Why Choose Anjouan for Company Formation?
An Anjouan IBC is chosen for one honest reason: it is the cheapest and fastest vehicle in its offshore peer cluster, incorporated in roughly three to seven business days with full foreign ownership, no minimum capital and 0% tax on foreign income.[1] It is also the least credible vehicle in that cluster, which is why this page is candid about who it is for and who it is not. Anjouan is an autonomous island of the Union of the Comoros, and the IBC is formed under island-level legislation outside the supervision of the Central Bank of the Comoros.[1][16]
The vehicle is the Anjouan International Business Company, formed under the International Business Companies Act 2005 and the IBC Regulations 2005, administered by the Anjouan Registrar of IBCs through a licensed registered agent.[1][17] There is no verifiable official public register, no online company-search facility and no published fee schedule, so every operational figure on this page is agent-sourced and flagged as indicative.[1]
Cheapest and Fastest in the Cluster
A plain Anjouan IBC reaches legal personality in about three to seven business days once due-diligence checks clear, with a reported annual government fee of around USD 300 and an all-in Year-1 figure via an agent of roughly USD 1,500 to 3,500.[1] That undercuts most of the cluster on both speed and entry price. The trade-off does not appear at formation; it appears at the banking stage and at every counterparty due-diligence check thereafter. Treat the low entry cost as the headline, not the whole picture.
The Licence-Validity Controversy
The defining reputational fact is the dispute over the Anjouan offshore financial-services authority. The Central Bank of the Comoros has publicly described that authority and its licence sellers as fictitious structures with no physical or legal existence in the territory of the Union, in communiqués dating to 2022, and banking laws of 2013 and 2015 stripped it of regulatory power.[2] A December 2025 investigation reported that the network had issued well over a thousand licences while operating from outside any recognised supervisory framework.[3] This attaches to financial, gaming and crypto licences rather than to plain IBC formation, but the reputational spillover is real and must be planned around.
Off the Lists, but Low Credibility
As of the February 2026 plenary Comoros is on neither the FATF grey nor black list, and it is not on the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions as of .[5][6] That clean list status reflects the national anti-money-laundering regime, not validation of the Anjouan authority, and the 2024 GIABA mutual evaluation returned weak effectiveness ratings across the board.[4] Combined with the absence of any economic-substance regime, the result is an entity that is technically off the lists yet carries low credibility with banks and counterparties.
Entity Types: Anjouan, Mwali and the Comoros Mainland
The most important decision is not the entity form but which Comoros regime you are using. Three distinct routes exist, and they are routinely confused in marketing material. Two are island-level offshore IBC registries that sit outside Central Bank supervision: the Anjouan regime and the Mwali (Mohéli) regime. The third is the Union mainland, where Comoros is a full member of OHADA and companies are formed under the OHADA Uniform Act, are supervised, and pay real corporate tax.[1][8][9]
Definition: Anjouan International Business Company (IBC)
A company formed under the Anjouan International Business Companies Act 2005, administered by the Anjouan Registrar of IBCs through a licensed registered agent. It permits a single shareholder and a single director (which may be the same person, of any nationality or residence), corporate directors, and 100% foreign ownership. There is no minimum capital. An IBC may not carry on domestic Anjouan business or own Anjouan real estate, and the plain IBC grants no financial authorisation.[1][17]
| Route | Regime / Law | Min. Capital | Corporate Tax | Supervised? | Used For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anjouan IBC | IBC Act 2005 (island-level) | None | 0% (foreign income) | No (outside Central Bank) | Early-stage validation; holding/base entity behind a banked hybrid |
| Mwali (Mohéli) IBC | Mwali Services regime (island-level) | None (plain IBC) | 10% reported | No (outside Central Bank) | Alternative island offshore registry |
| Union mainland SARL | OHADA Uniform Act | No statutory floor | 35% standard | Yes (OHADA, supervised) | A genuinely recognised Comoros entity |
| Union mainland SA | OHADA Uniform Act | OHADA SA minimum | 35% standard | Yes (OHADA, supervised) | Larger mainland operating companies |
