Is a backpack allowed in Brazil?

This is one of the most common questions among companies that operate or want to operate digital financial services. The answer involves a key aspect of the financial system: who can hold funds belonging to third parties and under what conditions.

With the advance of Banking as a Service (BaaS): Regulation of Banking as a Service (BaaS) in Brazil: What Will Change with the Central Bank’s Stance? [Revised] , embedded finance, and tokenization of assets, understanding these limitations has ceased to be a technical issue and became a strategic decision for for any operation that wishes to scale with regulatory certainty.

The answer, as is often the case in the regulatory world, is not straightforward. It depends on the context, who is operating the system, and how the structure was designed.

With the tokenization of financial assets gaining ground in the market, understanding these limits has become even more strategic for companies that want to scale with institutional security.

This scenario also reveals an significant change in the architecture of the digital financial market.

As financial services begin to be distributed through platforms by technological platforms, fintechs and non-financial companies, the infrastructure institutional that supports these operations becomes becomes a central element for ensuring regulatory compliance, traceability, and governance.

It is in this context that financial infrastructure solutions, such as those developed by BLOCKBR, come to play a strategic role by connecting technology, regulation, and operations within a secure environment.

What is the role of the pocket in the financial system?

A master account is, in essence, a centralized account used to pool and move funds from multiple users or operations from a single point. Instead of each participant having their own account individual account with a financial institution, the funds flow through a single structure, controlled by an intermediary agent.

This model has long been part of the financial system and was not created to circumvent regulations. In practice, it serves as an operational solution in contexts where the centralization of financial flows makes technical and economic sense, provided there is adequate oversight and clear regulatory accountability regarding who holds and manages these funds.

The problem isn’t with the escrow account itself, but with who operates it and under what regulatory framework.

When used by authorized institutions, it can be part of legitimate transactions.

When used by unregulated companies to hold third-party funds, this constitutes a violation that carries significant legal and operational risks.

How does a checking account work?

In the typical model, an institution or company maintains an account in its name with a bank or payment institution. The funds from different customers or transactions enter and exit from this centralized account, being controlled internally by reconciliation systems that identify reconciliation systems that identify to whom each amount belongs.

This process is consistent with various legitimate financial market operations. With sub-acquirers, for example, it is common for merchants’ funds to be temporarily centralized before being settled. In foreign exchange transactions, there is also a similar logic of cash flow concentration.

What makes a pocket account regular or irregular is precisely the presence—or absence—of an institution authorized by theCentral Bank of Brazil to act as custodian. When such authorization exists, the model is legitimate. When it does not, the company is operating outside the boundaries of the regulated financial system.

This point highlights a key aspect of the recent developments in the digital financial market: the importance of the institutional infrastructure that supports these operations.

Infrastructure, in this context, does not mean only technology or payment systems. It is a set of integrated elements that includes technological architecture, governance legal, regulatory compliance, asset segregation, and connection with authorized agents.

Without this foundation, models that seem workable in the short term end up become vulnerable from a regulatory and institutional perspective.

Is a savings account allowed by the Central Bank?

Over the years, the rapid growth of fintechs and models of Banking as a Service has created an environment in which many companies have begun to use mobile -as a form of financial infrastructure on the fly. Without having authorization from the Central Bank, these companies centralized funds from third parties in their own accounts and operated as if they were financial institutions.

This situation was tolerated during a period of regulatory ambiguity. The absence of explicit guidelines on the boundaries of BaaS created what the market came to call a “gray area”: a space where irregular practices coexisted with legitimate models without sufficient clarity to distinguish between them.

This type of risk highlights the need for infrastructure for the market capable of connecting financial digital to regulated entities, ensuring asset segregation, governance and traceability.

It is precisely in this context that solutions such as the BLOCKBR Station operate, functioning as an institutional layer that enables operations within the regulated environment.

Who can hold assets belonging to third parties in Brazil?

The Central Bank’s new regulation did not prohibit the use of pocket accounts.

What she did was make it clear that the custody of assets belonging to third parties requires authorization, and that any structure outside of this standard is considered considered irregular.

In other words, the “pocket account” continues to exist in regulated models. What is no longer tolerated is its use by unauthorized companies to facilitate financial transactions that, in practice, should be under the supervision of the Central Bank. The Regulation of Banking as a Service in Brazil (LINK TO THE ARTICLE: Regulation of Banking as a Service (BaaS) in Brazil: What Will Change with the Central Bank’s Stance?) reinforces exactly this point: licensing and fiduciary responsibility are not optional.

The table below summarizes the main contexts in which the pocket account is permitted and those in which it becomes irregular:

This debate is directly linked to the discussion about market for the digital asset market.

When does the pocket account become irregular?

An irregularity occurs when a company not authorized by the Central Bank uses an account in its own name to pool and manage funds belonging to third parties, whether they are customers, partners, or users of a platform. In this scenario, the company is, in effect, acting as a custodian without a license to do so.

The risks of this model are very real. From an operational standpoint, the lack of asset segregation means that users’ funds are exposed to the company’s own financial problems. From a legal standpoint, the company may be held liable for engaging in unauthorized financial activities.

Furthermore, in the event of court-ordered freezes or insolvency, funds held in an unregulated escrow account are exposed to liquidity risk, with no institutional protection for the actual owners of those funds. This is precisely the contrast between the gray area and the regulated model: on the one hand, risk and exposure; on the other, asset segregation and operational security.

How can one structure financial transactions without regulatory risk?

For companies that already offer or plan to offer digital financial services, the message is clear: infrastructure matters just as much as the product. It is not possible to scale a significant financial operation without ensuring that the institutional architecture complies with the current regulatory framework.

This means that companies that have been using escrow accounts improperly need to review their operational structure and seek out regulated partners who can assume responsibility for the custody of funds. This is not a bureaucratic requirement, but a prerequisite for operating safely and sustainably in the long term.

Given this new scenario, solutions for financial infrastructure are now playing a crucial role.

Platforms such as BLOCKBR Station enable the structuring of digital financial transactions by connecting technology, regulated entities, custodial services, and compliance mechanisms within an institutional architecture that complies with the Central Bank’s requirements.

This approach reduces reliance on improvised structures and enables companies companies scale their financial operations with governance and traceability.

The new Banking-as-a-Service regulation did not eliminate existing business models in the digital financial market. What it did was clarify the boundaries between legitimate structures and practices that operated in gray areas.

Before any technological infrastructure, the custody of resources requires a clear regulatory framework: only authorized institutions may perform this function.

Infrastructure serves as an enabling element, ensuring that this structure operates with traceability, governance and compliance with the financial system.

As the market evolves toward structures based on digital assets, tokenization and embedded finance, it is not enough to simply develop innovative financial products. It is necessary to ensure that the technological, legal, and regulatory framework underpinning these operations is robust, traceable, and compliant with financial system standards.

Companies that understand this shift tend to build operations that are more resilient and sustainable in the long term.

If your company is operating or intends to operate financial digital services, the first step is not the technology, it is the regulatory framework.

Talk to the experts at BLOCKBR and learn how to make your operation feasible with infrastructure that is appropriate, governance and compliance with the Central Bank.