Introduction

‍

As the cryptocurrency sector matures in Canada, regulatory scrutiny of Money Services Businesses (MSBs) and crypto exchanges has intensified. Financial reporting obligations now play a pivotal role in maintaining compliance with federal anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks, tax laws, and securities regulations. For crypto businesses navigating this landscape, understanding the distinctions between audits, review engagements, and compilations is critical to meeting stakeholder demands and avoiding penalties. This blog synthesizes regulatory guidance, tax implications, and practical considerations for Canadian crypto MSBs and exchanges.

Regulatory Foundations for Crypto Financial Reporting

Under Canada’s Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), crypto MSBs and exchanges are classified as reporting entities subject to FINTRAC oversight. These businesses must maintain detailed records of virtual currency transactions exceeding $10,000 CAD and file suspicious transaction reports (STRs). 

Additionally, securities regulators like the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) require crypto platforms to adhere to stringent financial disclosure standards, particularly for entities handling client assets.

The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), adopted in 2024, mandates annual transaction reporting by crypto service providers starting in 2027. This global initiative amplifies the need for accurate financial statements to reconcile taxable events, capital gains, and income from staking or mining.

Audit Engagements: Maximum Assurance for High-Risk Environments

An audit provides reasonable assurance that financial statements are free from material misstatement. For crypto MSBs and exchanges, audits are often required by:

• Publicly traded platforms under securities laws.
• Large-volume exchanges exceeding provincial revenue thresholds (e.g., $1M+ in Ontario).
• Institutional lenders extending credit facilities.
• Banks

Key Audit Procedures for Crypto Entities

1. Custody Verification: Auditors must independently confirm crypto holdings via blockchain explorers or third-party custodians rather than relying solely on client-provided statements.
2. Internal Control Testing: Evaluating AML/KYC protocols, wallet security (hot vs. cold storage), and transaction monitoring systems.
3. Revenue Recognition: Assessing fair value measurements for crypto-to-fiat trades, staking rewards, and decentralized finance (DeFi) yields.
4. Tax Liability Accuracy: Cross-checking capital gains/losses against CRA guidelines for crypto barter transactions and mining income.

Audits are the only engagement type that satisfies OSC registration requirements for platforms safeguarding client assets. However, they are resource-intensive, with costs ranging from $20,000 to $100,000+ annually for mid-sized exchanges.

Review Engagements: Limited Assurance for Moderate Compliance Needs

A review engagement offers limited assurance through analytical procedures and management inquiries without substantive testing. This option suits:

• Medium-sized MSBs requiring lender compliance without full audits.
• Privately held exchanges preparing for mergers or acquisitions.
• Entities transitioning from compilations to audits as they scale.

Crypto-Specific Review Considerations

• Transaction Sampling: Reviewers analyze spot checks of trades, withdrawals, and deposits to identify anomalies.
• Regulatory Alignment: Confirming FINTRAC registration status and adherence to record-keeping rules under PCMLTFA.
• Tax Documentation: Verifying consistency between financial statements and T1135 foreign asset disclosures (if applicable).

While cheaper than audits (~$5,000–$30,000 annually), reviews provide weaker defenses during CRA audits or regulatory investigations.

Compilation Engagements: Baseline Reporting with No Assurance

A compilation organizes financial data into statements without verification. This minimal-cost option ($1,000–$4,500) is viable for:

• Early-stage startups pre-revenue or bootstrapping operations.
• MSBs operating below FINTRAC’s $10,000 reporting threshold.
• Internal use only (e.g., shareholder updates).

Risks of Compilations for Crypto Businesses

• Non-Compliance Exposure: Failing to detect unrecorded taxable events (e.g., unreported staking income) may trigger CRA penalties.
• FINTRAC Gaps: Incomplete STRs or missing large transaction reports increase AML violation risks.
• Investor Distrust: Lenders and stakeholders often reject unaudited financials.

Strategic Recommendations for Crypto MSBs/Exchanges

1. High-Risk Entities (Large Exchanges, Public Platforms): Prioritize annual audits to satisfy OSC, FINTRAC, and CARF obligations.
2. Growth-Stage MSBs: Opt for review engagements to balance cost and compliance while building lender trust.
3. Pre-Revenue Startups: Use compilations temporarily but upgrade to reviews before seeking institutional funding.

Regulatory penalties for non-compliance are severe, including FINTRAC fines up to $2M and CRA gross negligence penalties of 50% of unpaid taxes. Proactive engagement with CPAs specializing in crypto ensures alignment with evolving standards like the CSA’s crypto custody rules.

Conclusion

Selecting between audits, reviews, and compilations requires crypto MSBs and exchanges to weigh regulatory mandates, stakeholder expectations, and scalability. 

If a bank or a lender has requested a specific financial statement such as an audit, there may be no option to avoid it. You can always ask if a lower level review or a compilation would suffice. This could save you some professional fees. 

While audits offer the strongest compliance posture, smaller entities may leverage reviews or compilations during early growth phases. As Canada’s crypto sector faces tighter AML and tax enforcement, partnering with specialized firms like MetaCounts ensures financial reporting meets both current standards and emerging frameworks like CARF.