For the licensed-crypto, fintech and high-risk audience this page addresses, the dominant offshore vehicle is the Anjouan IBC. The Mwali IBC is a near-identical island alternative but reportedly bears 10% corporate tax rather than Anjouan’s claimed 0%, so the two should not be treated as interchangeable.[9] A buyer who actually needs a credible, supervised Comoros entity should look at a mainland OHADA company instead, accepting the 35% corporate tax that comes with it.[8][10]
Formation Process
An Anjouan IBC is formed remotely through a licensed registered agent, who is the only route to the Anjouan Registrar of IBCs. The realistic end-to-end timeline is about three to seven business days to incorporation once know-your-customer (KYC) checks clear, with materially longer to add document legalisation and, critically, banking. A registered agent and a registered office in Anjouan are both mandatory.[1]
What You Need to Prepare
| Document / Item | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Passport (certified copy) | For each director, shareholder and beneficial owner | Notarised; consular legalisation often needed for downstream banking |
| Proof of residential address | Two documents, dated within 3 months | For each individual |
| Bank or professional reference | For each beneficial owner | Reused at banking onboarding |
| Beneficial ownership details | Identity of each UBO | Held by the agent under KYC; not a public register |
| Company name | Checked for availability with the agent | No online public name-search exists |
| Business description and source of funds | Plain-English activity and CV | Prepare early; banking applications reuse it |
| Registered office and agent | Mandatory, maintained in Anjouan | Provided by the licensed agent |
Engage a Licensed Registered Agent
Foreign-owned IBCs can only be incorporated through a licensed Anjouan registered agent, who performs KYC, files with the Registrar and maintains the statutory registers. Engagement plus document collection is where most of the calendar time sits, and the agent relationship is the company’s lifeline, since there is no direct registry access.
Name Check and KYC
The agent checks name availability (there is no public online register to search) and clears identity, address and source-of-funds checks on every director, shareholder and beneficial owner.[1]
File the Memorandum and Articles
The agent prepares and files the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the incorporation forms with the Registrar of IBCs. The founder does not appear in person, and the entire step is handled remotely.[1][17]
Certificate of Incorporation Issued
A Certificate of Incorporation is issued, usually within three to seven business days of clean KYC. The company gains legal personality and can sign contracts, but it carries no financial authorisation and no entitlement to bank.[1]
Consular Legalisation and Banking
Because Comoros is not in the Hague Apostille Convention, corporate documents needed abroad require full consular legalisation rather than an apostille, and banking onboarding begins.[7] Experienced applicants start the banking workstream in parallel with formation, because account opening, not the registry, is the binding constraint and the most common point of failure.[14]
Requirements and Document Legalisation
Anjouan formation requirements are light on paper. The statutory minimum is a single director, a single shareholder, a registered office and a licensed registered agent, with 100% foreign ownership and no minimum capital. One director may hold every role.[1] What is heavy in practice is not the corporate minima but the document trail, because Comoros is outside the Hague Apostille system and every cross-border document needs full consular legalisation.[7]
| Requirement | Anjouan IBC |
|---|---|
| Min. Directors | 1 (may also be the sole shareholder) |
| Corporate Directors | Permitted |
| Foreign Ownership | 100% |
| Min. Share Capital | None |
| Local Director / Staff / Premises | Not required |
| Registered Office | Mandatory (in Anjouan, via agent) |
| Registered Agent | Mandatory (the only filing route) |
| UBO Disclosure | To the agent under KYC; not a public register |
| Document Legalisation | Consular legalisation (not Hague Apostille) |
| Accounts / Audit | No filing or audit for a plain IBC |
Registered Office and Registered Agent
Every Anjouan IBC must maintain a registered office and a licensed registered agent in Anjouan, and only that agent can incorporate the company or file changes on its behalf.[1][17] The agent is the gatekeeper: all filings, KYC and register maintenance route through them, and there is no public registry portal behind them. Losing an agent without appointing a replacement risks suspension or strike-off, because the company can no longer maintain its statutory presence. The annual agent and registered-office fee is therefore not optional overhead; it is the cost of keeping the company in existence.
