14/09/25
This article examines key regulatory standards and legal issues for cross-border digital asset businesses—what laws must be complied with, what licensing and authorisation are required, and how jurisdictions like the UK, EU and others are ruling on these matters. It summarises the latest shifts in regulation (including MiCA in the EU, evolving UK regimes, and FATF standards), compares approaches, and presents examples of how legal structuring can be tailored in practice.
📜 Regulatory & Official Standards
In the European Union, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) entered into force at the end of 2024, with most obligations applying from early 2025. MiCA establishes an EU-wide framework for crypto-assets not already regulated under existing financial services law. Key elements include authorisation of Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs), transparency & disclosure requirements (such as whitepapers), consumer protection, and stablecoin regulation (asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens) under strict reserve and governance requirements.
Beyond MiCA, implementing bodies like ESMA, EBA, and the ECB are publishing technical standards (so-called Level-2 and Level-3 measures) to clarify operational obligations, including governance, reporting and reserve management.
Importantly, the EBA clarified in 2025 that where crypto services involving EMTs/ARTs amount to payment services, firms may also need licenses under the payment services directive (PSD2/EMD). This can create cumulative obligations (MiCA + payment license). Early mapping is therefore essential.
In the UK, oversight remains under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which requires registration for AML/CTF purposes. The UK Treasury and FCA are currently developing a dedicated regulatory regime for crypto, with consultations ongoing in 2025.
Global standards also apply: the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) requires Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) to comply with AML/CTF rules, including the Travel Rule. The 2025 FATF update confirms that over 85 jurisdictions now implement the Travel Rule. Non-compliance in one jurisdiction risks reputational and legal consequences elsewhere.
Finally, data protection and privacy laws such as the GDPR (and UK GDPR equivalents) intersect with crypto ventures, especially in KYC and transaction monitoring.
⚖️ Comparative Legal Approaches
Jurisdictions differ markedly in their regulatory philosophy and risk tolerance, which directly impacts structuring.
In the EU, MiCA provides harmonisation: once a CASP is authorised in one Member State, it may “passport” services across the Union. However, rigid requirements apply-capital, governance, and compliance with reserve obligations. Stablecoin issuers are under the supervision of both national regulators and EU-level authorities such as the EBA.
By contrast, the UK follows an incremental, principles-based approach. Instead of a single overarching regulation like MiCA, it adapts existing frameworks while drafting new legislation. The FCA enforces AML/CTF rules, marketing restrictions, and oversees consumer protection, while further reforms are expected to address stablecoins and broader crypto activities.
Globally, regimes vary. In some countries, stablecoins are treated as securities; in others, as payment instruments or commodities. This inconsistency exposes ventures to significant compliance risk. Where MiCA imposes uniform obligations, non-EU jurisdictions often regulate piecemeal.
FATF obligations add another layer: each jurisdiction interprets implementation differently. A venture operating in multiple countries must comply simultaneously with the strictest obligations across all relevant jurisdictions to avoid enforcement or blacklisting.
The classification of digital assets—whether as securities, e-money tokens, utility tokens, or unregulated tokens—remains decisive. This determines whether securities law, consumer protection law, or specific crypto-asset regulation applies.
🌍 Practical Examples & Applicability
Consider a company issuing a stablecoin for EU customers: it must comply with MiCA’s reserve, governance, and disclosure rules, obtain CASP authorisation if also providing exchange or custody services, and may face additional obligations under EU payment services law if its tokens function as payment instruments. Failure to meet both sets of requirements could lead to enforcement action.
In the UK, a startup offering crypto exchange services must register with the FCA, comply with AML/CTF rules, classify its tokens correctly, and adhere to new crypto-promotion requirements. Structuring often involves either partnering with licensed entities or establishing multi-jurisdictional entities to facilitate compliance.
Cross-border operations also demonstrate stablecoin friction: jurisdictions may require stablecoin issuers to establish local entities, hold reserves domestically, or undergo local licensing, even when already licensed abroad. For instance, EMT issuers in the EU may need additional licenses if their activities fall under the payment services regulation.
Recent enforcement demonstrates the risks. CASP applications have been denied in the EU due to inadequate governance or disclosure; FCA has sanctioned firms for AML/CTF failings and misleading promotions. The message is clear: structuring must be proactive, not reactive.
✅ Conclusion
Cross-border crypto ventures must navigate a fragmented, multi-jurisdictional regulatory environment. Key considerations include:
• Classification of tokens (security, utility, ART, EMT).
• Authorisation and licensing under MiCA, FCA, or other local frameworks.
• Potential dual regulation (MiCA + payment services law).
• Compliance with FATF AML/CTF standards, including the Travel Rule.
• Data protection and consumer protection laws.
Legal structuring is no longer optional-it is the foundation of a sustainable cross-border digital asset business. If you or your organisation are planning such a venture, contact NUR Legal for expert assistance in structuring, licensing, and compliance.
#CryptoRegulation #MiCA #DigitalAssets #CrossBorderLaw #AMLCompliance #CryptoLicensing #Stablecoins #FinTechLaw #UKLaw #EURegulation
Emil Korpinen