly subject to licensing/market rules.

6. Enforcement & criminal exposure in Nepal — what has happened

Nepali authorities have prosecuted individuals and operators for unlawful cryptocurrency trading and related offences, including arrests by metropolitan crime police and revenue investigators. These prosecutions highlight that the NRB ban is not theoretical — active enforcement exists. For token issuers and intermediaries, this means criminal risk (and not only regulatory civil exposure) if operations involve prohibited crypto trading or unauthorized foreign exchange activities.

7. Where SEBON fits — regulatory leverage and gaps

SEBON’s statutory definition of “securities” includes “such other securities as may be specified by the Board.” That gives SEBON regulatory space to treat certain crypto-tokens or ICOs as securities by rule or administrative action. Because SEBON is focused on investor protection and market integrity, an ICO that raises capital from the public, lacks adequate disclosure, or creates a secondary market could be regulated by SEBON under the Securities Act. SEBON’s approach will likely be fact-based and guided by investor protection goals.

8. Two risks investors/issuers must manage simultaneously

NRB / banking & FX risk: If the token sale interacts with Nepali banks, remittances, exchange or payment functions, NRB can and will treat that as an offence or suspend related channels. Avoid fiat on-ramps in Nepal without explicit NRB permission.
SEBON / securities risk: If the token is an investment, public offering or associated with profit expectations, the Securities Act applies; issuers must face disclosure/registration obligations and possible penalties for non-compliance.

Therefore: a dual regulatory check (NRB + SEBON) is necessary for any token project with Nepal connections.

9. Practical compliance pathway — what to do before launching a token sale related to Nepal

If a client asks “Can we run an ICO targeting Nepali investors?” the safest stepwise legal roadmap is:

Legal structuring: Avoid offering tokens into Nepal (no Nepal-targeted marketing, no Nepali on-ramps). Consider issuing from a neutral jurisdiction with strong token law, but be mindful of extraterritorial reach if Nepali investors can participate.
Regulator pre-approach: Engage SEBON (written clarification) and NRB (if token interfaces with banks). Seek an advance ruling or “no action” letter — there is no guarantee but regulator engagement reduces surprise enforcement.
Economic substance test: Prepare a legal opinion analyzing whether tokens are likely to be securities (apply Howey-style factors) and document design changes to reduce securities risk (e.g., remove profit promises, limit secondary tradability). Use SEC frameworks as a comparative tool. SEC
Compliance packaging: Draft a token whitepaper that is not promotional, provides full risk disclosure, KYC/AML, and states explicitly whether sale is open to Nepali residents. Build AML/KYC flows and maintain transaction records.
Banking & fiat flow control: Avoid Nepali fiat rails unless NRB pre-approval; consider partner exchanges outside Nepal with appropriate licenses — but counsel that Nepali residents using local bank rails may still attract NRB enforcement.

10. Practical drafting points for token issuers / lawyers

Whitepaper compliance: Don’t call an offering “not an investment” if secondary markets or profit expectations are foreseeable. Make conservative disclosures.
Token economics: Limit buybacks, profit shares or revenue rights to reduce security-like features.
Transfer restrictions: Use contractual lock-ups and whitelist buyers to limit unsolicited secondary trading.
KYC/AML: Implement strict KYC to identify Nepali persons and block their participation if no NRB/SEBON clearance.
Escrow & fiduciary safeguards: Hold fiat raised in escrow with reputable custodian outside Nepal, with transparent distribution rules.
Legal opinion: Obtain independent counsel (global and Nepali) and consider a comfort letter from a major regulator where possible.

11. Recommendations for Nepal-facing investors, founders & counsel

If you are a Nepali founder: Do not run an ICO that solicits Nepali rupee purchasers or uses Nepali bank rails without NRB clearance. Consult SEBON about securities characterization before public offers.
If you are a foreign issuer seeking Nepali investors: Consider excluding Nepali residents explicitly; implement geo-fencing and KYC to prevent access. Remember extra-territorial enforcement is possible where local banking or FX rules are violated.
If you are an investor: Treat ICOs that promise returns as high-risk and potentially illegal in Nepal; seek advice and avoid participation if NRB/SEBON exposure is likely.
If you are counsel: Produce a bespoke legal opinion applying Howey-style factors and prepare regulator engagement materials. Ensure AML/KYC, contractual clarity and banking separation.

12. What could change? Regulatory reform prospects

Globally, jurisdictions are moving from ad-hoc enforcement to clearer licensing regimes (e.g., MiCA in the EU). Nepal’s regulators could in future:

Specify tokens as “securities” or define crypto categories; or
Create a licensing regime for crypto-asset service providers; or
Maintain conservative prohibitions focused on FX and banking stability.

Until regulators publish a permissive framework, the current risk profile — criminal enforcement for prohibited crypto activities and potential securities treatment for investment tokens — remains high. Keep watching SEBON publications and NRB circulars for policy shifts.

13. Conclusion

Are tokens securities under Nepali law? There is no automatic single-sentence answer. The legal reality is twofold:

Operational reality: NRB’s position makes most crypto activity risky and potentially illegal in Nepal if local rupees or bank channels are involved.
Securities reality: Under the Securities Act, SEBON has the statutory power to define and regulate “other securities”; tokens that economically function as investment contracts (profits from promoter efforts, common enterprise) are likely to be treated as securities and therefore fall under SEBON’s registration and disclosure regime.

Practical advice: do not run a token sale aimed at Nepali investors without a careful two-pronged compliance check (NRB + SEBON), a detailed legal opinion and clear KYC/AML controls. For businesses and investors, the safe path is regulatory engagement, conservative design, and avoidance of Nepali fiat flows absent explicit permission.

FAQs

Q1 — Is an ICO allowed in Nepal?
A1 — Not in practice. NRB has prohibited cryptocurrency trading and related activities; public ICOs that interface with Nepali fiat or banking channels invite enforcement. Additionally, SEBON may treat certain ICOs as securities.

Q2 — If I sell utility tokens, am I safe?
A2 — Not necessarily. A token’s economic reality matters. If marketed or used as an investment or if it becomes tradable for profit, SEBON could treat it as a security and NRB could treat fiat flows as illegal. Legal structuring and regulator consultation are essential.

Q3 — Can SEBON itself classify tokens as securities?
A3 — Yes. The Securities Act empowers SEBON to specify “other securities” that may be transacted. SEBON can therefore treat certain tokens as securities through its rulemaking or administrative action.

Q4 — What criminal risks exist for token issuers in Nepal?
A4 — NRB notices and prosecutions demonstrate criminal risk where token operations involve prohibited foreign exchange, bank misuse, or other banned crypto activities. Local arrests and prosecutions have occurred.

Q5 — What should a foreign issuer do if Nepali investors want to participate?
A5 — Exclude Nepali residents by explicit terms, implement geo-blocking and strict KYC, and obtain local legal advice. Even then, the issuer should be aware that if Nepali purchasers use Nepali banks to fund purchases, local enforcement risk remains.

Write a comment