Register-monitoring owner
Name an owner for checking the ESMA register, preserving retrieval dates, source URLs, snapshots, and escalation notes when a relevant commercial name, website, or lookalike domain appears.
What Article 110 changes operationally
Register of non-compliant entities providing crypto-asset services: the ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook text for Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 110 says ESMA shall establish a non-exhaustive register of entities that provide crypto-asset services in violation of Article 59 or 61.
The register text says it contains at least the commercial name or website of the non-compliant entity and the name of the competent authority that submitted the information. It also refers to regular updates, machine-readable public availability, information submitted by competent authorities from Member States or third countries, and EBA-submitted information.
This page is an evidence-preparation checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, authorisation opinion, reverse-solicitation opinion, register filing guide, provider endorsement, broker recommendation, or assurance about any firm’s Article 59/61 status.
Article 110 evidence matrix
Article 59 authorisation route
Link any authorisation concern to Article 59 and Article 62 evidence: services offered, Member State footprint, authorisation status, competent-authority correspondence, and unresolved external-advice questions.
Article 61 client-initiative route
For third-country or EU-facing teams, connect register monitoring to Article 61 reverse-solicitation records, solicitation controls, EU-facing promotion inventories, and new-service boundary decisions.
Competent-authority source
Record the competent authority that submitted the information where visible, the source page, retrieval date, Member State or third-country context, and response owner for any fact-checking file.
Website and commercial-name hygiene
Track commercial names, websites, redirects, app-store pages, affiliates, introducers, and marketing pages so identity or imitation issues do not get confused with authorised-service evidence.
Register handoffs
Link Article 110 monitoring to Article 94 supervisory-response files, Article 100 professional-secrecy notes, Article 108 complaint-channel evidence, and Article 109 ESMA CASP register hygiene.
Review-ready tracker
- Source record: ESMA register URL or source page, retrieval date, name or website observed, and source owner.
- Scope note: services, geography, public pages reviewed, and whether the concern appears connected to Article 59 authorisation or Article 61 reverse-solicitation assumptions.
- Authority provenance: competent authority that submitted the information where available, Member State or third-country context, and unresolved verification questions.
- Escalation bridge: links to Article 62 authorisation files, Article 61 reverse-solicitation controls, Article 94 authority-response evidence, and Article 109 public-register checks.
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 110 cover?
Article 110 covers ESMA’s non-exhaustive register of entities providing crypto-asset services in violation of Article 59 or Article 61, including public register fields such as commercial name or website and the competent authority that submitted information.
Why does this matter for CASP diligence?
Register monitoring can surface authorisation, reverse-solicitation, identity, website, and competent-authority provenance questions that should be reconciled with internal Article 59, 61, 62, 94, and 109 evidence files.
Does this page decide whether a firm belongs on the register?
No. It only describes an evidence tracker for source review, authority provenance, and internal escalation. It does not determine a firm’s regulatory status or replace competent-authority, counsel, or external-adviser review.