Greece's First MiCA Entrants: HCMC, Piraeus Bank and the Binance Controversy
The Four Providers Now on the ESMA Register
ESMA's MiCA register added Greece's first entries on 29 September 2026. The four providers are BCash, Xenios Blockchain Group, Capital Wallet Greece, and Piraeus Bank. Six additional providers from Germany, France, and Slovenia were added in the same batch, bringing the total number of unique providers on the register to 359.
How Greek Oversight Is Split Between Two Authorities
The Greek entries illustrate a structural feature of the country's MiCA implementation: oversight is divided between two competent authorities. HCMC is listed as the supervising body for BCash, Xenios Blockchain Group, and Capital Wallet Greece. The Bank of Greece holds that role for Piraeus Bank, one of the country's major lenders.
This split is permitted under MiCA. The regulation allows member states to designate more than one national competent authority and to divide responsibilities between them, typically assigning investment-type crypto activities to a securities regulator and banking-adjacent activities to the central bank. Greece has done exactly that. For firms considering a Greek authorisation as a passporting base, understanding which authority has jurisdiction over their specific service mix is a threshold question, not an afterthought.
What Passporting Means for These Entrants
Each of the four providers can now passport their MiCA authorisation across all EU member states without needing a separate licence in each jurisdiction. That is the core commercial logic of MiCA for cross-border operators. Piraeus Bank's inclusion is particularly notable given that it is an established lender rather than a crypto-native firm, a sign that traditional financial institutions are moving systematically through the authorisation process.
The Binance Application and the HCMC Denial
The political dimension of this story centres on Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange by trading volume. Binance had been pursuing a Greek MiCA authorisation, which would have made it the first entry on the country's register and given it a passporting base for EU-wide operations. The application did not reach a formal decision from HCMC.
What the Wall Street Journal Reported
The Wall Street Journal reported on 18 September 2026 that ECB President Christine Lagarde had intervened in Binance's Greek application after Greek officials indicated HCMC was inclined to approve it. The report stated that an HCMC vice chair had told Binance that Lagarde had asked Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis not to approve the application. HCMC responded to the report at the time by denying that its officials had made the attributed comments, though without elaboration.
HCMC's Full Categorical Denial
HCMC has now provided a more detailed denial to Cointelegraph. The regulator stated that no official made the reported remarks and that it received no communication about the Binance application from the Prime Minister, his office, the Finance Ministry, or any other Greek government body. The regulator's direct words: "HCMC categorically rejects the assertions attributed to it. No HCMC official has had any communication with any ECB official on this matter, and none of the reported statements were made by HCMC or its officials."
When asked specifically whether that denial covered the report about the vice chair's remarks to Binance, HCMC confirmed it did. Binance has previously told Cointelegraph it would not comment on speculation while reaffirming its commitment to securing MiCA authorisation in Europe. The ECB declined to comment on the report.
Compliance and Regulatory Implications for Firms
Set aside the political controversy for a moment and focus on what the Greek register additions and the Binance episode tell firms about how MiCA authorisations actually work in practice.
The Dual-Authority Model Adds Procedural Complexity
Greece's decision to split MiCA supervision between HCMC and the Bank of Greece means that a firm's service scope determines which authority it must approach, and that authority may have different internal procedures, timelines, and documentation expectations. A firm offering crypto-asset trading services and stablecoin custody within the same entity could theoretically face questions about which regulator takes the lead, or whether both have a role. Legal and compliance teams need to resolve that question early. Accounting advisers need to ensure the financial information package submitted, covering capital adequacy, safeguarding of client assets, and AML controls, is calibrated to the expectations of the specific authority receiving it.
AML Documentation Remains the Baseline
Whether or not external political factors influenced the Binance outcome in Greece, one takeaway is clear for any CASP seeking authorisation: the application file has to be unassailable on its own merits. That means thorough AML and KYC programme documentation, a credible transaction monitoring framework, and clear organisational charts showing where compliance sits within the group. Regulators across the EU are scrutinising these files in detail. For firms building or reviewing their authorisation materials, our earlier analysis of the nine engineering decisions shaping on-chain AML screening covers the technical layer that underpins credible AML submissions.
Passporting Strategy and the 359-Provider Register
With 359 providers now on the ESMA register, the passporting landscape is becoming meaningful. A firm authorised in one member state can offer services across the EU without replicating the full authorisation process in each country. That has cost and speed-to-market advantages. But it also means that a firm's home-state authorisation is load-bearing: any supervisory action in the home state can affect passport rights EU-wide. CFOs and finance directors at CASPs should factor that concentration risk into entity structure decisions. Choosing a home state purely for perceived regulatory leniency is a strategy with diminishing returns as supervisory convergence accelerates, a point developed further in our coverage of ESMA's 2027 MiCA supervision priorities for CASPs.