Consular Legalisation: Comoros Is Not in the Hague Apostille
This is the under-covered requirement that catches most applicants. Comoros is not a party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, so documents cannot be validated with a single apostille.[7] Instead they require full consular legalisation: a chain of notarisation, authentication by the relevant foreign ministry, and legalisation by the destination consulate. This applies in both directions, to inbound founder documents and to outbound corporate documents needed for banking, and it is materially slower and costlier than an apostille. The legalisation chain should be priced and scheduled from the outset, not discovered at the banking stage.
Beneficial Ownership and Records
The registered agent collects and holds UBO and KYC information at onboarding, but there is no public beneficial-ownership register and no online disclosure.[1] A plain IBC has no obligation to file accounts or submit to audit, and there is no currency control.[15] The 2024 GIABA evaluation found that Comoros had not assessed legal-person and beneficial-ownership money-laundering risk at Union level, which is part of why bank screening treats Anjouan ownership chains cautiously even where the underlying client is sound.[4]
Costs and Pricing
Anjouan is among the cheapest offshore jurisdictions to enter, but the honest position is that no official fee schedule is verifiable against a government source. The reported annual government fee is around USD 300, and the realistic all-in Year-1 figure via a licensed agent, including the registered office and document legalisation, is approximately USD 1,500 to 3,500. Every figure here is indicative and should be confirmed with a current agent quote.[1]
Indicative Government and Agent Fees
| Fee Item | Amount (USD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Annual government fee | ~300 indicative | Single secondary source; no official schedule[1] |
| Registered agent and office (Year 1) | 800 to 1,800 | Bundles incorporation, office and good-standing |
| Consular legalisation (per document) | 150 to 400 | No Hague Apostille; full legalisation chain[7] |
| Certified translations | varies | English / French as required |
| Annual agent and office renewal (Year 2+) | 700 to 1,400 | Keeps the IBC in existence |
All figures indicative and agent-sourced as of ; no official Anjouan fee schedule is verifiable.[1]
Total Cost Summary
| Item | All-in cost (USD, indicative) |
|---|---|
| Government fee (Year 1) | ~300 |
| Registered agent and office (Year 1) | 800 to 1,800 |
| Consular legalisation and translations | 300 to 1,000 |
| KYC and formation handling | included with the agent fee |
| Total Year 1 (plain IBC) | ~1,500 to 3,500 |
| Annual Ongoing (Year 2+) | ~800 to 1,500 |
The reported USD 300 government fee is the smallest and least reliable line in an Anjouan budget. The real Year-1 cost sits in the registered-agent and registered-office package and in consular legalisation, neither of which a non-resident can avoid. Quoting the headline government fee as the cost of an Anjouan company is the single most common budgeting error, and the figure has no official schedule behind it in any case.[1]
Taxation
An Anjouan IBC is structured to pay 0% corporate tax on foreign-source income, with no capital gains tax, no dividend withholding and no VAT on international operations.[1] The figure is agent-stated rather than confirmed against a published official schedule, so we present it as indicative. The contrast with the Comoros mainland is sharp: under the OHADA-based Union tax system, mainland companies pay a 35% standard corporate income tax and 10% VAT, which is the price of a supervised, recognised entity.[10]
The neighbouring Mwali offshore registry should not be assumed to mirror Anjouan: Mwali IBCs are reported to bear 10% corporate tax rather than 0%, a genuine difference that matters for entity disambiguation.[9]
| Tax Type | Anjouan IBC (foreign income) | Comoros Mainland (OHADA) |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate income tax | 0% (agent-stated; no official schedule) | 35% standard |
| Capital gains tax | Not applied to international operations | 20% on immovable property |
| VAT | Not applied to international operations | 10% standard |
| Dividend / interest / royalty WHT | Not applied to non-resident IBC income | Per mainland rules |
| Tax-treaty relief | None material; no usable double-tax treaty network | Minimal |
| Social security / payroll | Only where local employees exist (rare) | CNPS employer and employee contributions |
CRS, CARF and Treaty Position
Comoros is not a participating Common Reporting Standard (CRS) jurisdiction and is not a participant in the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), with no published timeline for either.[11] In the transparency era this non-participation reads to many banks and counterparties as a risk signal rather than an advantage, because it places the jurisdiction outside the automatic-exchange mainstream. There is also no material double-tax treaty network, so an Anjouan IBC offers no treaty-based withholding relief.[10]
Pillar Two
Comoros has not adopted OECD Pillar Two rules: there is no income inclusion rule, no qualified domestic minimum top-up tax and no undertaxed-profits rule.[12] The 15% global minimum tax under the GloBE rules applies only to multinational groups with consolidated revenue above 750 million euros, a threshold that does not reach a standalone Anjouan IBC, so Pillar Two is not the relevant tax constraint here.
