5 Key Takeaways from This Article
A crypto platform under transitional pressure
A crypto-asset service provider approached Regulated United Europe seeking assistance with the transition from national cryptocurrency registrations to the EU-wide MiCA regulatory framework.
The project involved assessing the company's existing activities, determining the required CASP permissions, establishing an appropriate Dutch legal structure and preparing the documentation for authorisation by the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM).
The Netherlands began accepting MiCA CASP licence applications on 22 April 2024. Authorisations obtained under the new framework could be used from 30 December 2024, when the relevant CASP provisions of MiCA became applicable.
Accordingly, any claimed licensing timeline must distinguish between the initial consultation, application preparation, formal submission, regulatory assessment and effective authorisation.
The case study should report the actual project duration consistently. The current description refers to approximately eight months, whereas the detailed timeline indicates authorisation in Month 6.
The final publication should use the timeframe supported by the project's records, including the actual application submission and authorisation dates.
The Netherlands was the strategic fit
The Netherlands was selected following an assessment of the client's proposed crypto-asset services, existing European operations, corporate structure and regulatory requirements.
Under the Dutch implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), the Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten, AFM) is the competent authority responsible for granting authorisation to Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs).
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) participates in the supervisory framework and is responsible for assessing and supervising specific prudential requirements, including those established under Article 67 of MiCA.
The responsibilities of the two authorities must be distinguished:
AFM: CASP authorisation, assessment of the application, market conduct supervision, governance and operational requirements.
DNB: Prudential supervision, including applicable capital and financial soundness requirements.
AFM and DNB: Regulatory cooperation where an application involves matters falling within both authorities' responsibilities.
Before MiCA became applicable, DNB administered the Dutch registration framework for certain cryptocurrency service providers under the country's anti-money laundering legislation.
However, this historical registration function should not be confused with the current CASP authorisation procedure.
A company seeking a new Dutch MiCA authorisation must submit its application to the AFM, rather than applying to DNB for a separate CASP licence.
Dutch legal counsel supported the authorisation process
The project was conducted in cooperation with Dutch legal counsel, who assisted with the interpretation of MiCA requirements, corporate structuring, preparation of legal documentation and communication with the competent Dutch regulatory authorities.
For a Dutch CASP authorisation, the formal application must be submitted to the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM).
The AFM acts as the principal licensing authority and coordinates with De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) where prudential supervision or other matters within DNB's responsibilities are relevant.
The application process may involve regulatory meetings, requests for supplementary information, assessments of management suitability and reviews of the applicant's operational and financial arrangements.
Correspondence concerning the application should therefore be described as primarily involving the AFM, with DNB participating where appropriate.
Legal representation and assistance with the application do not guarantee approval. The final authorisation decision remains the responsibility of the AFM.
We managed the full scope
We managed the full scope: jurisdiction analysis, corporate structuring, MiCA application preparation, whitepaper compliance review, regulatory correspondence, and post-authorization compliance setup.
The article uses redacted evidence
The client remains anonymous; selected corporate and supervisory documents are included as redacted screenshots.
The file only works if the control model is real
MiCA review is strongest when the jurisdiction choice, governance documentation, and evidence pack are built as one operating model instead of separate drafting tasks.
From Fragmented Registrations to a Single MiCA Route
The project originated during the transition from national cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks to Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA).
The client operated a cryptocurrency exchange platform and held registrations in the Czech Republic and Lithuania under the national frameworks applicable before MiCA.
However, national VASP registrations did not automatically authorise the provision of regulated crypto-asset services throughout the European Union.
Under Article 143(3) of MiCA, providers lawfully operating before 30 December 2024 could benefit from transitional arrangements, subject to the shorter periods adopted by individual Member States.
Importantly, the Netherlands applied a shorter transitional period ending on 30 June 2025 for qualifying existing providers.
The maximum transitional period available under MiCA in other participating Member States expired on 1 July 2026.
