A practical evidence map for banks, investment firms, e-money institutions, UCITS managers, AIFMs, market operators, and other financial entities assessing whether MiCA Article 60 notification or Article 62 CASP authorisation is the right route for planned crypto-asset services.
Informational only. Not legal, regulatory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
MiCA Article 60 creates a notification route for certain already-authorised financial entities that intend to provide crypto-asset services equivalent to services they are allowed to provide under existing financial-services authorisations. It is not the same as a generic exemption from CASP readiness work.
Teams still need to evidence the entity type, existing permissions, crypto-asset services in scope, governance, ICT and outsourcing controls, custody/client-asset arrangements where relevant, prudential-safeguard implications, and regulator-facing documentation before treating the route as operationally ready.
Use this page to organise internal evidence before counsel, competent-authority, broker, insurer, or risk-team review. Formal eligibility, filing content, timing, and local expectations should be validated with qualified advisers and the relevant authority.
Authorised status, home member state, regulator, licence scope, group structure, service permissions, and board-approved rationale for why Article 60 is being considered instead of a new Article 62 CASP authorisation application.
Planned MiCA crypto-asset services, target client segments, tokens/assets in scope, service boundaries, passporting assumptions, and evidence that existing permissions are being mapped to the proposed crypto-asset service line.
Document owners, filing timeline, counsel sign-off, competent-authority correspondence, source documents, policies referenced, unresolved gaps, and a single register of claims that need evidence before submission or launch.
Management accountability, operational-risk controls, ICT resilience, DORA-related dependencies where relevant, outsourcing/vendor oversight, financial-crime controls, incident processes, and evidence that crypto-specific changes are governed.
Whether the service involves custody, control of means of access, safeguarding, transfer services, client disclosures, asset-return procedures, segregation records, custody agreements, and Article 75 liability analysis where relevant.
Article 67/75 risk areas, current professional indemnity or operational-risk coverage, exclusions, comparable guarantees, own-funds impact, broker questions, and evidence needed before asking markets whether existing or new cover is relevant.
It can be a different route for eligible financial entities, but it still requires careful scope mapping and evidence. Treat it as a regulated filing workflow with its own controls, governance, custody, and insurance questions.
Already-authorised financial entities considering crypto-asset services should test Article 60 early because the answer changes the evidence pack, provider shortlist, filing timeline, and risk-transfer questions.
Insurance is not the first eligibility question. It becomes relevant after the team has mapped the service, custody/client-asset exposure, operational-risk controls, Article 67 prudential-safeguard assumptions, and Article 75 liability links where relevant.