Banking
Banking is the single hardest part of an Anjouan structure and the point at which it most often fails. The combination of an offshore non-resident-owned company, high-risk activity and a jurisdiction whose financial-services authority is publicly disavowed is a compounding red-flag stack. Once screening tools recognise Anjouan or AOFA paperwork, enhanced due diligence and outright refusal are common, even though Comoros sits off the FATF and EU lists.[2][14]
The correspondent-banking backdrop is structurally fragile. Comoros is a small, cash-dominated economy with limited correspondent-banking depth, and the public Central Bank disavowal of the Anjouan authority means screening systems flag AOFA-linked documentation directly.[2][14] Being off the FATF grey list reflects the national anti-money-laundering regime, not validation of the Anjouan authority, and banks treat the two separately, weighing the disavowal heavily at onboarding.[4]
In practice, only three archetypes onboard an Anjouan structure, and each comes with conditions. First, a regional African or Indian-Ocean commercial bank where a genuine regional nexus exists, demanding full KYC and source-of-wealth. Second, a high-risk-specialist payment institution outside the EU willing to take crypto-adjacent flows at premium pricing with rolling reserves. Third, and most common for serious operators, a hybrid in which a properly banked EU or low-tax mainland payment company holds the bankable relationship while the Anjouan entity sits behind it. The hybrid shifts scrutiny rather than removing it, because the ultimate ownership chain still leads back to the Anjouan vehicle.
Onboarding takes several weeks to a few months and requires certified documents, a clear business description, banker or professional references, a detailed business plan, expected flows and counterparties, and source-of-funds evidence. Jagelski & Partners’ banking partner network spans more than 90 institutions across multiple jurisdictions, matched to the company’s activity, ownership and risk profile. For an Anjouan structure, banking is the deciding workstream: see the banking service overview for how account opening is sequenced alongside, and often ahead of, incorporation.
Annual Compliance
For a plain Anjouan IBC, ongoing compliance is genuinely light: there is no obligation to file accounts, no audit, no public financial filing and no currency control.[15] The substantive maintenance obligation is to keep the registered-agent and registered-office engagement current and to pay the annual government fee. Where an AOFA licence is layered on top, that adds annual licence renewal and AML-compliance confirmation, but those obligations belong to the licence, not to plain formation.[1]
Agent, Office and the Annual Fee
Maintenance is the registered-agent and registered-office renewal plus the annual government fee.[1] The agent is the company’s only link to the Registrar, so allowing the agent engagement to lapse is the practical equivalent of abandoning the company. Treat the annual renewal as a non-negotiable calendar item, because there is no self-service portal to recover a lapsed standing.
Beneficial Ownership Updates
UBO and KYC information is held and updated by the registered agent under its own onboarding obligations; there is no public beneficial-ownership register to file to.[1] The 2024 GIABA evaluation noted that Comoros had not assessed legal-person and beneficial-ownership money-laundering risk at Union level, which is one reason bank screening applies extra scrutiny to Anjouan ownership chains regardless of the underlying client.[4]
Penalties and Strike-Off
Non-payment of the annual government fee and agent renewal can suspend or strike off the IBC, and where a licence sits on top, the licence can cancel with it.[1] Carrying on business through a struck-off or cancelled entity can create personal liability for those running it. Because there is no transparent restoration process documented against an official schedule, keeping fees current is far cheaper and more reliable than letting the company lapse and attempting to revive it.
No Economic-Substance Regime: Why the Absence Hurts
Unlike the major IBC jurisdictions, neither Anjouan nor Mwali has enacted any OECD or EU-style economic-substance regime.[13] There is no local-management test, no adequate-expenditure or employee requirement, no core-income-generating-activity rule, and no substance return to file. On a marketing page this reads as convenience. In reality it is a credibility and banking negative, and the page treats it as one.
