Since 1 July 2026, any business providing crypto-asset services to clients in the Netherlands or passporting into other EU member states must hold a MiCA CASP authorisation – the transitional period ended on that date with no extension granted by ESMA. Competent authority for CASP licensing in the Netherlands is shared between the AFM (Autoriteit Financiële Markten) and DNB (De Nederlandsche Bank), depending on the specific services applied for. Firms that have not yet secured authorisation are operating outside the regulatory framework and face material legal and commercial risk.
Why the Deadline Matters More Than Ever
The end of the MiCA transitional period on 1 July 2026 was confirmed by ESMA with no scope for further delay. For businesses that had been relying on grandfathering or legacy national registration under the Dutch anti-money laundering framework, that runway has now closed. Continuing to offer crypto-asset services – whether exchange, custody, portfolio management, order execution or advice – without a valid CASP licence exposes a firm to supervisory action by the AFM or DNB, potential asset freezes, and reputational consequences that are difficult to reverse.
The risk is not confined to operators headquartered in the Netherlands. Any firm passporting services into the Netherlands from another EU jurisdiction must equally hold a valid MiCA authorisation in its home member state. Equally, a Netherlands-based CASP that wishes to operate cross-border across the EU single market must have its passporting notifications in order before commencing those activities.
If your business falls into any of these categories and authorisation is not yet in place, now is the time to act. Our team is ready to assess your position and advise on the fastest compliant path forward – please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
The Authorisation Process: A Summary
MiCA authorisation in the Netherlands follows the framework set out in the Regulation itself, with the AFM and DNB each taking responsibility for specific elements of the supervisory review. At a high level, an applicant must demonstrate:
- A qualifying legal entity – typically a Dutch BV (besloten vennootschap) registered at the Kamer van Koophandel (KvK), with genuine substance in the Netherlands.
- Fit and proper management – the supervisory authority will assess the integrity, knowledge and experience of directors and qualifying shareholders.
- Prudential requirements – own funds or professional indemnity cover proportionate to the services being provided, calculated in accordance with the MiCA tiers.
- Organisational and governance standards – written policies covering conflicts of interest, safeguarding of client assets, complaints handling, business continuity, and outsourcing.
- AML/CFT compliance framework – robust customer due diligence, transaction monitoring and reporting procedures aligned with applicable Dutch and EU anti-money laundering rules.
- White paper obligations – where the applicant itself issues or seeks to offer crypto-assets to the public, a compliant MiCA white paper must be prepared, notified and, where required, approved before publication.
The precise timeline from submission to decision depends on the completeness of the application file and the specific services in scope. MiCA sets maximum assessment periods, but supervisors in the Netherlands may raise questions or request supplementary information during the review, which pauses the clock. Early engagement with the AFM or DNB, and a carefully prepared application dossier, reduces the risk of delays.
For a structured, step-by-step walkthrough of the full authorisation procedure, including document checklists and common drafting pitfalls, see our dedicated guide: MiCA CASP Licence Guide – Netherlands.
Common Pitfalls That Delay or Derail Applications
Having assisted clients through financial services licensing across multiple jurisdictions, we observe the same categories of avoidable error surfacing repeatedly in CASP applications:
- Substance without form: A registered BV with no actual management presence in the Netherlands is unlikely to satisfy supervisory expectations. The AFM and DNB apply substance requirements rigorously; directors must be genuinely active and resident.
- Incomplete or generic policies: Policy documents copied from templates without tailoring to the firm's actual business model are a common cause of questions from the supervisor, adding weeks to the review.
- Underestimating AML requirements: The Dutch AML supervisory framework is demanding. A CASP application that does not include a credible, implemented compliance programme will face significant pushback. Our AML and compliance practice works in parallel with the licensing team on this aspect – see our AML compliance services for the Netherlands.
- White paper errors: Where the applicant also issues or facilitates the offering of crypto-assets, an inadequate or missing white paper creates a separate regulatory breach independent of the CASP authorisation.
- Passporting overlooked: Firms that intend to serve clients in other EU member states must initiate the passporting notification process after authorisation is granted. This step is frequently left to the last moment, creating gaps in lawful market access.
- Underestimating capital markets intersections: Crypto-asset services that overlap with activities regulated under MiFID II – for example, services relating to asset-referenced tokens that qualify as financial instruments – may require additional authorisation. Our capital markets practice in the Netherlands advises on these boundary questions.
Self-Assessment: Is Your Business Ready?
Before instructing legal counsel, a preliminary internal review can help identify the most pressing gaps. Consider the following questions honestly:
- Does the business have a Dutch BV with KvK registration and genuine local management?
- Have the directors and qualifying shareholders been assessed against fit and proper criteria?
- Are own funds or insurance cover at the required MiCA levels currently in place?
- Does the firm have written, implemented AML/CFT policies reviewed against Dutch supervisory expectations?
- If crypto-assets are issued or offered to the public, has a compliant white paper been prepared and notified?
- Has the firm mapped its services against each of the CASP categories in Article 3 of MiCA to confirm the scope of required authorisation?
- Has a passporting strategy been defined for any cross-border EU services?
If several of these questions reveal open issues, a structured legal review is advisable before approaching the AFM or DNB. Submitting an incomplete application risks supervisory correspondence that slows the process and, in some cases, signals organisational readiness concerns to the regulator.
How Ferraz & Whitmore Supports CASP Applicants in the Netherlands
Our Netherlands practice brings together expertise in regulatory licensing, capital markets law, and AML compliance. We work with international businesses, investment funds, fintech start-ups, and established financial institutions that are either building a Netherlands presence for the first time or restructuring existing operations to meet MiCA requirements.
Our support across a CASP authorisation engagement typically covers: legal entity structuring and KvK registration; regulatory mapping of services to the correct MiCA authorisation categories; preparation of the full application dossier including governance documents, risk policies, and business plan; coordination with the AFM and DNB during the review process; white paper drafting and notification; and passporting notifications across target EU jurisdictions once authorisation is granted.
We do not offer predictions about supervisory outcomes. What we offer is a disciplined, experienced approach that reduces the risk of avoidable delays and positions an application as credibly as possible.
To discuss your specific situation with a member of our Netherlands regulatory team, write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or use our contacts page to request an initial consultation.
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.