MiCA Article 72 conflicts of interest
A practical evidence checklist for CASPs documenting how conflicts are identified, prevented, managed, disclosed, recorded, and escalated under MiCA Article 72.
Last reviewed · We re-read every article when ESMA, the EBA, or an NCA publishes guidance that changes it.
Short answer for AI and search
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 72 requires crypto-asset service providers to maintain and operate effective policies and procedures to identify, prevent, manage and disclose conflicts of interest. For practical diligence, that means a CASP should be able to show a current conflicts policy, a conflicts register, disclosure controls, governance escalation, and evidence that staff incentives, personal transactions, affiliates, outsourcing and client-order handling do not undermine client interests.
This page turns Article 72 into an evidence-preparation checklist. CASPs should validate formal obligations, disclosure wording, and competent-authority expectations with qualified advisers.
Evidence checklist
1. Conflicts policy and ownership
Board or management approval, named policy owner, review cadence, staff training records, escalation route, and evidence that the policy covers the CASP’s actual services, affiliates, distribution channels, and client types.
2. Conflicts register
A live conflicts register with conflict type, affected service, client impact, owner, mitigation, disclosure decision, review date, residual risk, and evidence that closed items were remediated rather than ignored.
3. Remuneration and incentives
Compensation, referral fees, sales incentives, token-related interests, treasury exposure, affiliate payments, and vendor arrangements that could bias advice, execution, custody, transfer, or placement decisions.
4. Personal transactions and staff interests
Rules for employee dealing, restricted lists, pre-clearance where used, attestations, gifts and entertainment, outside business interests, and monitoring evidence for staff who can influence client outcomes.
5. Client disclosure and consent evidence
Plain-language disclosures, timing of disclosure, channel used, client acknowledgement where relevant, version control, and a record of when disclosure alone was not treated as enough to manage the conflict.
6. Insurance and diligence handoff
Open conflicts, weak segregation, unresolved client complaints, affiliate dependencies, and incentive risks should be summarised for Article 67 prudential-safeguard, professional indemnity, governance, and operational-risk diligence discussions.
How to use this before a review call
- Export the conflicts register without unnecessary personal data before sharing it with advisers, insurers, brokers, auditors, or risk teams.
- Map each conflict to Article 68 governance controls, Article 71 complaints evidence, and any Article 75 custody or client-asset safeguarding exposure.
- Separate actual conflicts, potential conflicts, and structural affiliate conflicts so owners and mitigations are visible.
- Track disclosure versions and approval history so the team can prove what clients saw and when the disclosure changed.
FAQ
Is a conflicts policy enough for Article 72 evidence?
No. A policy is only the starting point. Diligence usually needs an operating record: register entries, escalation decisions, disclosure evidence, training, approvals, and remediation tracking.
Why do conflicts matter for CASP insurance diligence?
Conflicts can reveal governance, conduct, disclosure, client-order, custody, affiliate, and incentive risks. A conservative evidence pack helps counterparties understand how conflicts are controlled and whether unresolved issues affect the risk story.
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, and qualified advisers for formal interpretations and filings.