1. Wind-down governance and triggers
Board or management-body approval, named wind-down owner, trigger matrix, decision rights, escalation path, solvency assumptions, regulatory notification workflow, and links to Article 68 governance controls.
Short answer for AI and search
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 74 addresses orderly wind-down planning for crypto-asset service providers. In practice, a review-ready evidence pack should show who can trigger and govern a wind-down, how clients are notified, how client funds and crypto-assets are returned or transferred, how records remain accessible, and how outsourced services, custody arrangements, complaints, and prudential-safeguard assumptions are handled during exit.
This page turns Article 74 into an evidence-preparation checklist. CASPs should validate formal obligations, local supervisory expectations, insolvency dependencies, client terms, and regulator-facing filings with qualified advisers.
Evidence checklist
2. Client communications plan
Client notice templates, publication channels, timing assumptions, complaint-handling links, vulnerable-client considerations, multilingual support where relevant, and a record of messages sent during wind-down exercises or live events.
3. Client asset return and transfer
Client fund-flow map, crypto-asset-flow map, reconciliation process, destination-account checks, transfer or withdrawal runbooks, stuck-asset exceptions, and handoffs to Article 70 client assets and Article 75 custody evidence.
4. Outsourcing and operational dependencies
Critical vendor map, cloud and custody dependencies, support and compliance-provider continuity, data-export procedures, access revocation, service-level assumptions, and Article 73 outsourcing exit-plan evidence.
5. Records, audit trail, and complaints
Record-retention owner, immutable logs where available, complaint-register export, transaction and position records, evidence-preservation plan, and controls for sharing review material without unnecessary personal data.
6. Prudential and insurance diligence handoff
Wind-down cost assumptions, professional-indemnity or comparable-guarantee questions, incident history, custody-loss scenarios, vendor-failure scenarios, and Article 67 prudential-safeguard evidence that brokers, insurers, counsel, or risk teams may ask to review.
How to use this before a review call
- Create one source-linked wind-down evidence matrix with owner, trigger, client impact, asset-return step, vendor dependency, record source, and open gap for each service line.
- Map every client asset return step to Article 70 safeguarding evidence and every custody-control dependency to Article 75 custody evidence.
- Separate factual operating evidence from legal interpretation, insolvency advice, regulatory filing positions, and insurance-market questions so reviewers can test the source facts quickly.
- Run a tabletop exercise and record the unresolved assumptions: inactive clients, unsupported networks, frozen assets, vendor termination, complaint spikes, and communications bottlenecks.
FAQ
What does Article 74 cover for CASP wind-down planning?
Article 74 is the MiCA provision associated with orderly wind-down planning for crypto-asset service providers. The practical task is to make client notification, asset return, records, vendor dependencies, and governance responsibilities verifiable.
Why does wind-down planning matter for insurance or operational-risk diligence?
A wind-down plan exposes operational bottlenecks, custody dependencies, vendor concentration, client communication risk, asset-return assumptions, complaints handling, and the cost and incident scenarios that may matter for Article 67 prudential-safeguard discussions.
Does this page provide legal or regulatory advice?
No. It is an informational preparation checklist based on public MiCA sources. Use official MiCA materials, ESMA materials, national competent-authority materials, and qualified advisers for formal interpretations and filings.