ESMA MiCA Register Update: 37 New CASPs Approved Post-Deadline

ESMA has published its first update to the MiCA register since the EU's transitional period closed, adding 37 newly authorized crypto-asset service providers and bringing the total to 280. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs with digital asset exposure, the composition of that list, and the jurisdictions driving it, carries direct operational relevance for MiCA compliance crypto work.

What the July 3 Update Contains

New CASPs and notable entrants

The update, published on July 3, 2026, added 37 licensed CASPs to ESMA's interim register. Among them are Standard Chartered, which received MiCA authorization from Luxembourg's regulator on June 25, alongside FalconX, Sygnum Europe, and Ronin EM. Standard Chartered also secured an Electronic Money Institution license concurrently, granting it the ability to issue electronic money and provide payment services across the EU.

The bank's global head of financing, Margaret Harwood-Jones, described the dual authorization as "a key step in progressing our digital asset journey in Europe," noting that it builds on custody service launches already underway in Asia and the Middle East.

Register of electronic money tokens

The EMT register received at least one new addition alongside the CASP listings. The asset-referenced token register, by contrast, recorded no changes and continues to show no approved issuers. The list of non-compliant entities also held steady at 162, a figure that firms advising on counterparty risk should keep in their due diligence workflows.

Jurisdiction Breakdown

Who authorized the most new CASPs

Cyprus led the July 3 wave with six new CASPs, the highest share of any single member state in this update. France followed with five, and both Italy and Malta matched that figure. The Czech Republic and Spain each contributed four, Luxembourg added three, and the Netherlands two. Germany, Liechtenstein, and Latvia each recorded one new entry.

Germany's BaFin retains its position as the EU authority with the highest cumulative MiCA authorization count at 58, even though it contributed only one new entry in the latest update. CySEC now stands at 21 cumulative authorizations.

Why This Matters for Compliance and Accounting Teams

The register as a live compliance tool

The ESMA MiCA register is not a static document. It is an operational reference that determines which counterparties, custodians, and trading venues your clients can legally use within the EU. With the transitional period now closed, any CASP not on the register is operating without authorization, and the non-compliant list sitting at 162 entities signals that enforcement groundwork is being laid. Firms running MiCA compliance crypto programs need to check counterparty status against the register as a routine step, not a one-off exercise.

For context on the transitional period closure that preceded this update, see our earlier analysis of MiCA transitional period expiry and mandatory CASP authorization.

Standard Chartered's dual license and what it signals

Standard Chartered securing both a MiCA CASP authorization and an EMI license from a single Luxembourg application is a structuring point worth noting for any firm advising large financial institutions on EU market entry. The EMI license unlocks e-money issuance and payment services, complementing the CASP scope that covers custody, trading, and advisory services for crypto-assets. Firms designing digital asset accounting software workflows or setting up custody arrangements for EU clients will need to map the services used against the specific license type held by each provider.

The ART register gap

The continued absence of any approved asset-referenced token issuers is a live compliance issue for any firm or client holding or planning to issue stablecoins backed by baskets of assets. Until an issuer appears on the ART register, no ART can be lawfully offered to the public in the EU under MiCA. Firms providing digital asset accounting software or crypto bookkeeping software to clients in this space should flag this as a structural gap in their compliance checklists.

For a related risk scenario involving unauthorized stablecoin activity, our piece on Huione Group and the USDH stablecoin AML risk outlines why register status is only one layer of due diligence.

Operational Steps for Firms

Register monitoring and client reporting

Given that ESMA is updating the register on an ongoing basis post-deadline, firms should build a monitoring cadence into their compliance calendar. Key actions include:

• Cross-referencing any crypto-asset counterparty or custodian against the current ESMA register before onboarding or retaining them for clients.
• Checking whether existing client service providers have migrated from transitional status to full authorization, and updating engagement letters or risk assessments accordingly.
• Reviewing the non-compliant entity list (currently 162) as part of standard AML and KYC screening. Any client transacting with an entity on that list faces regulatory exposure.
• Noting jurisdiction of authorization when assessing passporting scope. A CASP authorized in Cyprus can passport services across the EU under MiCA's single passport mechanism, but the services covered depend on the scope of the CySEC authorization, not a blanket approval.
• For clients with EMT exposure, confirming that the relevant token issuer appears on the ESMA EMT register, not just the CASP register.

Accounting and audit implications

From a financial reporting perspective, the growing register creates a clearer audit trail for assessing whether a client's digital asset holdings are held through regulated channels. Auditors reviewing digital asset balances should now be able to verify custodian authorization status directly against the ESMA register as part of their procedures. Firms deploying digital asset accounting software or crypto bookkeeping software with client data integrations should ensure those tools can flag unregistered counterparties.

For firms advising clients in the Netherlands, the AFM's additional requirements for online interface compliance add another layer on top of CASP registration: see our coverage of AFM DMFSD online interface requirements for crypto service providers.

Frequently Asked Questions

How often does ESMA update the MiCA CASP register?

ESMA has not published a fixed schedule, but the July 3 update is the first since the transitional period ended on July 1, 2026. Given the volume of pending applications across member states, further updates are expected on an ongoing basis. Firms should monitor the ESMA website directly rather than relying on secondary sources for authoritative status.

Does a CASP authorization in one EU member state allow the firm to operate across the entire EU?

Yes, MiCA includes a single passport mechanism. A CASP authorized by CySEC in Cyprus, for example, can provide services across all EU member states. However, the passport covers only the services listed in the authorization, and local notification procedures apply. Always verify the scope of the specific authorization, not just the presence of the firm on the register.

What does the EMI license that Standard Chartered obtained add to its MiCA CASP authorization?

An EMI license, governed by the EU's Electronic Money Directive rather than MiCA, permits the holder to issue electronic money and provide payment services. MiCA's CASP authorization covers crypto-asset services such as custody, trading, and advisory. The two licenses are separate legal instruments, and holding both allows a firm to offer a broader range of regulated financial services from a single EU base.

What is the significance of the ART register showing no approved issuers?

Under MiCA, an asset-referenced token cannot be lawfully offered to the public in the EU without the issuer appearing on the ART register maintained by ESMA. As of the July 3 update, that register remains empty. Any client holding, trading, or planning to issue ARTs in the EU faces a regulatory gap until issuers receive approval. Firms should flag this in any digital asset compliance or structuring advice they provide.

How should accounting firms treat the 162 entities on ESMA's non-compliant list?

The non-compliant list identifies entities that ESMA or national competent authorities have determined are operating outside the MiCA framework. Any client transacting with these entities should be treated as a heightened risk engagement. From an AML perspective, failure to screen against this list could constitute a gap in a firm's own compliance procedures. The list should be incorporated into standard counterparty screening workflows alongside sanctions lists.

Source: Cointelegraph