Finance

The International Financial Centre of Oman (IFC Oman) is moving closer to its launch, with company registration expected to open later this year and full licensing operations scheduled to begin in 2027.

A package of legislation covering business registration and licensing, financial services regulation and independent dispute resolution is expected to be issued shortly. The laws will establish the legal foundations for the centre and define the framework governing businesses and investors operating within it.

The legislation will also enable IFC Oman to introduce an initial set of regulations and rules governing activities conducted within and through the centre.

Preparations are progressing on a digital registry system, which is expected to enter testing shortly. Once operational, the platform will allow businesses seeking to establish a presence at IFC Oman to submit their applications online.

Mahmood Al Aweini, Chairman of the IFC Oman Authority Board, said the centre's legal, regulatory and digital infrastructure was taking shape as preparations gathered pace for its opening.

“IFC Oman is accelerating towards opening its doors, with its legal, regulatory and digital infrastructure moving into place,” he said.

Al Aweini said the centre would offer international businesses and investors a stable and competitive environment. By leveraging Oman's strategic location and established international connections, it aims to create new growth opportunities and generate long-term value for the sultanate.

The centre has stepped up its international engagement to attract prospective businesses, investors and professional services firms. In September, it was approved for membership of the World Alliance of International Financial Centres at the organisation's annual meeting in Busan.

After participating in the Hong Kong Belt and Road Summit and Astana Finance Days, an IFC Oman delegation is scheduled to visit Bangkok for meetings with international financial services firms on the sidelines of IMF and World Bank engagements, as well as the annual meeting of members of the Institute of International Finance. Further discussions with prospective businesses are planned in London later in October.

IFC Oman is being developed as a dedicated business environment operating under a common-law framework, with its own registration, licensing and dispute resolution mechanisms. The centre aims to connect international capital and expertise with investment opportunities in Oman and the wider region, offering businesses a platform from which to pursue regional and international activities.

The initiative is expected to contribute to Oman Vision 2040 by encouraging private investment, supporting economic diversification and creating employment opportunities. Its development also reflects Oman's efforts to strengthen its position as a destination for international financial services and cross-border investment.

The opening of company registration later this year, followed by the start of full licensing operations in 2027, will represent important steps in establishing IFC Oman as a platform for international business and investment in the sultanate.

Democratic Party officials have filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent US President Donald Trump’s administration from spending public money on television advertisements that praise him, arguing that the campaign violates restrictions on the use of government funds for political propaganda.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed the case in a federal court in Washington, alleging that the advertisements breach a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes”.

The advertisements, which began airing in late September, have triggered criticism from both Democrats and Republicans over the use of taxpayers’ money to promote the president.

A separate lawsuit was filed in New York on Wednesday by watchdog group Common Cause, a public employee union and a candidate for the Alabama state legislature. The plaintiffs are also seeking a court order to stop the advertisements, arguing that they amount to personal publicity and political propaganda rather than public-service announcements.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday, Trump described the advertisements as “a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said they would no longer be financed by taxpayers. The White House subsequently said his political action committee, MAGA PAC, would fund the campaign.

However, the DNC said the advertisements continued to run after Trump’s announcement, prompting it to pursue legal action.

“With less than 30 days remaining before the midterm election and millions of public dollars apportioned to pay for propaganda ads still unspent, the DNC has no choice but to take action in defence of free and fair elections,” the lawsuit stated.

The advertisements were broadcast during football games as recently as Sunday, as well as during other television programmes. The New York Times reported that Trump had personally instructed the White House budget director to use taxpayer money to pay for the television spots, citing people familiar with the matter.

One advertisement features Trump declaring that “America will never be a communist country”, while a chorus repeats the words “love me”. Another combines images of Mount Rushmore with footage of the president describing the period as a “golden age of America”.

A more recent advertisement also features ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. A source briefed on the matter told Reuters that the government-funded advertisements were expected to end this week.

The White House has said MAGA PAC will not reimburse taxpayers for advertisements that have already aired. The television spots conclude with a disclaimer stating that they were paid for by the US government.

