Cryptocurrency is a specific type of virtual currency, which is decentralised and protected by cryptographic encryption techniques. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple are a few notable examples of cryptocurrencies. Decentralisation implies that there is no central authority where records of transactions are maintained. Instead, anyone can create a transaction. This transaction data is recorded and shared across multiple distributor networks, through independent computers as shown in Figure 1. This technology is known as Distributed Ledger Technology.
Figure 1: Distributed Ledger Technology
The Committee noted that there are two principal ways in which cryptocurrencies are raising money. First, through Initial Coin Offerings, where digital tokens are issued in exchange for other currencies. Second, through using it as a means of exchange or a payment system. As of February 2019, there were more than 2,000 cryptocurrencies across the world, with a market capitalisation of approximately USD 120 billion.
Why has the Committee recommended banning of cryptocurrencies?
The Committee noted various regulatory concerns around virtual currencies, and cryptocurrencies in particular. These include:
Fluctuation in prices: Cryptocurrencies are subjected to market fluctuations and the lack of a centralised authority makes it difficult to regulate them. For instance, in December 2017, the value of Bitcoin cryptocurrency was around USD 20,000 per coin, which reduced to USD 3,800 per coin by November 2018. The Ministry of Finance, in a press statement, noted that the price of virtual currencies is a matter of mere speculation resulting in spurt and volatility in their prices.
Risk to consumers: The Committee also noted that there are several vulnerabilities in the design of cryptocurrencies which leave consumers open to risk of fraud. These include phishing cyber-attacks and ponzi schemes. For instance, a Rs 2,000 crore ponzi scheme was unveiled in April 2018. Further, cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible, which means once a transaction is done, there is no way to remedy it.
Impact on power consumption: The Committee also observed that cryptocurrencies can have unfavourable consequences on India’s energy demand. Validating transactions in a distributed network involves high electricity consumption and requires high computation power. The Committee noted a study which estimated that 19 households in USA can be powered for one day by the electricity consumed in a single transaction of bitcoin cryptocurrency.
Potential use for criminal activity: The Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental organisation to combat money laundering, in its report (2014) observed that virtual currencies provide greater anonymity than traditional payment methods. This makes them more vulnerable to money-laundering and illicit funding for terror financing. The Committee noted that the decentralised nature and the anonymity which cryptocurrencies provide makes it difficult for law enforcement authorities to track down people involved in illicit activities.
Is there any country which has permitted use of cryptocurrencies?
Different countries have adopted different regulatory frameworks with respect to cryptocurrencies. Some countries have permitted the use of cryptocurrencies as a payment system while there is a complete ban on cryptocurrencies in some others. Note that no country has allowed use of any virtual currency as legal tender.
Table 1: Regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in different countries
|
Country |
Regulatory Framework |
|
Canada |
Permitted as a payment system and as a form of investment, income from it is taxed |
|
Switzerland |
Permitted as a payment system (including consumer to government transactions) and as a form of investment |
|
Japan |
Permitted and regulated as a payment system |
|
China |
Use of cryptocurrency is banned for all purposes |
What are the present regulations in India with respect to cryptocurrencies?
In the last few years, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has notified the potential financial, operational, legal and security risks related to cryptocurrencies on multiple occasions (December 2013, February 2017 and December 2017). In December 2017, the Ministry of Finance issued a statement which clarified that virtual currencies are not legal tender and do not have any regulatory permission or protection in India. Further, the investors and participants dealing with them are doing so entirely at their risk and should best avoid participating. In the 2018-19 budget speech, the Finance Minister announced that the government does not consider cryptocurrencies as legal tender and will take all measures to eliminate their use in financing illegitimate activities or as a part of payment system. In April 2018, RBI notified that entities regulated by it should not deal in virtual currencies or provide services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling virtual currencies.
How does the draft Bill proposed by the Committee change these regulations?
Currently, only the entities regulated by the central bank are prohibited from dealing in, or providing services for dealing in virtual currencies. The draft Bill prohibits any form of mining (creating cryptocurrency), issuing, buying, holding, selling or dealing in cryptocurrency in the country. Further, it provides that cryptocurrency should not be used as legal tender or currency in India. The Bill allows for the use of technology or processes underlying cryptocurrency for the purpose of experiment, research or teaching.
The Bill also provides for offences and punishments for the contravention of its provisions. For instance, it states that mining, holding, selling, issuing or using cryptocurrency is punishable with a fine, or imprisonment up to 10 years, or both. For individuals who might be in possession of cryptocurrencies, the Bill provides for a transition period of 90 days from the commencement of the Act, during which a person may dispose of any cryptocurrency in their possession, as per the notified rules.
Are there any areas where the Committee recommended use of cryptocurrencies?
According to the Committee, while cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies do not offer any advantages, the underlying technology behind them (Distributed Ledger Technology, DLT) has many potential applications, both in finance and non-finance sectors. Some of these are listed in Table 2. The Committee observed that DLT makes it easier to identify duplicate transactions, and therefore can be utilised for fraud-detection, processing KYC requirements, and claim management for insurance. Further, it can be helpful for removing errors and frauds in land markets, if used for maintaining land records. The Committee was also of the view that the idea of an official digital currency in India can be explored further, and that the government may setup a group to examine and develop an appropriate model of digital currency in India.
