Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Lithuania's Saldo Bank in EU Push
Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, has agreed to acquire Saldo Bank, a licensed bank headquartered in Lithuania. The deal would hand Payward a full EU banking licence, allowing the Kraken group to offer bank-grade financial services directly to European clients under the single market's passporting rules. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs whose clients hold assets on Kraken or transact through it, the acquisition carries immediate compliance, counterparty-risk, and bookkeeping implications that deserve close attention now, well before the deal closes.
What the Saldo Bank Acquisition Actually Means
Lithuania has become one of the EU's more accessible jurisdictions for fintech and crypto licensing, with the Bank of Lithuania having granted a significant number of electronic money institution and banking licences to international applicants in recent years. Saldo Bank holds a full credit institution licence, which is a materially different and more powerful regulatory instrument than the crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorisation that Kraken and similar exchanges hold under MiCA.
The Passporting Advantage
A credit institution licence issued in any EU member state allows the holder to passport its services across all 27 member states without seeking separate national authorisations. That means a Payward-owned Saldo Bank could, in principle, offer deposit-taking, payment services, lending, and potentially custody of client funds under the EU's banking framework rather than solely under MiCA's CASP rules. The two regulatory regimes carry different capital requirements, different client money protections, and different AML obligations. The combination is strategically significant: Kraken would operate simultaneously as a MiCA-authorised CASP and as a regulated credit institution within the same corporate group.
Why Lithuania
Lithuania's regulatory environment is relevant context here. The Bank of Lithuania has built a reputation for processing fintech applications more efficiently than several larger EU regulators, while still applying EU-standard prudential requirements. For Payward, acquiring an existing licensed bank is faster than applying for a new banking licence from scratch, since the licence and the underlying compliance infrastructure already exist. The acquisition route is not unique to crypto firms: several payment companies and e-money institutions have used the same approach to gain EU banking status quickly.
Regulatory and Licensing Implications for EU Firms
The deal is at the acquisition stage and will require approval from the Bank of Lithuania and, depending on the group's systemic footprint, potentially from the European Central Bank under the Single Supervisory Mechanism. Until those approvals are granted and the transaction closes, Saldo Bank continues to operate under its existing ownership and licence conditions. Payward operates under its existing authorisations. Nothing changes operationally today.
MiCA and Banking Regulation Running in Parallel
Once the acquisition closes and any structural integration begins, the Kraken group would need to manage two distinct regulatory perimeters. MiCA, which reached full application in December 2024, governs the issuance and trading of crypto assets and imposes specific requirements on CASPs covering capital, custody, conflict-of-interest management, and market abuse. EU banking regulation, administered under the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation framework, imposes separate prudential requirements, liquidity coverage ratios, and resolution planning obligations. Firms that are counterparties to the Kraken group, or that hold client assets there, may eventually need to assess which legal entity within the group holds those assets and under which regulatory regime.
AML and KYC Obligations
Both MiCA-authorised CASPs and EU credit institutions are obliged entities under the EU's Anti-Money Laundering Directive framework. However, a banking licence triggers additional obligations under the Capital Requirements Regulation and subjects the entity to ECB supervisory expectations on governance and internal controls that go beyond what a CASP authorisation requires on its own. Accounting firms conducting AML audits or preparing suspicious activity reports for clients who use Kraken should monitor how the group's legal entity structure evolves post-acquisition. The relevant obliged entity for a given transaction may change once integration progresses.
This development also intersects with the forthcoming EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), which is expected to assume direct supervisory responsibility for the highest-risk obliged entities across the EU. A crypto exchange group that also holds a banking licence and operates at scale could, depending on final AMLA scope criteria, fall within direct AMLA supervision rather than national competent authority supervision. Our earlier coverage of AMLA simplified due diligence roundtables and what EU firms must do now sets out the broader AML framework firms should be tracking alongside this acquisition.
Counterparty Risk and Balance Sheet Treatment
The regulatory classification of an exchange counterparty has direct accounting consequences. Under IFRS 9, the expected credit loss model applied to a receivable or deposit held at a counterparty requires an assessment of that counterparty's credit risk. A counterparty that is a regulated EU credit institution, subject to prudential capital requirements and deposit guarantee schemes, carries a different risk profile than one operating solely as a CASP. If and when Payward completes the acquisition and begins operating deposit or custody services through the banking entity, CFOs and their auditors will need to reassess the appropriate ECL staging and disclosure treatment for any balances held there.
