Real Case of Obtaining a MiCA License in the Netherlands

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.

We also checked the token universe. Because the platform did not deal in asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, the file stayed in the CASP lane rather than expanding into issuer-level issues.

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

We compared six EU jurisdictions against the client profile. The Netherlands won because DNB already had crypto supervision experience, the dual-DNB/AFM structure was predictable, and the client had a real establishment connection rather than a paper address.

That made the Dutch route legally defensible and commercially useful. It also gave the file a regulator-facing credibility that mattered for future banking and institutional counterparties.

Why the Netherlands

• DNB had a long crypto supervision track record
• The DNB / AFM split was clear enough to manage
• The client already had a practical establishment connection
• The Dutch route had stronger institutional credibility than a purely fast-track option
• Daan H. could support the file locally from day one

We moved the operation into a Dutch B.V. so the authorization sat in the right legal entity. Capital was injected into the entity itself, and the corporate structure was documented so the regulator could see who controlled what and where the funds sat.

At the same time, the client’s pre-MiCA compliance materials were revised into a usable base rather than treated as final regulatory documents.

What we established

• A Dutch B.V. as the CASP applicant
• A management body structure that fit MiCA expectations
• Substance in the Netherlands rather than a mailbox setup
• Capital inside the authorized entity
• Clear roles for directors, compliance, and local support

Before formal submission, in-country counsel arranged a pre-application discussion with DNB. That meeting let the team test the file for completeness, surface interpretive issues early, and adjust the outsourcing and safeguarding positions before the formal clock started.

The application package itself covered governance, prudential, operational, and AML/CFT requirements. The documents were repeatedly tightened so the package would read as a coherent control model rather than a loose bundle of attachments.

What the application required

• Management body charter, org chart, fit-and-proper files, conflict policy, and remuneration policy
• Own-funds calculations and capital adequacy evidence
• IT and security, complaints handling, client asset safeguarding, and outsourcing policies
• Updated AML/CFT policy, transaction monitoring, KYC/CDD, and suspicious activity procedures
• Whitepaper review against Article 6 disclosure requirements where relevant

Once the file was submitted, DNB review became a dialogue rather than a passive wait. The authority raised questions on governance and IT security, and the team responded in rounds rather than treating the filing as closed.

That stage mattered because a good MiCA application has to survive follow-up questions without losing its structure.

Once authorization was granted, passport notifications were filed for the remaining target markets. The client then moved into the continuous MiCA control environment: annual reporting, change notifications, incident reporting, and AML/CFT supervision.

The result was not just an approval, but a working framework for operating across the EU on a stable regulatory basis.

Ongoing controls introduced after approval

• Annual reporting and financial returns
• Material change notifications for services, ownership, or outsourcing
• Incident reporting for operational and security events
• AML/CFT review, monitoring, and update cadence
• Passport notifications for additional EU markets