To operate as a crypto-asset service provider in the Netherlands, a firm must obtain a CASP authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) from the Dutch competent authorities – the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) and De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB). The MiCA transitional period ended on 1 July 2026, and an ESMA statement of 17 April 2026 confirmed that no extensions would be granted; any crypto-asset service provider that was not authorised by that date is now operating unlawfully within the EU. This guide sets out the step-by-step procedure, document requirements, realistic timelines, key cost drivers and the most common errors made by foreign applicants approaching the Dutch process.
Why the Netherlands and Why Now
The Netherlands occupies a distinctive position in European crypto-asset regulation. DNB had already been registering virtual asset service providers under the anti-money laundering framework before MiCA came into force, meaning that firms which held a DNB VASP registration gained practical familiarity with Dutch supervisory expectations. However, a prior VASP registration does not automatically convert into a MiCA CASP authorisation – applicants must go through a full authorisation procedure.
The urgency is acute. On 23 June 2026, ESMA issued a public statement requiring unauthorised CASPs to stop onboarding new clients and cease marketing crypto-asset services to EU clients immediately; those firms may only assist existing clients in selling or transferring their assets, closing open positions and winding down in an orderly way. If your firm is still relying on transitional status or a legacy registration, the window for compliant operation has closed. The ESMA register recorded 325 authorised CASPs as of 12 August 2026 – a figure that underlines how many market participants have already completed the process.
If your firm has not yet filed an application, or if a pending application has stalled, Ferraz & Whitmore can assess your position and help structure an accelerated submission. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange an initial review.
Legal Basis and Competent Authorities
MiCA is directly applicable EU law. In the Netherlands, the AFM and DNB share supervisory competence, with responsibility divided broadly along the lines of conduct-of-business supervision (AFM) and prudential and AML/CFT oversight (DNB). Applicants deal with both authorities during the authorisation process, and correspondence may be directed to or coordinated between them depending on the service category being applied for.
The relevant national legislative acts implementing or supplementing MiCA in the Netherlands are subject to ongoing parliamentary procedure. Where national transposition details have not yet been formally published, applicants should treat the MiCA text as the primary reference and seek confirmation from the AFM or DNB on any specific national requirement. A dedicated overview of MiCA licensing requirements in the Netherlands provides current information as the national framework develops.
Step-by-Step Authorisation Procedure
Step 1 – Pre-Application Engagement
Before filing a formal application, most applicants benefit from an informal pre-application meeting with the AFM and, where appropriate, DNB. Dutch supervisors have indicated openness to pre-application dialogue, which allows the competent authority to signal expectations on governance, capital and AML/CFT documentation before the formal clock starts. This step is optional but strongly advisable for first-time applicants and foreign entrants without prior Dutch supervisory history.
Step 2 – Establish a Dutch Legal Entity
The applicant must be a legal person established in the Netherlands. In practice, the most common vehicle is a besloten vennootschap (BV), a private limited company. Incorporation requires registration with the Kamer van Koophandel (KvK) and the execution of a notarial deed. The BV must have genuine substance in the Netherlands: a registered office, at least one director resident in or regularly present in the country, and operational decision-making that can withstand supervisory scrutiny.
Shell or letterbox structures will not satisfy the substance requirements. The AFM and DNB will examine whether key functions – including compliance, risk management and senior management oversight – are genuinely performed from the Netherlands.
Step 3 – Identify and Screen All Beneficial Owners
MiCA requires disclosure of all persons who qualify as beneficial owners under applicable AML legislation. In the Dutch context this means compliance with the Wwft (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme) and registration of ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) in the KvK UBO register. Each beneficial owner holding or controlling more than the applicable threshold must be identified, and the competent authority will assess the good repute and fitness of shareholders with qualifying holdings.
Foreign corporate chains present particular challenges: the AFM and DNB will typically require certified translations, apostilles and, for structures involving jurisdictions that do not issue apostilles, alternative verification methods. Preparing a clean ownership structure chart early reduces delays.
Step 4 – Prepare the Application Dossier
The MiCA application dossier is substantial. The core components required by the regulation include:
- Programme of operations – a detailed description of the crypto-asset services to be provided, the types of crypto-assets involved and the business model.
- Governance arrangements – policies, procedures and organisational charts demonstrating a robust internal control framework; details of the management body; fit-and-proper documentation for all directors and qualifying shareholders.
- Capital proof – evidence of own funds or insurance meeting the MiCA minimum requirements for the relevant service category; the applicable amount depends on which of the nine CASP service types the applicant will provide.
- AML/CFT programme – a comprehensive written AML/CFT policy, customer due diligence procedures, transaction monitoring methodology, and designation of an AML compliance officer; requirements flow from both MiCA and the Wwft.
- ICT and security policies – systems and controls documentation, business continuity planning, and cybersecurity measures aligned with DORA obligations where applicable.
- Client asset safeguarding arrangements – description of how client funds or crypto-assets are segregated and protected.
- Complaints-handling procedures – a documented process for receiving and resolving client complaints.
- Conflicts of interest policy – applicable especially to exchanges and portfolio managers.
All documents submitted in a language other than Dutch or English should be accompanied by certified translations. The AFM's working language for CASP applications is Dutch or English; applicants may submit in English, but should confirm this with the authority at the pre-application stage.
Step 5 – Submit the Application via the Designated Portal
The AFM manages the formal intake of MiCA CASP applications. Applications must be submitted through the authority's designated electronic channel together with the prescribed application fee. The competent authority has a period specified in MiCA to confirm completeness of the dossier; if documents are missing or insufficient, the authority will issue a completeness notice and the assessment clock restarts.