Custody and Client Money Segregation
For clients who hold crypto assets on Kraken, the custody structure matters for balance sheet presentation. Under current MiCA rules, CASPs must segregate client crypto assets and cannot use them on their own account. Under EU banking regulation, the treatment of deposits and the applicable guarantee schemes differ by instrument type. Crypto assets held in custody at a CASP are not currently covered by EU deposit guarantee schemes in the same way that euro-denominated deposits at a credit institution would be. Finance teams and auditors should watch how Payward structures the post-acquisition entity boundaries, because the legal basis on which client assets are held will determine both the disclosure requirements and any off-balance-sheet treatment.
What Firms Using Crypto Accounting Software Should Track
Firms relying on digital asset accounting software to reconcile exchange positions and produce IFRS-compliant reports should flag this acquisition in their counterparty monitoring workflow. The key variables to track are: the closing date of the acquisition, the Bank of Lithuania's approval decision, any ECB involvement in supervisory review, the legal entity under which new Kraken services are offered in the EU after integration, and any changes to the client asset segregation model disclosed in Kraken's updated terms of service. Each of these could affect how a balance held at Kraken is classified, disclosed, and audited.
Practical Steps for Accounting Firms Now
There is no immediate action required before regulatory approval is granted. That said, three preparatory steps make sense at this stage. First, identify which clients hold material balances on Kraken and document the current legal entity and regulatory basis for those holdings. Second, flag the acquisition in client files as a pending event that may trigger a reassessment of counterparty risk classification under IFRS 9. Third, update your AML monitoring protocols to note that the Kraken group's obliged-entity structure may change once the banking licence is integrated, which could affect the scope of your own due diligence obligations as an accounting firm dealing with that counterparty.
Firms that have already worked through the licensing implications of Kraken's regulatory expansion in other jurisdictions will recognise the pattern. Our earlier piece on Kraken's VARA licence in the UAE and what it means for regulated firms covered a similar analytical framework in a different geography.
The Broader EU Crypto Licensing Landscape
Payward's move is part of a wider trend of crypto-native firms seeking banking licences rather than relying solely on crypto-specific authorisations. The strategic logic is clear: a banking licence opens access to payment rails, correspondent banking relationships, and deposit-taking that a CASP licence alone cannot provide. It also signals a long-term commitment to operating within the EU's regulated financial system rather than at its edges. For regulators, a crypto exchange group that holds a banking licence is simultaneously easier to supervise through established prudential frameworks and potentially more complex to oversee given the novelty of the business model.
The EU Council's recent decision to limit ESMA's direct supervisory reach to only the most significant CASPs is relevant here too. A Payward entity operating as a credit institution would fall under a different supervisory chain entirely, one that runs through the Bank of Lithuania and potentially the ECB, not through ESMA's MiCA framework. Accounting and compliance professionals tracking the intersection of crypto regulation and traditional banking prudential rules should treat this acquisition as a live case study in how those frameworks will increasingly overlap.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this acquisition change anything for Kraken clients right now?
No. Until the Bank of Lithuania and any other required regulators approve the transaction and it formally closes, Saldo Bank continues under its existing ownership and Payward continues under its existing licences. Clients should monitor official announcements from both entities for closing confirmation.
What is the difference between a MiCA CASP licence and an EU banking licence for clients holding assets on an exchange?
A CASP licence under MiCA authorises the provision of crypto-asset services and requires segregation of client crypto assets, but those assets are not covered by EU deposit guarantee schemes. An EU banking licence subjects the entity to the full Capital Requirements Regulation prudential framework and allows deposit-taking that is covered by member-state deposit guarantee schemes up to applicable limits. The two regimes apply to different instruments and carry different client protections.
How should CFOs and auditors classify a balance held at Kraken under IFRS 9?
Currently, balances held at a CASP are assessed for expected credit loss based on the counterparty's credit risk as a crypto exchange operator. If Payward later migrates client services to a licensed EU credit institution subsidiary, the ECL assessment would need to be updated to reflect the banking entity's risk profile, capital adequacy, and any applicable regulatory protections. The classification should be revisited at each reporting date as the group's structure evolves.
Will AMLA supervise Payward directly once it holds a banking licence?
AMLA's direct supervision criteria are still being finalised, but the framework targets the highest-risk obliged entities operating cross-border in the EU. A crypto-exchange group that also operates as a licensed EU credit institution at scale could meet those criteria, depending on final rules. Firms should track AMLA's published selection methodology for direct supervision to assess whether their counterparty exposure to the Kraken group changes in that regard.
Does a Lithuanian banking licence give Payward access to the whole EU market?
In principle, yes. Under EU single market passporting rules, a credit institution licensed in one member state can provide banking services in all other member states either by establishing branches or on a cross-border services basis, subject to notification procedures with host-country regulators. However, the scope of services that can be passported depends on the specific licence permissions granted by the Bank of Lithuania and any conditions attached to the acquisition approval.
Source: Decrypt