Table 2: Applications of Distributed Ledger Technology
|
Sector |
Possible uses of DLT |
|
Payments |
Faster and cheaper cross-border payments Reduced transaction cost for micro-payments |
|
Identification |
Storing personal records such as birth, marriage or death certificates Removing duplicates in identification platforms such as KYC |
|
Insurance |
Fraud detection and risk prevention Claims prevention and management |
|
Ownership registries |
Removing errors and frauds in land markets Administrative ease of maintaining land records |
|
Trade Financing |
Reduced operational complexity and transaction costs |
The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 is listed for discussion in Rajya Sabha today.[i] The Bill aims to expeditiously resolve cases of debt recovery by making amendments to four laws, including the (i) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and (ii) the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 The 1993 Act created Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTS) to adjudicated debt recovery cases. This was done to move cases out of civil courts, with the idea of reducing time taken for debt recovery, and for providing technical expertise. This was aimed at assisting banks and financial institutions in recovering outstanding debt from defaulters. Over the years, it has been observed that the DRTs do not comply with the stipulated time frame of resolving disputes within six months. This has resulted in delays in disposal, and a high pendency of cases before the DRTs. Between March 2013 and December 2015, the number of pending cases before the DRTs increased from 43,000 to 70,000. With an average disposal rate of 10,000 cases per year, it is estimated that these DRTs will take about six to seven years to clear the existing backlog of cases.[ii] Experts have also observed that the DRT officers, responsible for debt recovery, lack experience in dealing with such cases. Further, these officers are not adequately trained to adjudicate debt-related matters.[iii] The 2016 Bill proposes to increase the retirement age of Presiding Officers of DRTs, and allows for their reappointment. This will allow the existing DRT officers to serve for longer periods of time. However, such a move may have limited impact in expanding the pool of officers in the DRTs. The 2016 Bill also has a provision which allows Presiding Officers of tribunals, established under other laws, to head DRTs. Currently, there are various specialised tribunals functioning in the country, like the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the National Company Law Tribunal, and theNational Green Tribunal. It remains to be seen if the skills brought in by officers of these tribunals will mirror the specialisation required for adjudicating debt-related matters. Further, the 1993 Act provides that banks and financial institutions must file cases in those DRTs that have jurisdiction over the defendant’s area of residence or business. In addition, the Bill allows cases to be filed in DRTs having jurisdiction over the bank branch where the debt is due. The Bill also provides that certain procedures, such as presentation of claims by parties and issue of summons by DRTs, can now be undertaken in electronic form (such as filing them on the DRT website). Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 The 2002 Act allows secured creditors (lenders whose loans are backed by a security) to take possession over a collateral security if the debtor defaults in repayment. This allows creditors to sell the collateral security and recover the outstanding debt without the intervention of a court or a tribunal. This takeover of collateral security is done with the assistance of the District Magistrate (DM), having jurisdiction over the security. Experts have noted that the absence of a time-limit for the DM to dispose such applications has resulted in delays.[iv] The 2016 Bill proposes to introduce a 30-day time limit within which the DM must pass an order for the takeover of a security. Under certain circumstances, this time-limit may be extended to 60 days. The 2002 Act also regulates the establishment and functioning of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs). ARCs purchase Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from banks at a discount. This allows banks to recover partial payment for an outstanding loan account, thereby helping them maintain cash flow and liquidity. The functioning of ARCs has been explained in Figure 1. 
It has been observed that the setting up of ARCs, along with the use out-of-court systems to take possession of the collateral security, has created an environment conducive to lending.[iii] However, a few concerns related to the functioning of ARCs have been expressed over the years. These concerns include a limited number of buyers and capital entering the ARC business, and high transaction costs involved in the transfer of assets in favour of these companies due to the levy of stamp duty.[iii] In this regard, the Bill proposes to exempt the payment of stamp duty on transfer of financial assets in favour of ARCs. This benefit will not be applicable if the asset has been transferred for purposes other than securitisation or reconstruction (such as for the ARCs own use or investment). Consequently, the Bill amends the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Bill also provides greater powers to the Reserve Bank of India to regulate ARCs. This includes the power to carry out audits and inspections either on its own, or through specialised agencies. With the passage of the Bankruptcy Code in May 2016, a complete overhaul of the debt recovery proceedings was envisaged. The Code allows creditors to collectively take action against a defaulting debtor, and complete this process within a period of 180 days. During the process, the creditors may choose to revive a company by changing the repayment schedule of outstanding loans, or decide to sell it off for recovering their dues. While the Bankruptcy Code provides for collective action of creditors, the proposed amendments to the SARFAESI and DRT Acts seek to streamline the processes of creditors individually taking action against the defaulting debtor. The impact of these changes on debt recovery scenario in the country, and the issue of rising NPAs will only become clear in due course of time. [i] Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016, http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/media/Enforcement%20of%20Security/Enforcement%20of%20Security%20Bill,%202016.pdf. [ii] Unstarred Question No. 1570, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Finance, Answered on March 4, 2016. [iii] ‘A Hundred Small Steps’, Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, Planning Commission, September 2008, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_fr/cfsr_all.pdf. [iv] Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission, March 2013, http://finmin.nic.in/fslrc/fslrc_report_vol1.pdf.
