Host-authority suspicion file
Preserve the host Member State authority, source URL, retrieval date, suspected irregularity description, affected service or crypto-asset, evidence owner, and unresolved external-advice questions.
What Article 102 changes operationally
Precautionary measures: ESMA's Interactive Single Rulebook publishes Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 102 with the title “Precautionary measures”. Public Article 102 text refers to a host Member State competent authority having clear and demonstrable grounds for suspecting irregularities in the activities of an offeror, person seeking admission to trading, issuer, or crypto-asset service provider.
The public text describes notification to the competent authority of the home Member State and ESMA, with EBA also notified where asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, or related services are involved. If irregularities persist despite home-authority measures, the host authority may take appropriate measures to protect clients of crypto-asset service providers and holders of crypto-assets, including retail holders.
This page is a record-preparation checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, supervisory-response instruction, enforcement-risk determination, authorisation opinion, provider endorsement, broker recommendation, or assurance about any firm, authority, irregularity, measure, notification, client-protection outcome, or fact pattern.
Article 102 precautionary-measures evidence map
Home-authority and agency notices
Track notification routes to the home Member State authority, ESMA, and where appropriate EBA, including timestamps, sender, recipient, version history, and response status.
Client and holder protection record
Map client-impact assessment, retail-holder exposure, service-scope limits, communications ownership, complaints handoffs, Article 94 response files, and Article 74 wind-down dependencies before action is needed.
Disagreement and escalation route
Where authorities disagree about host measures, preserve the ESMA or EBA escalation context, Article 95 cooperation file, Article 100 professional-secrecy notes, and Article 109 register-update implications.
Broker, insurer, partner, and internal-risk diligence questions
- Scope: Which activity, service, issuer, token type, Member State, and client or holder population is covered by the suspected irregularity or measure?
- Route: Which competent authorities, ESMA, and where appropriate EBA have been notified, and what source-backed record proves the timing and content of each handoff?
- Controls: Who owns client-impact review, service restrictions, communications, complaints, legal-review gates, Article 94 response files, Article 95 cooperation records, and register hygiene?
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 102 cover?
Article 102 is publicly titled “Precautionary measures”. Public text covers host Member State competent-authority concerns about irregularities, notification to the home Member State authority and ESMA, EBA notification in specified ART/EMT contexts, and possible host measures where irregularities persist.
Why does Article 102 matter for CASP evidence packs?
Cross-border supervisory concerns can move quickly from notification to client-protection measures. A practical evidence pack should preserve source, authority route, timing, service scope, client-impact assumptions, response owner, and unresolved external-advice questions.
Does this page decide whether a host authority measure is valid?
No. This page does not decide irregularity status, authority competence, measure validity, client impact, or escalation outcome. It helps teams preserve a source-backed record for qualified legal, regulatory, competent-authority, partner, broker, insurer, auditor, or internal-risk review.