Two men who allegedly posed as representatives of a government entity to convince a man that he had won a Dh200,000 cash prize have been sentenced to six months in prison by a UAE court.

The Sharjah Misdemeanours Court convicted the two defendants in absentia and ordered their deportation from the country after the victim discovered that Dh84,000 had been taken from his bank account instead of receiving the promised prize.

How The Scam Unfolded

According to court records, the incident began with a phone call informing the victim that he had won Dh200,000. The callers allegedly claimed to represent a government entity, lending credibility to the unexpected prize and persuading the victim that the offer was genuine.

The men told him that certain procedures had to be completed before the prize could be released. They subsequently asked him to provide personal identification and banking information as part of what they described as a verification process.

The callers also persuaded the victim to disclose a one-time password (OTP) linked to his bank account. Believing that the information was required to complete the procedures and receive the prize, he complied with their requests.

The promised payment, however, never arrived. Instead, the victim discovered that Dh84,000 had been withdrawn from his account, according to the case records.

Court Proceedings

The victim reported the incident to the authorities, leading to the prosecution of the two men before the Sharjah Misdemeanours Court.

Prosecutors accused the defendants of using fraudulent methods to obtain the victim’s banking information and gain access to his funds. After examining the circumstances surrounding the calls and the subsequent movement of money, the court convicted both men.

Each defendant was sentenced in absentia to six months in prison, followed by deportation from the UAE.

The case illustrates a familiar pattern in financial fraud, in which criminals use the promise of an unexpected prize to create excitement and persuade victims to lower their guard.

The alleged use of a government identity added another layer of credibility to the deception, while the request for an OTP was critical to gaining access to the victim’s funds.

What appeared to be a Dh200,000 windfall therefore ended with the victim losing Dh84,000 instead.

EFG International has reached a final settlement with Kuwait’s Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS) over civil proceedings in the UK, the Swiss private bank said.

Kuwait’s public pension fund had accused asset manager Man Group, EFG and others of involvement in laundering bribes allegedly paid to its late director.

EFG said it had already made a provision for the case, but the settlement would have a marginal additional impact of about 5 million Swiss francs ($6.09 million) on its net profit for the second half of 2026.

The settlement removes all remaining litigation risk for EFG arising from the claims involved in the UK proceedings, which relate to events that took place between 1995 and 2012, the bank said.

The Saudi Organization for Certified Public Accountants (SOCPA) has referred seven individuals and entities to the Public Prosecution since the beginning of this year following initial monitoring and investigation into suspected offences under Article 10 of the Accounting and Auditing Profession Law.

SOCPA warned that providing false or misleading information can result in imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to SR2 million. The organisation also stressed that certified public accountants are responsible for the accuracy of financial reports and information they certify.

Under Article 10, a certified public accountant may commit an offence by certifying financial statements that have not been audited either by the accountant or by employees working under their supervision. Those found guilty of one or more of the offences covered by the article may face imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of up to SR2 million, without prejudice to any additional penalties prescribed under other laws.

Offences Covered

The law also criminalises providing false information or forged certificates to obtain a professional licence, as well as misleading the public in any manner about the right to practise the profession.

It further covers cases where a certified public accountant knowingly provides false information or conceals information that is required to be disclosed. Certifying a report that does not reflect the truth or contains false information in a document required by law or professional regulations is also considered an offence.

Other violations include disclosing confidential information relating to an entity for which professional services are provided, providing false information about the qualifications or experience of employees, or assisting in the provision of such information.

SOCPA said the measures form part of its efforts to strengthen compliance with professional and regulatory requirements and address practices that could undermine the reliability of financial information.

The organisation said the reliability of financial reports is a fundamental element of financial health and is important for protecting entities, beneficiaries and users of financial statements.

It also highlighted the role of coordination between the accounting and auditing regulatory system and relevant regulatory and judicial authorities in strengthening compliance, addressing irregular practices and improving the integrity of financial information and the quality of professional services.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a man to return Dh99,000 that was mistakenly transferred to his bank account and to pay Dh20,000 in compensation for material and moral damages.