During the transitional period, national registrations did not provide MiCA passporting rights.
Accordingly, the client’s existing registrations in the Czech Republic and Lithuania had to be assessed separately from the proposed authorisation of a Dutch legal entity.
A Dutch CASP authorisation could provide access to the EU market through the applicable passporting procedure, but it would not retrospectively authorise any earlier cross-border activities that required separate permissions.
The project’s objective was therefore to establish a compliant Dutch operating structure and obtain the necessary AFM authorisation for the intended crypto-asset services.
That became the brief: map the activity, test the legal classification, choose the right home jurisdiction, and build an application package that could survive regulator review and still leave room for expansion.
What the Client Already Had
- An operating exchange with a proprietary matching engine
- Existing national registrations in the Czech Republic and Lithuania
- A two-person legal and compliance team
- Real users across several EU markets
- A commercial need for passporting rather than isolated national permissions
What the MiCA File Still Needed
- A single EU establishment point for the CASP application
- A whitepaper aligned with MiCA disclosure requirements
- Formal governance, capital, and control documentation
- A regulator-ready organizational framework
- In-country legal support for DNB and AFM interaction
Core Strategy
The work was treated as a structuring exercise, not a forms exercise. We first separated the regulatory questions, then tested the jurisdiction, then shaped the evidence pack around the exact business model the client was already running.
That sequence mattered because MiCA review is not just about completeness. The file has to make regulatory sense, show genuine establishment, and prove that the applicant can operate a control environment that matches the services being requested.
How the Matter Was Run
Scope the business model
We reviewed the exchange activity in detail before discussing jurisdiction. The platform operated as a trading venue, exchanged crypto for fiat, and exchanged crypto for crypto. That meant CASP authorization was required under MiCA, with no real ambiguity about the regulatory classification.
The regulatory assessment also considered the categories of crypto-assets admitted to trading on the platform.
The absence of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) reduced the need to assess certain additional regulatory obligations associated with these categories of crypto-assets.
However, it did not eliminate the requirements concerning the admission to trading of other crypto-assets under Title II of MiCA.
Under Article 5, the admission to trading of crypto-assets other than ARTs and EMTs may require the preparation, notification and publication of a crypto-asset white paper, subject to the applicable exemptions and conditions.
Where an operator admits a crypto-asset to trading on its own initiative and no white paper has been published in circumstances where one is legally required, Article 5(2) may place the relevant disclosure obligations on the trading platform operator.
Furthermore, Article 76 requires trading platform operators to establish transparent admission policies, assess the suitability of crypto-assets and maintain appropriate market integrity and operational controls.
For crypto-assets admitted to trading before 30 December 2024, Article 143(2) establishes transitional white paper requirements.
According to ESMA’s clarification of 14 October 2025, trading platform operators must ensure that white papers are available by 31 December 2027 in cases where MiCA requires them.
The absence of an identifiable issuer may affect whether a white paper is required, as clarified by the European Commission in its answer published by ESMA on 18 February 2026.
The token review must therefore distinguish between issuer obligations, admission-to-trading requirements and the separate obligations applicable to the authorised CASP.
What we assessed
- Service classification under MiCA
- Asset scope and token taxonomy
- Governance structure and fit-and-proper readiness
- Capital requirements and where the own funds sat
- Existing AML/KYC documentation and how much could be reused
Supporting Documents
Supporting Documentation and Verification of the Regulatory Outcome
The case study refers to selected anonymised documents prepared or obtained during the reported MiCA authorisation project.
These may include:
A Dutch Chamber of Commerce (KVK) extract confirming incorporation and registration of the relevant Dutch legal entity.
Corporate governance and beneficial ownership documentation.
Application materials prepared for submission to the AFM.
Correspondence concerning regulatory assessment and supplementary information requests.
Evidence of the final authorisation decision, where disclosure is permitted.
Information identifying the crypto-asset services authorised under MiCA.
