MiCA passporting refers to the ability of crypto firms licensed in one EU member state to operate across the bloc. France’s AMF warns it may try to block such passporting for firms exploiting lighter regimes, raising complex legal and supervisory questions under the MiCA framework.
-
France’s AMF signals scrutiny of MiCA passporting to prevent regulatory arbitrage.
-
Debate splits between legal experts who call a ban unfeasible and others who say it’s technically possible but legally complex.
-
Calls for ESMA supervision and potential MiCA amendments increase regulatory uncertainty across the EU.
MiCA passporting under threat: France considers blocking cross‑border crypto licenses — read what this means and next steps for firms.
What is MiCA passporting and why is France challenging it?
MiCA passporting is the mechanism allowing crypto-asset service providers licensed in one EU member state to offer services across the EU. France’s Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) warns it may block passporting when firms rely on licenses from more lenient jurisdictions to avoid stricter national supervision.
How could France legally try to block passporting under MiCA?
France’s position paper, reported by plain text media outlets such as Reuters, suggests the AMF could intensify national supervision and escalate cases to ESMA. Some experts, like Marina Markezic of the European Crypto Initiative, say blocking passporting is technically possible but would involve significant legal complexity and likely political debate.
Does blocking passporting conflict with MiCA?
Legally, MiCA was designed as a regulation to apply uniformly across member states, which many legal experts argue prevents unilateral national blocks. Edwin Mata, lawyer and CEO of Brickken, states that a duly MiCA‑licensed entity should be able to operate in France without unilateral barriers, though France can monitor conduct and raise supervisory concerns.
When might ESMA take a greater supervisory role?
France, Austria, and Italy have asked for increased ESMA oversight of major crypto firms. If ESMA assumes greater supervisory powers, this would centralize enforcement but likely require legislative or policy changes at EU level and renewed political negotiations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can MiFID II classification affect MiCA passporting?
Yes. The AMF warns firms may structure products under MiCA when those products should fall under MiFID II securities rules. National supervisors will scrutinize product classification to prevent firms using lighter crypto regimes to offer what are effectively securities.
Key Takeaways
- MiCA passporting is central: It enables cross‑border operation of licensed crypto firms across the EU.
- France signals enforcement: The AMF warns it will scrutinize and may seek ways to limit passporting used for regulatory arbitrage.
- ESMA and legal complexity: Calls for ESMA oversight and potential MiCA amendments could reshape supervision but require political consensus.
Conclusion
France’s warning over MiCA passporting has highlighted tensions between EU harmonization and national supervisory priorities. While some legal experts argue unilateral blocking is inconsistent with MiCA, others note technical and political routes that could constrain passporting. Firms should review licensing strategy, expect heightened scrutiny, and follow formal guidance from ESMA and national regulators. COINOTAG will monitor developments and report updates as they unfold.
While some legal experts see France’s threat as legally feasible, others argue that it’s primarily a warning to crypto firms seeking licensing loopholes in the EU.
Published: 2025-09-16 | Updated: 2025-09-16 | Author: COINOTAG