The case arose after the claimant accidentally transferred the amount to the defendant, whose bank account details had previously been saved in the claimant’s banking application.

According to the case documents, the claimant said the defendant was a client of a company he owned. After discovering the mistaken transfer, he repeatedly asked the defendant to return the money, but the defendant allegedly delayed and refused to do so.

The claimant sought an order requiring the defendant to pay Dh100,000, along with Dh30,000 in compensation for the material and moral damages he said resulted from the refusal to return the money. He also sought legal fees and costs.

Money Withdrawn In Two Installments

The claimant said he had mistakenly transferred Dh99,000 from his bank account to the defendant’s account. After discovering the error, he contacted the defendant several times and requested repayment, but the money was not returned.

The claimant subsequently initiated criminal proceedings, resulting in a conviction against the defendant. He told the civil court that the defendant had withdrawn Dh95,000 of the transferred amount in two installments through an ATM.

The claimant argued that the defendant’s refusal to return the money had caused him both financial and non-financial harm.

Criminal Conviction Establishes Liability

The court said the earlier criminal judgment had established the defendant’s conviction, resolving the issue of his responsibility for the conduct.

Based on that judgment and the evidence before it, the court found the defendant liable for the amount that had been mistakenly transferred to his account.

The court therefore ordered him to return Dh99,000 to the claimant and awarded Dh20,000 in compensation for the material and moral damages suffered by the claimant. The court also ruled on the applicable court fees and costs.

The use of cryptocurrency and other digital currencies in commercial transactions has increased significantly in recent years. Businesses in the UAE are increasingly exploring digital currencies as a means of receiving payments, transferring value and engaging in digital-asset-related activities. While these developments create new commercial opportunities, they also raise important questions from a tax and compliance perspective, particularly in relation to Value Added Tax (VAT).

One of the key practical issues for businesses accepting cryptocurrency is determining the value of a transaction for VAT purposes. Although a commercial agreement may provide for payment in Bitcoin, Ethereum or another digital currency, VAT reporting in the UAE must ultimately be completed in UAE dirhams (AED). This creates a challenge because the value of digital currencies can fluctuate significantly, sometimes within minutes.

To provide greater clarity on this issue, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) issued Directive on Tax Transactions No. 3 of 2026 on the method of converting the value of digital currencies into UAE dirhams for VAT purposes. The Directive applies both to supplies of digital currencies and to transactions in which goods or services are supplied and the consideration is received in digital currency.

The introduction of this framework provides businesses with a more structured approach to valuation and addresses one of the main practical concerns associated with cryptocurrency transactions: determining the appropriate exchange rate to apply when reporting VAT.

VAT Treatment Remains Based On The Underlying Supply

The acceptance of cryptocurrency as consideration does not, by itself, change the VAT treatment of the underlying transaction. The applicable VAT rules continue to depend on the nature of the supply being made.

For example, if a UAE-based business provides taxable consultancy services and receives payment in Bitcoin, the transaction remains subject to VAT in the same manner as if payment had been received in AED. The business must determine the value of the Bitcoin received at the relevant time and use that value when calculating and reporting VAT.

The important consideration is therefore not the form of payment but the value of the consideration received for the taxable supply. The Directive establishes the mechanism for converting that digital-currency value into AED for disclosure in the VAT return.

How The Digital Currency Value Is Calculated

Under Directive No. 3 of 2026, taxable persons must follow a prescribed method for converting digital currency values into AED. A business must select three centralised public digital-currency exchange platforms from the list published by the FTA and use the same three platforms for transactions during the relevant calendar year.

The FTA’s published list currently includes Binance FZE, Bybit Fintech FZE, Deribit FZE, Bitget and Payward FZCO. A taxable person selects three platforms from this list and applies the same selection throughout the calendar year.

The value of the digital currency is then calculated using the numerical average of the exchange rates displayed on the three selected platforms at the date and time relevant to the supply or receipt of consideration, as applicable. This approach is intended to provide a consistent and auditable basis for determining the AED value rather than allowing businesses to select an exchange rate on an individual transaction basis.

