Fintech
We help fintechs choose the right licensing route—apply, acquire, or operate under an existing AFSL—and build the compliance foundations to scale with confidence.
Technology businesses entering the Australian financial services market face a regulatory
framework that does not always map neatly to modern product architectures. Whether a platform
constitutes a “financial service,” whether an algorithm’s output constitutes “financial product advice,”
and whether a digital asset falls within the definition of a “financial product” are questions that require
careful legal and regulatory analysis.
AFSL Advisory works with fintech businesses to resolve these classification questions, identify the
licensing authorizations required, and design a compliance framework that accommodates the unique
characteristics of technology-driven operating models.
Who it’s for
Fintech teams entering or scaling in Australia
Founders, product, legal and operations teams building regulated financial products—whether you’re pre‑launch, launching, or expanding scope.
Common scenarios
Neobanking and Digital Banking Licence Considerations
Businesses offering deposit-taking, lending, or payment services in Australia operate across multiple regulatory frameworks, including the banking authorization regime administered by APRA and the financial services licensing regime under the Corporations Act. While deposit-taking requires an authorized deposit-taking institution license from APRA, many neobanking and digital banking products — including savings accounts, payment facilities, and credit products — also engage AFSL requirements depending on how the product is structured and distributed. We assist neobanking businesses to map their product suite against both regimes, identify which activities require AFSL authorization, and design a licensing strategy that accounts for both the APRA and ASIC regulatory frameworks
Digital Asset and Cryptocurrency Regulatory Classification
The regulatory classification of digital assets in Australia remains an area of active development. Whether a digital asset constitutes a “financial product” within the meaning of the Corporations Act — and therefore whether dealing in or advising on that asset requires an AFSL — depends on the specific characteristics of the asset and the nature of the service provided. Assets that function as derivatives, managed investment scheme interests, or non-cash payment facilities may engage AFSL requirements regardless of their underlying technology. We provide classification analysis for digital asset products and services, with written assessments that document the regulatory position and can be relied upon in subsequent dealings with ASIC.
Robo-Advice and Automated Decision-Making Compliance
Platforms that provide automated investment recommendations or portfolio construction outputs must consider whether those outputs constitute “financial product advice” within the meaning of section 766B of the Corporations Act. Where the output is personal advice — that is, advice that takes into account the client’s personal circumstances — the platform operator requires an AFSL with a financial product advice authorization and must comply with the best interests duty and related obligations under Part 7.7A. We assist robo-advice businesses to classify their output correctly, design the AFSL authorization scope required, and build a compliance framework that addresses the specific challenges of delivering personal or general advice at scale through an automated platform.
Payment and Non-Cash Payment Facility Licensing
Non-cash payment facilities are a class of financial product under the Corporations Act. Businesses that issue, acquire, or provide advice on non-cash payment facilities — including digital wallets, stored value products, and certain buy-now-pay-later arrangements — may require AFSL authorisation depending on the structure of the product and the nature of the service. We assist payment businesses to assess whether their products engage the non-cash payment facility definition, identify the AFSL authorisations required, and design compliance frameworks appropriate to payment-focused operating models.
Crowdfunding and Marketplace Lending Frameworks
Equity crowdfunding platforms operating under the Corporations Act require an AFSL with specific crowd-sourced funding intermediary authorizations. Marketplace lending businesses may engage managed investment scheme, credit, or financial product advice requirements depending on how the lending product is structured. We assist crowdfunding and marketplace lending businesses to identify the applicable regulatory framework, obtain the required authorizations, and design compliance arrangements that reflect the platform-based nature of their operating models.
Regulatory Sandbox and Exemption Pathways
ASIC’s Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox allows eligible businesses to test certain financial services for up to 24 months without holding an AFSL, subject to conditions including client number caps and maximum exposure limits. Additional exemptions and class order relief may also be available depending on the nature of the activity and the clients served. We assess sandbox eligibility and the availability of all relevant exemptions as part of our regulatory pathway analysis, and where an exemption pathway is available we document the conditions that must be satisfied and design monitoring arrangements to ensure ongoing eligibility throughout the exemption period.
Tokenisation and Distributed Ledger Technology Regulatory Considerations
The tokenisation of financial assets — including securities, managed fund interests, and real-world assets — raises regulatory questions about the classification of the token, the nature of the service provided to token holders, and the licensing obligations of the platform operator. Where a token represents an interest in a managed investment scheme or a financial product, dealing in or advising on that token engages AFSL requirements. We assist businesses developing tokenisation platforms and DLT-based financial products to conduct regulatory classification analysis, identify licensing obligations, and engage with ASIC’s emerging framework for digital asset regulation.