The Cayman and BVI Contrast
When Cayman and the BVI introduced substance tests, they accepted ongoing reporting and genuine local-presence costs in exchange for staying inside the credible-offshore mainstream, which is what keeps their entities bankable and recognised.[13] Anjouan made the opposite trade: it kept formation frictionless and cheap, and in doing so stayed outside that mainstream. A buyer choosing Anjouan is choosing the cheaper, lighter entity and accepting the lower credibility that comes with having no substance framework behind it.
What This Means in Practice
The practical consequence is that an Anjouan IBC cannot lean on a substance regime to reassure a bank or a counterparty, because there is none to point to. Combined with non-participation in CRS and CARF, and the licence-validity controversy, the absence of substance compounds the due-diligence burden at every onboarding.[4][11] This is why the legitimate use of an Anjouan IBC is narrow: an early-stage or holding layer where credibility is supplied elsewhere in the structure, never the entity that has to carry the banking relationship by itself.
Licensing Pathways from an Anjouan Company
Forming an Anjouan IBC and obtaining an Anjouan licence are two different things, and conflating them is the costliest mistake in this jurisdiction. A plain IBC is a corporate vehicle only: it grants no financial authorisation, no EU or EEA status, no passporting and no entitlement to bank.[1] Any forex, brokerage or crypto activity needs a separate AOFA licence, which carries the same licence-validity controversy set out earlier and is a distinct, larger spend. This page keeps licensing brief, because the paired crypto licensing guide carries the full analysis.
An Anjouan licence cannot be converted into a recognised authorisation, and an operator that outgrows the jurisdiction must apply afresh in a real-regulator jurisdiction rather than upgrade in place.[3] The honest planning posture is to use the Anjouan IBC as an early-stage or holding layer, with a defined migration plan to a credible supervisor built in from the start.
Anjouan Crypto Licence (Full Analysis)
The separate Anjouan crypto and brokerage licence, with the AOFA licence-validity controversy, cost ranges, banking architecture and migration paths set out in full. Formation is the vehicle; the licence is a different instrument covered on its own page.
Real-Regulator Alternatives
Where credibility matters, the realistic route is a fresh application in a jurisdiction with a genuine supervisor, such as an EU member-state CASP, or the BVI or Cayman VASP regimes, rather than an Anjouan licence.
An Anjouan entity confers no EU passporting rights, and MiCA contains no third-country equivalence regime. MiCA Article 61 permits third-country firms to serve EU clients only where the client initiates contact entirely on their own initiative, and any EU-targeted marketing, EU-language content or geo-targeted advertising voids the exemption. For full detail on what constitutes solicitation, see Reverse Solicitation Under MiCA → The realistic structure is an Anjouan IBC for non-EU, early-stage or holding use, alongside a separate EU CASP entity if genuine EU access is required.
Advantages and Limitations
Anjouan offers the cheapest, fastest, lightest offshore incorporation in its cluster, with 0% tax on foreign income, balanced against severe banking difficulty, low credibility, the licence-validity controversy and the absence of any substance framework. The honest trade-off is stark: maximum entry efficiency for minimum credibility.
Who an Anjouan IBC is, and is not, for
It can fit: an early-stage operator validating a model before committing to a real-regulator licence; or a holding or base entity that sits behind a properly banked EU or low-tax payment company that carries the credibility and the banking relationship.
It does not fit: any business whose first need is straightforward fiat banking; anyone seeking EU market access or passporting; an operator who needs an entity a counterparty will trust without explanation; or a buyer who needs a recognised, supervised Comoros company, who should look at a mainland OHADA entity instead.
- Cheapest and fastest in the cluster. Roughly 3 to 7 business days to incorporation; indicative all-in Year 1 from ~USD 1,500.
- Full foreign ownership. 100% non-resident ownership, with one person able to hold every role.
- 0% on foreign income. No corporate tax on foreign-source income; no VAT or capital gains tax on international operations (agent-stated).
- Light maintenance. No accounts filing, no audit, no public financial filings for a plain IBC.