For example, where a business receives one Bitcoin as payment for a taxable service and the exchange rates displayed on its selected platforms at the relevant time are Dh400,000, Dh402,000 and Dh398,000, the business would calculate the average of the three rates and use Dh400,000 as the value of the consideration for VAT purposes.

Volatility Creates Practical Challenges

A key practical issue for businesses is the volatility of cryptocurrency values. Unlike traditional currencies, digital currencies can experience significant price movements within short periods. This means that the value of cryptocurrency at the time an invoice is issued may differ from its value when payment is made or when the cryptocurrency is subsequently converted into AED.

The VAT calculation, however, is based on the value determined under the FTA methodology at the relevant date and time of the transaction. A later increase or decrease in the market value of the cryptocurrency does not change the original VAT value.

For instance, if a customer pays one Bitcoin for a taxable service and the value of that Bitcoin at the relevant time is Dh100,000, that amount will form the basis for VAT reporting. If the business later converts the Bitcoin into AED at a lower or higher value because of market fluctuations, the later conversion value will not alter the original VAT calculation.

Record-Keeping Becomes Critical

The introduction of specific valuation rules also highlights the importance of maintaining proper records. Businesses accepting cryptocurrency should retain sufficient documentation to demonstrate how the AED value reported for VAT purposes was calculated.

This includes records of the amount of cryptocurrency received, the date and time of the transaction, the exchange rates obtained from the selected platforms and the calculation used to determine the final AED value. The Directive specifically requires records evidencing the exchange rates obtained from each of the three selected platforms, in addition to the other record-keeping obligations applicable to the transaction.

Blockchain records may confirm that a cryptocurrency transfer occurred, but they may not independently establish the exchange rates used or the basis of the VAT calculation. Businesses should therefore ensure that relevant exchange-rate information is captured at the time of the transaction rather than attempting to recreate the calculation at a later stage.

This will be particularly important in the event of a VAT review or audit by the FTA. A clear audit trail showing the transaction timestamp, selected platforms, applicable rates and resulting AED calculation can help demonstrate how the reported value was established.

Contracts Should Address Digital Currency Risks

In addition to valuation and record-keeping requirements, businesses accepting cryptocurrency should consider the broader commercial implications. Appropriate contractual provisions should address issues such as the agreed cryptocurrency value, timing of payment, responsibility for transaction fees, refund mechanisms and potential risks arising from price fluctuations.

Businesses should also consider carefully how payment obligations are expressed in agreements. Where the commercial arrangement is denominated in cryptocurrency, the parties may need to establish whether the obligation is measured by the quantity of digital currency or by an agreed AED value. Clear drafting can help reduce disputes arising from changes in the cryptocurrency’s market value between agreement, invoicing and payment.

Businesses dealing with less commonly traded digital currencies should also consider whether reliable valuation information is available. Where an exchange rate is not available on the required number of listed platforms, the Directive provides for further guidance from the FTA on the procedures to be followed.

A Structured Approach To VAT Compliance

The FTA’s Directive No. 3 of 2026 represents an important development in the UAE’s approach to digital-currency transactions. By establishing a defined valuation method, the Directive provides businesses with a consistent framework for converting digital currency into AED when reporting transactions for VAT purposes.

For businesses accepting digital currencies, compliance will depend not only on applying the correct valuation methodology but also on maintaining clear evidence supporting the calculation. Businesses should therefore review their VAT procedures, accounting systems and contractual arrangements to ensure that digital-currency transactions are properly captured and reported.

Conclusion

The increasing adoption of cryptocurrency in commercial transactions requires businesses to adopt a careful and structured approach to VAT compliance. While using digital currency as consideration does not alter the VAT treatment of the underlying supply, it introduces specific challenges relating to valuation, record-keeping and evidencing the basis of VAT reporting.

