Platforms · Software · Providers · Markets
CONSOB supplied 179 of the 188 records in ESMA's register of crypto firms serving clients without authorisation, according to an FM Intelligence review of the file dated October 29. Four other national authorities provided the remaining nine, so entries came from just five of the 30 European Economic Area (EEA) states.
Italy's long-running domain blocking record
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) maintains the register under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). The transition period for providers without a licence ended on July 1. The public list records firms national supervisors identify as serving clients without approval, but the review found that submissions are concentrated among a small number of authorities. CONSOB has instructed internet providers to block unauthorised financial websites since 2019. The regulator counted 1,861 sites on October 29, including 250 connected with crypto-assets. FM Intelligence said supervisors already publishing large groups of domain names may be better placed to send entries to ESMA.
National warnings tell a different story
Germany has 119 authorised or notified providers on ESMA's register, the largest count for any member state, as in FM Intelligence's August review. Most are banks and investment firms notified under MiCA. Yet German supervisors have filed no entries about non-compliant firms. BaFin published 245 consumer warnings in 2026 to November 3, with 89 mentioning crypto services, according to FM Intelligence's Fines & Warnings Tracker.
In France, the AMF said on October 19 that it had added 64 crypto names to its blacklist since January. CySEC referenced MiCA's Article 59 in website warnings in September and October. Neither authority appears in ESMA's file.
MiCA leaves filing to supervisors
Belgium's Financial Services and Markets Authority contributed six records; the Czech, Dutch and Slovak authorities supplied one each. That leaves 25 EEA states without an entry.
Article 110 describes the register as non-exhaustive and specifies what an entry must contain, but sets no submission deadline or obligation for national supervisors. The analysis says Germany's empty record can reflect a separate warning route rather than an absence of unlicensed crypto activity. German and French notices may also concern combined investment and crypto offers covered by domestic banking or securities rules.
The reporting gap sits alongside a dispute over who should supervise crypto firms. EU finance ministers agreed on October 9 to restrict direct ESMA oversight to the largest cross-border providers, narrowing the European Commission's proposal to transfer all such firms to the Paris-based authority.
A BaFin executive director addressed the issue in September, saying firms select Europe's weakest supervisor before expanding across the bloc. ESMA has not added an entry of its own. The register's contents and their limits for counterparty checks were covered in a fuller analysis by Finance Magnates.
What this changes for operators
For firms screening counterparties, the register is one input, not a full picture of national warnings: MiCA imposes no filing duty or deadline, and ESMA has made no submission itself. Operations teams should check whether onboarding and ongoing screening use the ESMA file alone or also incorporate national warning lists, and document which jurisdictions each source covers.
Teams should also ask how their controls distinguish an absent record from an authorised status, and whether changes to national notices trigger a fresh check. The published account does not specify the register's file format, update cadence or integration method. Those are points to confirm with the screening provider.
Because Article 110 makes the register non-exhaustive, operators should establish what information an entry contains and whether it is sufficient to identify the counterparty being reviewed. The analysis says a detail in the records limits their value for screening, but does not give that detail here. Teams can ask their provider how it handles any gaps and what other national notices feed into its checks.