- Off the formal lists. Comoros is on neither the FATF grey or black list nor the EU non-cooperative tax list as of February 2026.
- Banking is very difficult. Offshore, non-resident, high-risk and a disavowed authority compound into frequent refusal. Mitigation: solve banking before formation, via a regional bank with a genuine nexus, a high-risk-specialist payment institution, or a hybrid where a banked EU or low-tax company holds the relationship and the Anjouan entity sits behind it.
- Licence-validity controversy. The Central Bank disavows the Anjouan offshore authority as a fictitious structure. Mitigation: keep plain IBC formation separate from any AOFA licence, and never present the entity as carrying recognised financial authorisation.
- No economic-substance regime. The absence is a credibility and banking negative, not a convenience. Mitigation: supply credibility elsewhere in the structure, and use the Anjouan IBC only as an early-stage or holding layer.
- No EU passporting. An Anjouan company cannot serve the EU on its own. Mitigation: obtain a separate CASP authorisation in an EU member state, or rely only on the narrow reverse-solicitation exemption under MiCA Article 61.
- Outside CRS and CARF, no usable treaties. Non-participation reads as a risk signal to many banks. Mitigation: present a clean, fully documented ownership and source-of-funds trail, and expect enhanced due diligence regardless.
- No verifiable official data. No public register, no official fee schedule. Mitigation: confirm every cost and standing question with a current licensed-agent quote, and treat all figures here as indicative.
How Anjouan Compares
Within its offshore cluster, Anjouan is the cheapest and fastest option and, by a clear margin, the least credible. Seychelles is the credibility benchmark of the group: it has an economic-substance regime, participates in the Common Reporting Standard, and as of February 2026 sits off both the FATF and EU lists. Belize and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are mid-cluster, both off the FATF list, with Belize still on the EU’s Annex II tax-cooperation list and Saint Vincent off the EU lists. Anjouan’s distinguishing features are the licence-validity controversy, the absence of any substance regime, and non-participation in CRS.
| Factor | Anjouan (Comoros) | Seychelles | Belize | St Vincent & the Grenadines |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity Type | Anjouan IBC | IBC (Act 2016) | IBC (company ltd by shares) | Business Company (BC) |
| Timeline | 3 to 7 days | 1 to 7 days | 1 to 3 days | 1 to 5 days |
| Government Fee | ~USD 300 / yr (indicative) | USD 130 reg / USD 140 yr | USD 150 | USD 125 |
| Min. Capital | None | None | None | None |
| Corporate Tax | 0% (agent-stated) | 0% foreign-source (conditional) | 0% on foreign income | 0% on foreign income |
| Economic Substance | No regime | Yes (substance rules) | Substance Act 2019 | Post-reform regime |
| EU Passporting | No | No | No | No |
| FATF Status | Clean | Clean | Clean | Clean |
| EU Tax List | Not listed | Not listed (off Annex II, Feb 2026) | Annex II (grey) | Not listed |
| Institutional Credibility | Low (disputed authority) | Medium (cluster benchmark) | Medium | Low |
| Remote Management | Yes (via registered agent) | Yes (via registered agent) | Yes (via registered agent) | Yes (via registered agent) |
| Banking | Very difficult | Difficult (cluster best) | Difficult | Difficult |
| Best For | Early-stage validation; holding/base entity behind a banked hybrid | Cost-led offshore holding and trading with a treaty network | Fast, low-cost incorporation for non-EU operators | Offshore holding and structuring with banking arranged first |
Compare every formation jurisdiction side by side →
Anjouan’s position as of is unambiguous: it wins on price and speed and loses on credibility and banking. Seychelles is the benchmark because it pairs a 0% foreign-source position with an economic-substance regime, CRS participation, and a clean list standing, which is the combination banks reward.[6] All four jurisdictions present difficult crypto banking and none grants EU market access, so the real choice is between Anjouan’s minimum cost and maximum friction at one end and the cluster’s more credible options at the other.
