MiCA Counterparty Checks: Entity, Services and Register Status

For a company choosing a crypto-asset counterparty, a useful review connects three things: the contracting entity, the proposed activity and dated regulatory evidence. The workflow below is a practical due-diligence recommendation, rather than a statutory checklist or an assessment of any named provider.

Consider a procurement review: a provider sends a presentation describing its business as “MiCA compliant.” Procurement receives a group company’s certificate, the product team receives an API specification, and legal receives terms naming a different entity. Each document may look credible on its own. The unresolved question is whether the business signing the contract can deliver the specific services being purchased.

Start with the contract, not the brand

Ask the provider to identify the legal entity that will contract, invoice and perform each material service. Record its registered name, company identifier, address and relevant website. Where custody, execution or another function is handled by a separate group member or subcontractor, request a simple responsibility map.

Compare those details with the draft agreement and onboarding documents. A familiar trading name is a useful search term, but the conclusion should identify a legal person. If the paperwork changes entity during negotiations, reopen the check rather than carrying forward the earlier approval automatically.

Identify the regulatory route

MiCA Articles 59 and 60 distinguish authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider from the route available to certain already regulated financial institutions, subject to the applicable notification and service conditions. Asking every counterparty for an identical standalone “CASP licence” can therefore produce the wrong test. MiCA Articles 59, 60 and 65

Request a short explanation of the route relied upon, the home competent authority and the evidence supporting the proposed services. For an Article 60 case, have the reviewer examine the institution’s eligibility and the relevant notification position. A generic statement that the group is regulated does not explain which entity can perform the contract.

Keep the legal classification with a qualified reviewer where the business model or asset falls outside a straightforward case. The procurement team’s job is to collect consistent evidence, not improvise a legal exemption.

Do not treat an old national registration as current MiCA authorisation. The maximum grandfathering period for existing service providers under Article 143(3) ended on 1 July 2026, and Member States could shorten it. For a review conducted after that date, request the provider’s current regulatory basis rather than relying on an earlier transitional status.

Compare the purchased service with the permitted scope

Translate the commercial proposal into specific activities. “Wallet infrastructure,” for example, may describe several different arrangements. Ask who controls assets, who executes instructions and who is responsible when another provider performs a function.

MiCA authorisation specifies the crypto-asset services the provider may offer. Article 59(7) permits provision across the Union, while Article 65 requires the provider to notify its home authority of the intended Member States, services and starting date. Check that evidence against the proposed relationship; this is not a requirement to obtain a separate MiCA authorisation in every Member State. MiCA Articles 59, 60 and 65

A useful internal worksheet has one row per purchased service, with the performing entity, supporting official record, unresolved question and reviewer. This makes a missing custody permission or a change in the service chain easier to see before a contract is approved.

Reconcile official records and dates

Use ESMA’s MiCA register alongside the relevant national authority’s records. ESMA says its interim publication updates weekly and may lag national information. It also retains entries after authorisation withdrawal, with the effective withdrawal date. A search hit alone is therefore insufficient. ESMA MiCA register

Save the source URL, retrieval date, entity match, service details and any status dates relevant to the decision. If national and EU information differ, document the difference and seek clarification through independently verified authority channels where necessary. A provider’s screenshot can help locate a record, but should not be the sole evidence for resolving a contradiction.

Separate “not yet reconciled” from “approved.” Missing evidence may justify pausing onboarding; it should not automatically become a public allegation that the business is unauthorised.

Keep product claims separate from provider status

ESMA warns that white papers listed in its register for crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens have not been reviewed or approved by a competent authority. A white-paper listing cannot support a claim that a token has official approval. ESMA MiCA register

Keep provider eligibility, product disclosures and commercial risk in separate sections of the review. Regulatory evidence does not answer questions about asset recovery, cybersecurity, service continuity or contract remedies. Those questions need their own documents and decision owners.

Make approval renewable

Close the review with a short decision record: approved scope, evidence checked, open conditions, reviewer and next review trigger. Sensible triggers include a different contracting entity, an additional service, a new target market or a change in regulatory status.

The practical outcome is an evidence file that another colleague can retrace. Before signing, the team should be able to explain who provides what, on which regulatory basis, and which dated sources support that conclusion.