The FTA’s Directive No. 3 of 2026 provides a defined framework for determining the AED value of digital-currency transactions, reducing uncertainty arising from market volatility and inconsistent valuation practices. However, effective compliance will depend on businesses implementing appropriate internal procedures to capture transaction details, exchange-rate data and supporting documentation at the relevant time.

As digital assets continue to develop as part of the UAE’s commercial landscape, businesses accepting cryptocurrency should proactively review their VAT processes, accounting controls and contractual arrangements to ensure that such transactions are properly valued, recorded and reported. A robust compliance framework will be important not only for meeting VAT obligations but also for mitigating potential risks during future tax reviews or audits by the FTA.

The Dubai Judicial Institute (DJI), in partnership with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) for the GCC, has launched the second edition of the Contemporary Legal and Judicial Challenges Forum under the theme “Combating Electronic Financial Fraud”.

The forum forms part of DJI’s efforts to strengthen the preparedness of the judicial and legal ecosystem to address rapidly evolving challenges in the digital environment. It brought together senior representatives from judicial and legal institutions, specialised authorities, and financial and digital sectors to examine emerging risks and strengthen cooperation.

The event was attended by Her Excellency Judge Dr Ebtessam Ali Al Badwawi, Director General of DJI, and His Excellency Judge Dr Hatem Aly, Head of Mission and Regional Representative of UNODC for the GCC Region, along with senior representatives of legal and judicial bodies and specialised authorities across the UAE.

The forum provided a platform for dialogue and knowledge exchange, combining judicial expertise, legal analysis, technical insights and international cooperation to examine contemporary challenges linked to electronic financial fraud. It also highlighted the importance of coordinated efforts to protect the integrity of financial systems and uphold the rule of law in the digital age.

Strengthening Judicial Preparedness

Judge Dr Ebtessam Ali Al Badwawi said the second edition reflected DJI’s commitment to raising judicial and legal awareness of emerging challenges, particularly electronic financial fraud, which has become a significant legal and economic threat at both national and international levels.

She said the forum seeks to deepen understanding of such crimes, examine international best practices and strengthen cooperation between judicial institutions and international organisations. Such efforts, she added, support the development of the justice system and Dubai’s vision of creating a resilient and future-ready legal environment.

Al Badwawi said tackling electronic financial fraud requires more than legislative frameworks. It also depends on stronger institutional preparedness, effective investigative and evidentiary tools, improved procedures for handling digital evidence and enhanced international judicial cooperation in addressing transnational crime.

The forum therefore brought together judicial, legal, security, regulatory, financial and digital stakeholders with international specialists to examine practical approaches to combating these offences.

Addressing Cross-Border Threats

Judge Dr Hatem Aly said the forum’s organisation in partnership with DJI was strategically important in addressing contemporary legal and judicial challenges. He noted that UNODC serves as the secretariat of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime.

He highlighted the rapid development of artificial intelligence, the expansion of instant payment networks and the difficulties involved in cross-border prosecution as among the key challenges facing efforts to combat electronic financial fraud.

According to Aly, such offences have evolved from isolated activities into increasingly organised networks that exploit technological developments, including social engineering, cryptocurrencies and digital identity fraud, to develop sophisticated methods of deception.

He said the partnership seeks to facilitate knowledge-sharing and familiarise the judicial and legal ecosystem, financial and banking institutions, digital-sector organisations and other relevant stakeholders with regional and international methods and best practices for addressing these risks.

Examining Emerging Fraud Risks

The forum brought together members of the judiciary, justice policymakers and representatives of financial, banking and digital institutions to strengthen their capacity to develop effective legal responses to emerging challenges.

Discussions focused on the legal dimensions of electronic financial fraud, the challenges facing judicial authorities and financial institutions, and international experiences and best practices in combating such offences.

Sessions examined the evolving nature of cyber-enabled financial fraud, including the technical and digital complexities involved, the importance of international judicial cooperation in tackling cross-border crime, and the UAE’s national framework for combating such offences.

The sessions were led by national and international experts and drew participation from local and federal judicial authorities, financial and digital-sector institutions and banks operating across the UAE.

