Information and document requests
Maintain a source-linked inventory of records that could be requested, named evidence owners, legal-review status, production logs, privilege or confidentiality notes, and unresolved assumptions.
What Article 94 changes operationally
Powers of competent authorities: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 94 addresses the supervisory and investigative powers available to competent authorities under national law for duties under Titles II to VI.
Article 94 includes powers to require a person to provide information and documents, to suspend or require a crypto-asset service provider to suspend the provision of crypto-asset services for a maximum of 30 consecutive working days on a single occasion where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement, to prohibit services where an infringement is found, and to require transfer of existing contracts after withdrawal of authorisation subject to client and receiving-provider agreement.
It also includes an immediate-cessation power where there is reason to assume a person is providing crypto-asset services without authorisation, without prior warning or imposition of a deadline.
For operating evidence, treat Article 94 as a reason to keep a supervisory-response playbook: document-production owners, legal-review gates, service-suspension scenario logs, client-communication drafts, contract-transfer dependency maps, unauthorised-activity escalation notes, and links to authorisation, withdrawal, governance, safeguarding, custody, and market-abuse records.
This page is a control-mapping checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, supervisory response instruction, authorisation opinion, enforcement-risk determination, filing guide, broker recommendation, provider endorsement, or assurance about any firm, service, infringement, investigation, suspension, prohibition, contract transfer, or fact pattern.
Article 94 response-file map
Service suspension or prohibition scenarios
Map services, client segments, venue or custody dependencies, incident triggers, reasonable-grounds notes, client-impact analysis, communications owners, and continuity or wind-down links.
Contract transfer and withdrawal handoffs
Connect withdrawal-of-authorisation monitoring to client agreement inventories, receiving-provider dependencies, client consent tracking, transfer-status logs, and Article 64/74 wind-down records.
Unauthorised-activity escalation
Keep service-scope boundaries, Article 59/60/61/62 route assumptions, marketing and solicitation inventories, authorisation-status evidence, escalation owners, and remediation records.
Broker, insurer, partner, and internal-risk diligence questions
- Evidence sources: competent-authority correspondence, document request logs, service maps, client-impact assessments, contracts, transfer dependencies, withdrawal monitoring, governance minutes, incident records, and authorisation-route files.
- Decision records: request owner, legal or compliance reviewer, response clock, evidence source, client-communication owner, operational-risk assessment, remediation owner, and unresolved external-advice questions.
- Handoff pages: link Article 94 files to Article 62 authorisation applications, Article 64 withdrawal monitoring, Article 68 governance, Article 70 client-asset safeguarding, Article 74 wind-down plans, Article 75 custody, Article 92 market-abuse detection, and Article 109 ESMA register hygiene.
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 94 cover?
Article 94 is titled “Powers of competent authorities” and describes supervisory and investigative powers, under national law, for competent authorities performing duties under MiCA Titles II to VI.
Why does Article 94 matter for CASP evidence packs?
CASPs may need to answer information or document requests, map service-suspension scenarios, show authorisation-route evidence, prepare client-impact and transfer records, and connect supervisory-response files to governance, safeguarding, custody, withdrawal, wind-down, and market-abuse controls.
How does Article 94 connect to insurance or partner diligence?
Supervisory-response readiness can expose operational-risk gaps around document retention, governance ownership, service continuity, client communications, custody or contract-transfer dependencies, and unauthorised-activity controls. Those gaps can matter to partners, auditors, counsel, brokers, insurers, and internal-risk teams without turning this page into legal, supervisory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.