When did MiCA fines and enforcement start for crypto-asset service providers?

CASP authorisation and Title V operating conditions became enforceable on 1 July 2026. National competent authorities (NCAs) in each EU member state supervise compliance and can levy administrative penalties for breaches.

What do MiCA fines actually look like — is there a public fines calendar?

[VERIFY]: MiCA does not publish a 'fines calendar' as a named regulatory instrument. Administrative penalty ranges and procedures are set out in MiCA itself and implemented nationally, so timing and amounts vary by member state and by the specific breach. Treat any specific fine figure quoted elsewhere as illustrative unless sourced to an NCA action.

What will a regulator check first after the deadline?

Based on the structure of Title V Chapter 2, the obligations most likely to be checked early are the ones tied to authorisation conditions: governance and AML/CFT systems (Art. 68), safekeeping of client assets (Art. 70), and prudential safeguards (Art. 67) — these are foundational to whether the CASP should have been authorised at all, as distinct from ongoing conduct issues like complaints handling.

What evidence should a CASP have ready for a supervisory review?

A defensible answer to 'show me the control, not just the policy document' — meaning evidence that a rule was actually enforced on live transactions, not only written down. A hash-chained decision log tied to the policy that produced each decision is one way to produce that evidence; whether it satisfies a specific NCA's expectations is a jurisdiction-specific question.

Post-deadline enforcement

MiCA fines calendar: what regulators check first after July 1, 2026

MiCA CASP enforcement is live as of July 1, 2026. There is no single published "fines calendar" — penalties are set nationally, case by case — but the structure of MiCA Title V tells you what a supervisory review is likely to prioritize first.

[VERIFY] There is no official MiCA "fines calendar" document. This page describes likely supervisory priorities based on the structure of Title V, not a confirmed enforcement schedule. Confirm current guidance with your national competent authority (NCA).

What regulators are likely to check first

Title V, Chapter 2's operating-condition articles are not equally weighted in practice. Obligations tied to whether a CASP should have been authorised at all tend to draw scrutiny earliest:

Art. 68

Governance & AML/CFT systems

Foundational to authorisation — absence suggests the CASP shouldn't have been licensed.

Art. 70

Safekeeping of client assets

Client-money segregation failures are the highest-severity, highest-visibility breach type.

Art. 67

Prudential safeguards

Own-funds/insurance minimums are objectively checkable against filed accounts.

Art. 69

Information to competent authorities

A CASP that can't produce requested records is a red flag regardless of the underlying conduct.

[VERIFY] Prioritization above is inference from Title V's structure, not a statement from ESMA or any NCA about audit order. Do not treat this as a confirmed inspection sequence.

Where 'wrote a policy' and 'enforced a policy' diverge

A written AML policy that a compliance officer can produce on request is necessary but is not the same evidence as a log showing that specific transactions were actually evaluated against that policy and blocked or approved accordingly. A regulator asking "show me it working" is asking for the latter.

A pre-execution enforcement layer that records a decision and a hash-chained record for every agent action (see the wallet-level enforcement guide) produces exactly that evidence as a byproduct of normal operation, rather than as a separate reporting exercise.

Start enforcing policy today

MiCA CASP enforcement is active as of July 1, 2026.

Open dashboard Read the APL spec