A KVK registration extract confirms the existence of a registered legal entity but does not establish that the company holds a MiCA CASP authorisation.
Similarly, preparation or submission of licensing documents must not be presented as equivalent to regulatory approval.
The final authorisation should be verified against the AFM’s public register of Crypto-Asset Service Providers or the relevant ESMA register, using the legal name and regulatory details of the authorised entity.
Where confidentiality prevents publication of the company’s identity, the case study should clearly distinguish between the project outcome reported by the client or legal advisers and an authorisation that readers can independently verify.
Redacted documents may illustrate the licensing process, but extensive anonymisation can prevent independent confirmation of the issuing authority, authorised legal entity, licence scope and approval date.
The case should therefore identify the actual licensing outcome precisely without implying that a corporate registration document or an anonymised application constitutes independent proof of CASP authorisation.
Jurisdiction Comparison
The Dutch route was selected after comparing the main EU alternatives against the client profile.
Processing Time Considerations
MiCA establishes harmonised licensing requirements and procedural deadlines, but actual processing times may vary according to the complexity of the applicant's business model, the completeness of its documentation and the need for supplementary information.
The Netherlands' AFM indicates that even a well-prepared application generally takes at least five months to complete.
Statements describing Lithuania as categorically faster, Germany as slower or France as having a universally moderate processing period should not be presented without comparable, current and verifiable regulatory data.
A jurisdiction's reputation or perceived commercial credibility does not guarantee that an applicant will obtain a bank account, payment processing arrangements or institutional partnerships.
What This Case Study Demonstrates
The Dutch authorization was only the midpoint. After approval, passport notifications were filed for the remaining target markets and the client moved into a continuous MiCA operating model with annual reporting, material-change notifications, incident reporting, and AML/CFT supervision.
Three decisions made the outcome possible:
- Choosing the Netherlands for the right reasons. The jurisdiction was selected for regulatory credibility, establishment logic, and banking/institutional utility, not just for speed.
- Engaging in-country counsel from day one. Daan H. helped translate EU-level rules into a workable filing strategy and kept the regulator interaction grounded in Dutch supervisory practice.
- Treating the application as a governance project. The file worked because the management body, policies, capital, and operational controls were built to function together.
What changed most was the compliance posture. The business moved from fragmented local registrations and informal control habits to a single regulated framework with clearer ownership, clearer evidence, and a better basis for future supervisory dialogue.
All corporate documents, regulatory correspondence, and personal information referenced in the case were anonymized or redacted to protect confidentiality.
Why Regulated United Europe?
Regulated United Europe OÜ (RUE) is a European legal consulting firm specializing in financial licensing, company formation, and regulatory compliance. Since 2016, we have helped hundreds of businesses obtain crypto, gambling, forex, and EMI/PSP licenses across 35+ jurisdictions.
With offices in four EU countries and a team of experienced lawyers, we provide end-to-end support — from initial consultation and company registration to license acquisition and ongoing compliance management.
500+
Clients Served
35+
Jurisdictions
Since 2016
Years in Business
4
EU Offices
Registered European Legal Consultancy
Regulated United Europe OÜ is a company registered in Estonia that provides legal and regulatory consulting services, including company formation, financial services licensing support and corporate compliance advisory services.
Where a particular matter requires representation by a locally admitted advocate or another regulated legal professional, RUE may cooperate with appropriately qualified independent lawyers and professional partners in the relevant jurisdiction.
Company registration must not be confused with authorisation to practise law as a regulated advocate or law firm.
Any claim concerning professional legal practice authorisation should identify the relevant licensed individual or legal entity and the competent professional regulatory authority.
Multilingual Team
Our experts speak English, German, Russian, Chinese, and 12+ other languages for global client support.
Turnkey Solutions
From company registration to license acquisition and compliance — we handle the entire process end-to-end.
Dedicated Support
Personal consultant assigned to each client. Direct communication channels, no call centers.