Accounting and Audit Considerations
For accounting firms and auditors with CASP clients, the Greek register additions create a set of near-term deliverables.
Ongoing Regulatory Capital and Safeguarding Obligations
MiCA authorisation is not a one-time event. Authorised CASPs must maintain minimum own-funds requirements on an ongoing basis, which means quarterly monitoring at a minimum. For firms using crypto assets as part of their own balance sheet, fair value movements under applicable accounting standards can affect own-funds calculations in ways that are not always intuitive. A significant drop in the value of crypto assets held on the firm's own account could bring own funds close to or below the threshold, triggering disclosure obligations and, potentially, a supervisory notification requirement.
Client Asset Safeguarding and Reconciliation
MiCA requires CASPs to segregate client crypto assets and client funds from their own. That obligation lands directly on the accounting and operations function. Reconciliation procedures need to be in place, tested, and documented before the auditor arrives. For firms that have recently obtained authorisation, whether in Greece or elsewhere, the first post-authorisation audit cycle is where gaps in these procedures typically surface. Building robust reconciliation into the crypto bookkeeping software layer from day one avoids costly remediation later.
Piraeus Bank: A Template for Traditional Lenders
Piraeus Bank's authorisation through the Bank of Greece rather than HCMC is worth noting for advisers to traditional financial institutions exploring crypto-asset services. The banking supervisor's involvement suggests that the prudential framework, not just the MiCA-specific requirements, will be part of the assessment. That means bank-like capital adequacy standards, operational risk frameworks, and internal audit requirements sit alongside MiCA's specific CASP obligations. Advisers to bank-affiliated CASPs should ensure their digital asset accounting software can produce outputs that satisfy both MiCA reporting templates and the prudential reporting formats the banking supervisor already expects.
What to Watch Next
The Binance situation in Greece is unresolved in one important sense: the exchange has reaffirmed its intention to secure MiCA authorisation somewhere in the EU. Whether it pursues a new application in Greece or redirects to another member state will be closely watched by the industry. A successful authorisation in any member state gives Binance a passport to the full EU market, which is the underlying commercial objective regardless of jurisdiction.
HCMC's expanded denial also raises a broader question about the independence of national competent authorities during MiCA authorisation processes. ESMA's convergence role is intended to harmonise how member states apply the regulation, but the day-to-day decision-making remains with national authorities. Any credible evidence of extra-regulatory influence on authorisation decisions, if it were to emerge, would be a serious challenge to that framework. For now, HCMC has placed its denial on record clearly.
For firms and their advisers, the practical conclusion is the same regardless of how the political controversy resolves: MiCA compliance crypto strategy needs to be built on the quality of the application file, the robustness of ongoing compliance systems, and a clear-eyed view of the supervisory expectations in the chosen home state. The register is growing. Supervisory scrutiny is growing with it.
Source: Cointelegraph
Frequently Asked Questions
Which four providers are now on the ESMA MiCA register for Greece?
BCash, Xenios Blockchain Group, Capital Wallet Greece, and Piraeus Bank were added to the ESMA MiCA register on 29 September 2026, making them Greece's first authorised crypto-asset service providers under MiCA.
Why does Greece use two separate competent authorities for MiCA supervision?
MiCA allows member states to designate more than one competent authority. Greece has split responsibilities between the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, which supervises BCash, Xenios Blockchain Group, and Capital Wallet Greece, and the Bank of Greece, which supervises Piraeus Bank. The split generally follows whether the entity's activities are more capital-markets-like or banking-like in nature.
What exactly did HCMC deny regarding the Binance application?
HCMC denied that any of its officials made remarks attributed to them in a Wall Street Journal report, denied receiving any communication about the Binance application from the Greek Prime Minister, his office, the Finance Ministry, or other government bodies, and denied that any HCMC official communicated with any ECB official on the matter. The denial explicitly covered the report about comments made by an HCMC vice chair.
How does MiCA passporting work for the newly authorised Greek providers?
Once authorised in Greece, each of the four providers can offer its licensed crypto-asset services across all EU member states without obtaining a separate national licence in each country. This cross-border access, known as passporting, operates through ESMA's register and is subject to ongoing compliance with MiCA's requirements in the home state.
What are the main accounting obligations triggered by MiCA authorisation?
Authorised CASPs must maintain minimum own-funds requirements on a continuous basis, segregate client crypto assets and funds from their own, maintain reconciliation records, and produce regulatory reporting to their competent authority. These obligations require robust crypto accounting software capable of generating both MiCA-specific reports and, for bank-affiliated entities, prudential reporting outputs. Auditors should expect to test safeguarding and reconciliation controls from the first post-authorisation cycle.
]]>