30 June changes the digital asset question for advice businesses

The announcement is directed at businesses dealing in digital assets that are financial products, providing financial product advice about them, or operating relevant digital asset facilities.

That is a narrower proposition than saying every practice that mentions digital assets now needs a licence review with the same outcome. The first task is to determine whether the practice, its licensee or another entity is performing an activity within ASIC’s stated scope.

ASIC’s final call identifies 30 June 2025 as the deadline. For advice businesses, the news is therefore less about adding digital assets to a product list than about testing the actual activity against the licensing framework before deciding what action is required.

Start with the activity, not the client conversation

The easy prediction is that the relevant question is whether an adviser gives personal advice about a digital asset. If the answer is no, the issue appears to end there.

That is a reasonable starting point, but it is not the whole test. ASIC’s announcement concerns activities involving digital assets that are financial products and the provision of financial services in relation to them. A practice must first establish what the digital asset is, what the business does with it, and which entity performs that activity.

A discussion of a client’s existing exposure, a general mention on a website or an administrative exchange does not, by itself, establish that the practice is providing a regulated financial service. Those touchpoints may still justify internal review. They are not the same as evidence that the practice falls within ASIC’s licensing deadline.

The useful question is therefore concrete: does the business deal in a relevant digital asset, provide financial product advice about it, operate a relevant facility, or perform another financial service covered by the licensing regime?

If the answer is uncertain, the uncertainty should be resolved against the actual facts and the applicable legal requirements, rather than against a label such as referral, education or administration.

The licence question belongs to the licensee

An authorised representative does not generally hold an AFS licence independently. The representative acts under the authority of the licensee. The review should therefore distinguish three things:

• The financial service or activity actually being performed.
• The licensee’s authorisation and the authority given to the representative.
• The legal entity responsible for any related activity, including an activity performed by a specialist or connected business.

ASIC’s material explains the processes for applying for and managing an AFS licence and provides separate information for financial advisers and authorised representatives. Those processes do not determine whether a particular digital asset activity is a financial service. They do make clear why the question cannot be answered solely by looking at an individual adviser’s title or intention.

For the representative, the factual inventory should cover their role, client communications, scripts, records and any activity involving a digital asset. For the licensee, it should identify the relevant authorisation, the authority given to the representative and the entity responsible for each step.

Other areas, such as monitoring, remuneration, referral arrangements and connected businesses, are sensible review prompts where they are part of the facts. They should be treated as areas for investigation, not as automatic evidence that a licensing obligation exists.

A short inventory before the deadline

The review can begin with a targeted inventory rather than a broad technology project.

First, identify every current or proposed activity involving digital assets. Separate a general discussion or administrative touchpoint from activities that may involve dealing, financial product advice or operating a relevant facility.

Second, describe what actually happens. “Referral to a specialist” is too vague to assess. Record who introduces the client, what information is provided, whether a recommendation is made, who performs the service and which entity receives any remuneration. That description is a factual record, not a conclusion about licensing.

Third, identify the licensee’s authorisation and the representative’s authority for each activity. Record the responsible legal entity and the basis on which the business believes the activity is permitted. Where the activity may fall within ASIC’s stated scope, escalate it for legal or licensing assessment before the deadline.

Fourth, compare the practice’s client‑facing language with what advisers actually do. Website copy, presentations, scripts, file notes, referral records and remuneration arrangements can help establish the facts. A mismatch should be recorded as a control risk requiring investigation, rather than treated as a concluded breach or licensing failure.

Finally, record the decision and its owner. Depending on the facts, the outcome may be to stop the activity, alter the arrangement, obtain further licensing advice, apply for or vary an AFS licence, or document why the activity is outside the stated scope. ASIC explains how licensees can change licence details through the Regulatory Portal, but that process does not replace the underlying assessment of whether a financial service is being provided.