MiCA Article 92 market abuse detection
A source-backed, conservative evidence checklist for turning MiCA Article 92 prevention and detection duties into reviewable surveillance, escalation, notification, and competent-authority reporting records.
Last reviewed · We re-read every article when ESMA, the EBA, or an NCA publishes guidance that changes it.
What Article 92 changes operationally
Prevention and detection of market abuse: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 92 addresses persons professionally arranging or executing transactions in crypto-assets and their arrangements, systems, and procedures for market-abuse prevention and detection.
Article 92 refers to effective arrangements, systems and procedures to prevent and detect market abuse, plus reporting without delay to the competent authority where there is any reasonable suspicion regarding an order or transaction, including cancellation or modification, or relevant aspects of distributed ledger technology such as the consensus mechanism.
For operating evidence, treat Article 92 as a reason to retain surveillance coverage maps, alert triage records, suspicious-order or transaction case files, DLT-functioning notes, notification ownership, reporting templates, and cross-border competent-authority handoffs.
ESMA’s 2025 supervisory-guidelines publication also frames MiCA market-abuse supervision as risk-based and proportionate, with attention to crypto trading’s cross-border nature and social-media use.
This page is a control-mapping checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, suspicious-transaction determination, market-abuse determination, trading recommendation, reporting instruction, filing guide, surveillance-system recommendation, broker recommendation, or assurance about any order, transaction, cancellation, modification, DLT event, person, or fact pattern.
Article 92 evidence map
Detection coverage
Map services, venues, order flows, transaction flows, cancellations, modifications, and DLT events to surveillance controls, alert sources, responsible teams, and coverage gaps.
Suspicion case file
Keep reasonable-suspicion rationale, affected crypto-assets, order or transaction IDs, cancellation or modification details, timestamps, source evidence, reviewer names, and unresolved assumptions.
Notification workflow
Document competent-authority routing, Member State notification rule owner, reporting-template version, without-delay escalation clock, submission record, and any cross-border trading-platform handoff.
Governance handoffs
Connect detection files to Article 86 scope, Article 87 inside information, Article 88 disclosure, Article 89 insider dealing, Article 90 unlawful disclosure, Article 91 market manipulation, Article 72 conflicts, and Article 68 governance controls.
Broker, insurer, partner, and internal-risk diligence questions
- Evidence sources: surveillance rules, alert exports, order and transaction trails, cancellation and modification logs, DLT monitoring notes, communications archives, conflicts registers, and escalation records.
- Decision records: reviewer, timestamps, reasonable-suspicion rationale, authority-routing decision, reporting-template owner, submission status, trading-platform handoff, and unresolved legal or compliance questions.
- Handoff pages: link Article 92 files to Article 86 market-abuse scope, Article 90 unlawful disclosure, Article 91 market manipulation, Article 89 insider dealing, Article 72 conflicts, and Article 68 governance controls.
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 92 cover?
Article 92 is titled “Prevention and detection of market abuse” and refers to effective arrangements, systems and procedures for persons professionally arranging or executing transactions in crypto-assets to prevent and detect market abuse.
Why does Article 92 matter for CASP evidence packs?
CASPs, venues, and transaction-facing teams may need evidence that surveillance coverage, suspicious-order or transaction review, cancellation and modification review, DLT-functioning notes, notification ownership, and competent-authority handoffs are mapped before market-abuse, partner, auditor, counsel, broker, insurer, or internal-risk review.
How does Article 92 connect to operational risk?
Prevention and detection controls can expose gaps in alert coverage, case ownership, reporting templates, cross-border authority routing, communications review, social-media monitoring, conflicts escalation, and governance evidence. Those gaps can matter operationally without turning this page into legal, reporting, surveillance, or insurance advice.