Freedom of privacy
NON CARF AND NON CRS Jurisdictions.
NON CRS NON CARF
GlobalSovereign
6/19/20262 min read
Where Do Serbia, the Philippines, Paraguay, and Vanuatu Stand on CRS and CARF?
As global tax transparency frameworks continue to expand, two acronyms increasingly dominate cross-border compliance discussions: CRS (Common Reporting Standard) and CARF (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework). Both rely on multilateral agreements (MCAAs) coordinated through the OECD and the Global Forum, and both are becoming reference points for banks, fintechs, and crypto-asset service providers assessing country risk.
Below is a concise, blog-style overview of how Serbia, Philippines, Paraguay, and Vanuatu currently line up—based strictly on public signatory lists and commitment sheets as of late 2025.
If you want to know more you can checkout:
Serbia 🇷🇸
Status: Outside CRS and CARF (for now)
Serbia remains absent from all three key transparency markers:
CRS-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 13 March 2025)
CARF-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 11 December 2025)
CARF commitment: ❌ No (not listed on the Global Forum commitment sheet as of 4 December 2025)
What this means:
Serbia has not formally committed to automatic exchange of financial account information under CRS, nor to crypto-asset reporting under CARF. For international institutions, this places Serbia among jurisdictions where reporting obligations are currently driven more by bilateral rules or local law than by OECD multilateral frameworks.
Philippines 🇵🇭
Status: No CRS or CARF participation yet
Despite its large financial system and active digital economy, the Philippines shows the same formal positioning:
CRS-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 13 March 2025)
CARF-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 11 December 2025)
CARF commitment: ❌ No (not listed as of 4 December 2025)
What this means:
The absence of CRS and CARF commitments does not imply a lack of domestic tax enforcement, but it does mean the Philippines has not joined the OECD’s automatic multilateral exchange systems. For global firms, this often translates into heightened monitoring of future policy shifts, as entry into CRS or CARF would be a significant regulatory change.
Paraguay 🇵🇾
Status: Also outside the multilateral frameworks
Paraguay mirrors Serbia and the Philippines in formal status:
CRS-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 13 March 2025)
CARF-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 11 December 2025)
CARF commitment: ❌ No (not listed as of 4 December 2025)
What this means:
Paraguay’s non-participation keeps it outside automatic financial and crypto-asset information exchange networks. This can be attractive for certain structures but also brings increased scrutiny from counterparties who must manage OECD-aligned compliance obligations elsewhere.
Vanuatu 🇻🇺
Status: CRS participant, but not CARF
Vanuatu provides a useful contrast to the three countries above:
CRS-MCAA signatory: ✅ Yes (explicitly listed)
CARF-MCAA signatory: ❌ No (not listed as of 11 December 2025)
CARF commitment: ❌ Not shown on the 4 December 2025 commitment sheet
What this means:
Vanuatu has already committed to the traditional CRS framework for financial account information, aligning itself with global standards in that area. However, it has not yet extended that alignment to crypto-assets through CARF. This split status highlights how jurisdictions may adopt OECD standards incrementally rather than all at once.
Big Picture Takeaway
Serbia, the Philippines, and Paraguay currently sit fully outside both CRS and CARF multilateral commitments.
Vanuatu demonstrates that CRS adoption does not automatically imply CARF adoption.
For compliance teams and policymakers alike, the key risk is change over time: entry into CRS or CARF can dramatically alter reporting obligations with relatively short notice.
In short, today’s non-participation does not guarantee tomorrow’s position—but understanding where each country stands now is essential for navigating cross-border financial and crypto-asset activity.