MiCA competent-authority intervention evidence
A source-backed, conservative evidence checklist for CASPs, issuers, offerors, and distribution teams mapping competent-authority product intervention powers, crypto-asset scope, activity or practice restrictions, notices, and governance response records.
Informational only. Not legal, regulatory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
Product intervention by competent authorities: ESMA's Interactive Single Rulebook publishes Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 105 with the title “Product intervention by competent authorities”. Public Article 105 text says a competent authority may prohibit or restrict, in or from its Member State, the marketing, distribution or sale of certain crypto-assets or crypto-assets with certain specified features, or a type of activity or practice related to crypto-assets.
The public text refers to reasonable grounds for a measure, including significant investor-protection concerns, threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of markets in crypto-assets, threats to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system within at least one Member State, insufficient existing Union regulatory requirements for the crypto-asset or service concerned, and cases not better addressed by improved supervision or enforcement of existing requirements.
This page is a record-preparation checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, market-access instruction, supervisory-response instruction, authorisation opinion, token recommendation, provider endorsement, broker recommendation, or assurance about any crypto-asset, service, activity, restriction, competent-authority measure, notice, timing, client impact, or fact pattern.
Preserve the crypto-asset, specified feature set, issuer or offeror relationship, marketing or distribution channel, sale route, activity or practice, affected Member State, source URL, retrieval date, owner, and unresolved external-advice questions.
Map the investor-protection concern, orderly-market or market-integrity threat, or Member State financial-stability threat being monitored, plus the internal evidence that supports or challenges relevance of any public competent-authority material.
Track competent-authority source pages, Article 94 response files, Article 95/96 cooperation records where relevant, publication or notice evidence, timestamps, decision owners, legal-review gates, and version history.
Document holder or client communications, distribution changes, complaint handoffs, vendor or venue dependencies, Article 100 professional-secrecy notes, and Article 109 register implications.
Article 105 is publicly titled “Product intervention by competent authorities”. Public text covers possible prohibitions or restrictions by a competent authority in or from its Member State for certain crypto-assets, crypto-assets with specified features, or related activity or practice types.
Product-intervention measures can affect marketing, distribution, sale, activity, or practice assumptions. A practical evidence pack should preserve source, scope, competent-authority records, client-impact assumptions, response owner, and unresolved external-advice questions.
No. This page does not decide applicability, validity, authority competence, market impact, client impact, or response obligations. It helps teams preserve a source-backed record for qualified legal, regulatory, competent-authority, partner, broker, insurer, auditor, or internal-risk review.