For the licensed-operator audience, Anjouan’s truest substitutes are not classic IBC jurisdictions at all but gaming and crypto licensing centres such as Curaçao and Costa Rica, where operators have migrated to and from Anjouan as fees and recognition have shifted. Where the decision is genuinely about a credible offshore company rather than a cheap one, Seychelles is the stronger pick in this table, and a mainland Comoros OHADA entity is the option for a recognised, supervised Comoros presence.
When Anjouan Is the Right Choice
On the fit and not-fit criteria set out above, the alternatives map cleanly: where you need a credible entity a counterparty will trust, consider Seychelles, or a mainland OHADA company for a recognised Comoros presence; where you require EU market access, which an Anjouan company cannot provide, an EU member-state CASP is the route.
Not sure which column is you? Ask Emma. She compares these jurisdictions in seconds, in your language.
Frequently Asked Questions
Anjouan and Mwali are autonomous islands of the Union of the Comoros, each running its own island-level offshore International Business Company registry outside the supervision of the Central Bank of the Comoros: Anjouan through the AOFA framework and Mwali through MISA. The Union mainland is different again: Comoros is a full member of OHADA, so mainland companies such as the SARL and SA are formed under the OHADA Uniform Act, civil-law-based and supervised, and pay real corporate tax. The Anjouan IBC is the cheapest and fastest of the three but the least credible; a mainland OHADA company is the option for a buyer who actually needs a recognised Comoros entity.
The Anjouan IBC itself exists as a corporate vehicle under island-level legislation. What is disputed is the financial-services authority layered on top of it. The Central Bank of the Comoros has publicly described the Anjouan offshore authority and its licence sellers as fictitious structures with no physical or legal existence in the territory of the Union, in communiqués dating to 2022, and banking laws of 2013 and 2015 stripped that authority of any regulatory power. This controversy attaches to AOFA financial, gaming and crypto licences rather than to plain IBC formation, but the reputational spillover is real and surfaces at banking and counterparty due diligence.
An Anjouan IBC is structured to pay 0% corporate tax on foreign-source income, with no capital gains tax, dividend withholding tax or VAT on international operations. The figure is agent-sourced rather than confirmed against a published official schedule, so we present it as indicative. The more important point is that 0% tax is not the constraint on an Anjouan structure: banking and credibility are. A 0% headline is worth little if no bank will hold the operating account, and the Mwali offshore registry on the neighbouring island reportedly applies a 10% corporate tax, so the two should not be conflated.
A plain Anjouan IBC is typically incorporated in about three to seven business days through a licensed registered agent once due diligence clears. The headline government fee is trivial, reported at around USD 300 a year, but it is not the real cost. The realistic all-in Year-1 figure, via an agent and including the registered office and document legalisation, is approximately USD 1,500 to USD 3,500, with ongoing annual cost of roughly USD 800 to USD 1,500. No official Anjouan fee schedule is verifiable against a government source, so every figure on this page is indicative and should be confirmed with a current agent quote before budgeting.
This is the single hardest part and frequently the point at which an Anjouan structure fails. The combination of an offshore non-resident-owned company, high-risk activity and a jurisdiction whose licensing authority is publicly disavowed is a compounding red-flag stack, and screening tools flag AOFA paperwork once they see it. Operators do not bank an Anjouan company at a Comoros bank. The workable approaches are a regional African or Indian-Ocean bank where a genuine nexus exists, a high-risk-specialist payment institution outside the EU at premium pricing, or a hybrid in which a properly banked EU or low-tax payment company holds the relationship and the Anjouan entity sits behind it. Banking must be planned before formation, not after.
No. Comoros is not a party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention. Documents moving to or from Comoros therefore require full consular legalisation rather than a single apostille: a chain of notarisation, then authentication by the relevant foreign ministry, then legalisation by the destination consulate. This is materially slower and costlier than an apostille, and it applies to inbound founder documents as well as outbound corporate documents. Build the legalisation chain into the timeline and budget from the outset.
No. As of the February 2026 plenary Comoros is on neither the FATF grey list nor the FATF black list, and it is not on the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions as of 17 February 2026. The important nuance is that this clean list status reflects the national anti-money-laundering regime, not validation of the Anjouan offshore authority, and the two must not be conflated. The 2024 GIABA mutual evaluation returned weak effectiveness ratings across the board, and the absence of any economic-substance regime keeps credibility with banks and counterparties low even though the country sits off the formal lists.