Step 6 – Supervisory Assessment and Possible Supplementary Questions
Following confirmation of completeness, the AFM and DNB conduct a substantive review. This phase routinely involves requests for supplementary information (RFIs), interviews with proposed directors or compliance officers, and – for complex structures – consultation between the AFM and DNB. Applicants should designate a single point of contact and ensure that key personnel are available for supervisory dialogue throughout this phase.
The assessment period under MiCA is defined in the regulation; applicants should not assume that the statutory maximum represents the typical timeline. In practice, the time between submission and a decision varies materially depending on dossier quality, the complexity of the business model and supervisory workload.
Step 7 – Decision and Registration
If authorisation is granted, the firm is entered in the ESMA register of CASPs and may begin providing the authorised services across the EU under the MiCA passporting mechanism. If the application is refused, the applicant has the right to be heard and may challenge the decision through Dutch administrative proceedings; ultimate jurisdiction for appeals lies with the administrative courts, with the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) as the final instance in cassation proceedings.
Realistic Timelines and Cost Drivers
Applicants should plan for a multi-month process from initial preparation to authorisation. The quality of the initial dossier is the single most important factor in managing duration: incomplete applications trigger completeness requests that reset formal timelines and, in practice, extend the overall process significantly.
Key cost drivers include legal and compliance advisory fees for dossier preparation, notarial costs for BV incorporation, KvK and UBO registration fees, translation and apostille costs for foreign documents, supervisory application fees charged by the AFM, and the ongoing costs of maintaining the compliance infrastructure required post-authorisation. Capital requirements add a further financial dimension whose scale depends on the service categories applied for.
Foreign applicants frequently underestimate the time needed to build a genuinely substance-compliant Dutch operation. Hiring a qualified local compliance officer, establishing real office space and embedding a local management function all take time, and these steps cannot be deferred until after submission without risking supervisory rejection.
AML/CFT: A Particular Focus of Dutch Supervisors
DNB has a well-established track record of rigorous AML/CFT enforcement in the crypto sector, built on its experience as a VASP registrar. Applicants should expect AML/CFT documentation to receive close scrutiny. A weak or generic AML programme – one that has been copied from another jurisdiction without adaptation to the Wwft and Dutch supervisory expectations – is among the most common reasons for RFIs and delays.
The AML/CFT programme must be tailored to the specific business model, the types of crypto-assets handled, the geographic profile of clients and the transaction monitoring tools in use. It should address travel rule compliance, screening against EU and Dutch sanctions lists, and escalation procedures for suspicious activity reports to the FIU-Nederland. Further detail on structuring a compliant programme is available from our AML compliance practice in the Netherlands.
Common Errors by Foreign Applicants
- Treating MiCA as purely an EU-level process. The competent authority is Dutch, applies Dutch administrative procedure and expects familiarity with Dutch legal and supervisory culture.
- Insufficient local substance. Registering a BV at a virtual office address without genuine management presence will not satisfy AFM or DNB expectations.
- Incomplete beneficial ownership documentation. Complex offshore holding chains frequently produce gaps in the UBO chain; these must be resolved before submission, not during the review period.
- Generic AML/CFT policies. Submitting a template policy not adapted to the Dutch Wwft framework and the specific business model invites RFIs and substantive objections.
- Misidentifying the required service categories. MiCA defines nine crypto-asset service types; applying for too narrow or too broad a scope creates either a compliance gap or unnecessary supervisory complexity.
- Underestimating capital requirements. The minimum own funds or insurance thresholds differ by service category; failing to demonstrate the correct amount at the time of submission requires supplementary filings.
- Ignoring passporting mechanics. If the business plan involves serving clients in other EU member states, the passport notification procedure under MiCA must be planned from the outset, not retrofitted after authorisation.
Decision Checklist Before Filing
- Dutch BV incorporated, KvK registered, UBO register filing complete.
- Registered office and genuine management presence in the Netherlands confirmed.
- All directors and qualifying shareholders screened for fit-and-proper compliance; documentation collated.
- Full beneficial ownership chart prepared with supporting corporate documents, apostilles and translations.
- Service categories identified and scope of application defined.
- Capital or insurance documentation ready and matched to service categories.
- AML/CFT programme drafted in accordance with Wwft, MiCA and DNB supervisory expectations; AML officer appointed.
- ICT security and business continuity policies drafted.
- Client asset safeguarding arrangements documented.
- Pre-application meeting with AFM/DNB scheduled or completed.
- Application fee budget identified and approved.
The Germany Comparison
Applicants weighing jurisdictional options for their CASP authorisation may find it useful to review the parallel process in Germany, where BaFin acts as competent authority and the procedural culture differs in several respects. A step-by-step guide to the MiCA CASP licence in Germany is available for comparison.
How Ferraz & Whitmore Can Assist
Our Netherlands practice advises on the full authorisation lifecycle: from initial entity structuring and substance assessment through dossier preparation, AFM/DNB pre-application engagement and post-authorisation compliance design. We work alongside local Dutch notaries and compliance professionals to ensure that every element of the application reflects current supervisory expectations rather than generic EU-level templates.
If you are currently unlicensed and need to understand your options in the context of the ESMA 23 June 2026 statement – including orderly wind-down, accelerated application or restructuring – we can provide a confidential assessment of your situation. Contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
For firms that have already submitted an application and are experiencing delays or supervisory queries, our team can review the existing dossier, identify weaknesses and assist in formulating responses. Early intervention at that stage often materially shortens the time to a decision. Reach us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.