The broad participation underscored the importance of coordinated action among the justice system, regulatory authorities and financial institutions in responding to emerging legal and technological challenges.

Through the second edition of the forum, DJI reaffirmed its commitment to specialised knowledge initiatives aimed at promoting legal and judicial excellence and strengthening international cooperation.

The institute said such efforts support the development of an agile justice system capable of responding to evolving challenges and contribute to Dubai’s vision of strengthening its position as a global centre for specialised legal and judicial development.

The US Senate failed to advance comprehensive cryptocurrency legislation backed by President Donald Trump, dealing a major blow to digital asset companies and Republicans who had championed the bill for months.

The bill, called the Clarity Act, fell 10 votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber, as four Republican senators — Jerry Moran, Susan Collins, Josh Hawley and Thom Tillis — joined all Democrats in voting against it. The vote was 50-49 in favour.

The vote effectively put the bill on ice, as Congress is set to leave Washington this month ahead of the November midterm elections, in which Trump's fellow Republicans are fighting to retain control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Tillis switched his vote from yes to no in a procedural move that preserves his ability to bring the measure back up for reconsideration later.

Senate Republicans on Sunday night released a new version of the bill in a last-ditch effort to address concerns from the banking industry and some Democrats, but opponents were not swayed.

The Clarity Act aimed to create a regulatory framework for digital assets, which crypto companies say would put them on a more solid legal footing. The deep-pocketed industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars campaigning for the bill's passage.

Trump, who has earned more than $1.4 billion from his family's crypto ventures, had urged Congress to pass the legislation. Trump courted financial support from the crypto industry on the campaign trail during the 2024 election, calling himself a "crypto president".

His regulators, particularly the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, will now be positioned to fill the crypto policy void, but efforts to establish favourable rules for the digital asset industry could prove challenging.

Industry experts have said only Congress can create a lasting regulatory framework. Without legislation, regulations will be vulnerable to the shifting political climate and court challenges, creating lingering risks for the crypto industry, executives and analysts said.

"The CLARITY Act didn't advance in the Senate today, which was a disappointment," said Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong in a social media post on Tuesday after the vote.

"The SEC and CFTC have the tools they need to create clear rules under existing authority, and I expect they will begin working on this in earnest," he added.

The Trump administration's own extensive rollback of dozens of SEC and consumer watchdog policies introduced under former Democratic President Joe Biden has underscored that risk.

Bitcoin, the world's largest cryptocurrency, fell more than 5% as the vote appeared on track to fail, its biggest daily percentage decline since June. Shares of crypto exchange Coinbase and stablecoin issuer Circle fell as much as 10%.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a woman to pay her sister Dh340,000 after ruling that she had failed to repay part of a loan received from her.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay Dh20,000 in compensation for the losses suffered by her sister, in addition to court fees and expenses.

The plaintiff had filed a case seeking repayment of Dh340,000, representing the outstanding balance of a larger loan, together with legal and late-payment interest at 9% from the date of filing the case. She also sought Dh200,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, with 5% interest from the date the judgment became final until full payment.

According to the case documents, the plaintiff had lent her sister Dh540,000 in two transfers. The first amounted to Dh500,000, followed by a further transfer of Dh40,000. The defendant subsequently repaid Dh200,000, leaving Dh340,000 outstanding.

The plaintiff told the court that her sister had acknowledged the debt in communications between them and had expressed a willingness to issue a guarantee cheque and repay the outstanding amount in instalments.

The defendant had also proposed resolving the dispute by giving up her share of an inheritance in favour of her sister.

The court found that the defendant had acknowledged receiving the money and that this was supported by her subsequent conduct, including the issuance of a manager’s cheque as security for the outstanding debt.

When questioned about the purpose of the cheque, the defendant said it had been issued to settle the dispute, the court found.

The court therefore concluded that the outstanding debt had been established and ordered the defendant to pay Dh340,000 to her sister.

It also awarded Dh20,000 in compensation for the loss of benefit from the unpaid amount and the material and moral harm suffered by the plaintiff. The defendant was further ordered to bear all court fees and expenses.