No, and here the absence is a negative rather than a convenience. Neither Anjouan nor Mwali has enacted OECD or EU-style economic-substance legislation of the kind BVI and Cayman adopted in 2018 and 2019, with their local-management, adequate-expenditure, employee and core-income-generating-activity tests. Those jurisdictions adopted substance rules precisely to stay off EU and OECD lists and to preserve banking access. Anjouan’s non-adoption, combined with the disputed licensing layer, leaves its companies with lower credibility at banks and counterparties even while formation stays cheap and light. There is no substance return to file, and that is part of the problem, not a feature.
No, and conflating the two is the most common and most expensive mistake. Forming an Anjouan IBC creates a corporate vehicle only: it grants no financial authorisation, no EU or EEA status, no passporting and no entitlement to bank. A separate AOFA financial, forex or crypto licence is a different instrument with its own cost, its own renewal, and the validity controversy described above. This page covers formation; the separate Anjouan crypto licensing guide covers the licence. A plain holding or base IBC that does not itself carry on regulated activity avoids the licence-validity question entirely.
Non-payment of the annual government fee and registered-agent renewal can suspend or strike off the IBC, and where a licence sits on top, the licence can cancel with it; carrying on business after cancellation can create personal liability. On upgrading, an Anjouan structure cannot be converted into a real-regulator authorisation. The realistic path for an operator that outgrows Anjouan is a fresh application in a jurisdiction with a genuine supervisor, such as an EU member-state CASP, the BVI or Cayman VASP regime, or a comparable framework, with the Anjouan entity used only as an early-stage or holding layer in the meantime.
Decide on Anjouan with the full picture
Formation, the banking architecture, and the honest alternative, handled end-to-end with one point of contact. Book a free assessment and we will tell you whether Anjouan fits, or where to go instead.
Not ready to book? Ask Emma first. She answers now, and if it needs a human she takes your details so the consultation starts ahead.
References
Show all references
- Anjouan International Business Companies Act 2005 and IBC Regulations 2005 (island-level; administered by the Anjouan Registrar of IBCs). Note: no government primary source is publicly verifiable; agent-hosted mirrors only. Accessed .
- Banque Centrale des Comores, Communiqué on unauthorised offshore financial authorities (June 2022), banque-comores.km, accessed .
- ABC News (Julian Fell), Investigation into Anjouan offshore licensing (December 2025), abc.net.au, accessed .
- GIABA / FATF, Mutual Evaluation Report of the Comoros, 2nd Round (adopted May 2024), fatf-gafi.org · giaba.org, accessed .
- Financial Action Task Force, Comoros country profile and list status (February 2026 plenary), fatf-gafi.org, accessed .
- Council of the European Union, EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (17 February 2026), consilium.europa.eu, accessed .
- Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Apostille Convention status table (Comoros not a party), hcch.net, accessed .
- OHADA, Uniform Act relating to Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups; general overview, ohada.org, accessed .
- Mwali (Mohéli) International Services Authority, MISA registry and IBC framework, mwaliregistrar.com, accessed .
- PwC Worldwide Tax Summaries / Orbitax, Comoros corporate tax (35% standard CIT; 10% VAT), taxsummaries.pwc.com, accessed .
- OECD, CRS participating jurisdictions and the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (Comoros not a participant), oecd.org, accessed .
- Tax Foundation, Global minimum tax (Pillar Two / GloBE) adoption tracker, taxfoundation.org, accessed .
- OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, Economic-substance requirements in no- or only-nominal-tax jurisdictions (BVI and Cayman 2018–2019 reforms), oecd.org, accessed .
- International Monetary Fund, Comoros: ECF arrangement and Article IV (fragile economy; correspondent-banking depth), imf.org, accessed .
- US Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR): historical Anjouan offshore banking and IBC regime, 2009-2017.state.gov, accessed .
- NYU Law GlobaLex, The Legal System of the Union of the Comoros, nyulawglobal.org, accessed .
- UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub, Comoros Investment Law (2007) and offshore instruments, investmentpolicy.unctad.org, accessed .