Scholarlink

<p>In the judgment <i>ABC Projektai (C-661/22)</i>, the Court of Justice held that the issuance of electronic money (e-money) requires transforming received funds into monetary assets distinct from those funds, and that e-money must be accepted as a means of payment by a person other than the issuer. These findings imply a need for evidential separation of e-money from the funds exchanged for it and for its acceptance by third parties. This interpretation raises doubts about the legality of certain e-money models that lack actual “circulation” of e-money units and instead rely on bank-money payment schemes, notably prepaid card systems—previously discussed by national supervisors and the European Commission. It also appears to challenge aspects of the earlier <i>PAYSERA LT (C-389/17)</i> judgment. At the same time, models based on separate record accounts without such “circulation,” settled through redemption mechanisms (as in <i>PAYSERA LT</i>), remain functionally justified. These uncertainties are not addressed in the current draft of the Payment Services Regulation and should be clarified by the European Banking Authority. The statutory definition of e-money should then be amended to prevent interpretative ambiguity regarding models built upon existing bank-money infrastructures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The legal concept of electronic money: commentary on the judgment of the court of justice of 22 February 2024, C-661/22

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月16日

查看全文
  • Michał Grabowski

摘要

In the judgment ABC Projektai (C-661/22), the Court of Justice held that the issuance of electronic money (e-money) requires transforming received funds into monetary assets distinct from those funds, and that e-money must be accepted as a means of payment by a person other than the issuer. These findings imply a need for evidential separation of e-money from the funds exchanged for it and for its acceptance by third parties. This interpretation raises doubts about the legality of certain e-money models that lack actual “circulation” of e-money units and instead rely on bank-money payment schemes, notably prepaid card systems—previously discussed by national supervisors and the European Commission. It also appears to challenge aspects of the earlier PAYSERA LT (C-389/17) judgment. At the same time, models based on separate record accounts without such “circulation,” settled through redemption mechanisms (as in PAYSERA LT), remain functionally justified. These uncertainties are not addressed in the current draft of the Payment Services Regulation and should be clarified by the European Banking Authority. The statutory definition of e-money should then be amended to prevent interpretative ambiguity regarding models built upon existing bank-money infrastructures.