How to Submit a Mica CASP (NCA) Application in the Netherlands Step‑by‑step

Introduction What This Guide Delivers

Filing a MiCA NCA application in the Netherlands is now one of the most critical regulatory milestones for any crypto‑asset service provider (CASP) seeking to operate lawfully across the European Union. With Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) fully in force and the Dutch supervisory split between the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) and De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) now operational, applicants face a complex but navigable pathway from readiness to regulatory decision. This guide maps every stage of that pathway from preliminary legal triage through to EU passporting so that compliance teams, founders and CFOs can move with confidence.

Who This Guide Is For

This page is designed for corporate leadership, in‑house legal counsel, compliance officers, and CFOs at virtual‑asset service providers, crypto exchanges, wallet providers, and token issuers who need to prepare, file, and track a CASP licence or notification with the AFM.

What You’ll Get

A numbered step‑by‑step process covering each phase of the AFM submission; a clear mapping of AFM versus DNB responsibilities; a documents checklist ready for download; statutory timelines and fee guidance; common pitfalls to avoid; and a post‑licence obligations briefing including EU passporting under Article 65.

Quick Summary: AFM vs DNB Who Does What

The Netherlands has divided MiCA supervisory responsibilities between two competent authorities. The AFM is the lead NCA for CASP authorisations and notifications: it processes applications, conducts conduct‑of‑business supervision, and publishes the CASP register. DNB retains specific prudential responsibilities, including assessments of qualifying holdings and acquisitions, as well as certain prudential and anti‑money‑laundering cooperation tasks. Understanding this split before you begin drafting your application is essential submitting material to the wrong authority or omitting a parallel DNB notification is among the most common early‑stage errors.

Process Step‑by‑Step How to Obtain a MiCA CASP Authorisation in the Netherlands

Before diving into the numbered steps, it is important to determine the correct filing route. Firms that are not already authorised as credit institutions or e‑money institutions must apply for a full Article 63 authorisation. Entities that already hold an appropriate EU financial‑services licence (e.g., credit institution, investment firm) may instead follow the lighter‑touch Article 60 notification procedure. The steps below focus on the full Article 63 authorisation route, which applies to the majority of CASP applicants seeking a Netherlands crypto licence.

Step 0 Preliminary Legal Triage

Confirm which crypto‑asset services and activities your firm intends to provide custody, exchange, transfer, order execution, placement, advisory, portfolio management, or any combination. Map each service to the relevant MiCA definitions and determine whether your products include asset‑referenced tokens (ARTs), e‑money tokens (EMTs) or other crypto‑assets, because the applicable capital, whitepaper and prudential rules differ materially by category. A precise scope statement prevents costly amendments later in the process.

Step 1 Pre‑Engage the AFM: Request a Pre‑Scan

The AFM offers a pre‑scan or preliminary dialogue for prospective applicants. According to the AFM step‑plan (stappenplan), firms should request an early technical call to discuss their business model, planned service scope, and readiness status before submitting a formal application. This early engagement can surface potential blockers such as an unsuitable legal structure or unclear product perimeter and set realistic expectations for the AFM’s processing timeline. Access the pre‑scan request through the AFM’s dedicated crypto‑parties portal.

Step 2 Establish a Suitable Dutch Legal Presence

MiCA requires that a CASP’s registered office and place of effective management be situated in the Member State where authorisation is sought. For the Netherlands, this means the firm must be incorporated under Dutch law (typically a B.V. or N.V.) and demonstrate that strategic decisions are genuinely taken in the Netherlands, with at least some directors resident in the EU. The AFM will verify articles of association, Chamber of Commerce registration, and evidence of a genuine Dutch operational presence. Mere brass‑plate arrangements will not satisfy the requirements.

Step 3 Board and Management Fit & Proper

All members of the management body must meet MiCA’s fit‑and‑proper requirements. Prepare detailed CVs, criminal‑record certificates (certificates of good conduct), proof of relevant knowledge and experience, declarations of time allocation, and a governance matrix showing reporting lines. The AFM examines competence, integrity, and independence. Gaps in documentation particularly missing foreign criminal‑record checks are among the most frequent causes of completeness queries.

Step 4 Ownership Structure and Qualifying Holdings

Disclose the full ownership chain up to the ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs), including source‑of‑funds evidence for all shareholders above qualifying‑holding thresholds. Where a natural or legal person intends to acquire or increase a qualifying holding in a CASP, DNB must be notified and will conduct its own assessment. Timeliness is critical: failing to align the DNB qualifying‑holding notification with the AFM application can delay the entire process. Include clear ownership diagrams and signed beneficial‑ownership declarations.

Step 5 AML/CFT Framework

MiCA mandates robust AML/CFT measures aligned with EU anti‑money‑laundering legislation and the Dutch national transposition of Directive 2015/849. Prepare and submit: a board‑approved AML policy, a documented firm‑wide risk assessment (FATF‑aligned), CDD and enhanced‑CDD procedures, transaction‑monitoring rules, suspicious‑activity reporting procedures, record‑keeping policies, and evidence of FIU cooperation channels. The AFM expects these documents to be operationally embedded not merely drafted on paper.

Step 6 Prudential Requirements and Own Funds

Depending on the services and token types involved, MiCA sets minimum own‑funds requirements typically the higher of a fixed euro amount or a percentage of relevant income metrics. Prepare audited financial statements, capital adequacy calculations, liquidity projections, and evidence of liquid‑asset buffers. Where issuance of ARTs or EMTs is in scope, additional reserve‑asset and redemption requirements apply. Present clear calculations referenced to the applicable MiCA Articles.

Step 7 IT Security, DORA Alignment and Operational Resilience

The AFM expects applicants to demonstrate alignment with EU digital operational resilience requirements. Compile and submit: a recent independent penetration‑test report, SOC 2 or equivalent assurance reports, an incident‑response plan, a business‑continuity plan, a disaster‑recovery playbook, and evidence of third‑party ICT risk management. Code audits for smart contracts or custody protocols should also be included where relevant.

Step 8 Custody, Segregation and Client‑Asset Rules

If the application covers custody or administration of crypto‑assets, provide detailed evidence of your hot‑ and cold‑wallet architecture, asset‑segregation mechanisms, multi‑signature or MPC key‑management arrangements, insurance coverage (if any), and contractual frameworks governing client assets. The AFM will verify that client crypto‑assets are ring‑fenced from the firm’s own assets and from claims of the firm’s creditors. Include architectural diagrams and third‑party audit letters.

Step 9 Documentation Pack and Whitepaper

Assemble the full evidence pack mapped to each applicable MiCA Article. Where the firm intends to issue or offer crypto‑assets to the public, a compliant crypto‑asset whitepaper must be prepared. The whitepaper must contain prescribed disclosures issuer information, rights and obligations, underlying technology, risk factors, and environmental impact and must carry a clear disclaimer that it has not been approved by any competent authority. Use the downloadable MiCA CASP application checklist (Netherlands) to ensure no document is overlooked.

Step 10 Submit Application to the AFM Portal

Once every document is collated and quality‑checked, submit the application package via the AFM’s dedicated CASP notification and application portal. The AFM will conduct an initial completeness check. Applications that are manifestly incomplete may be returned without entering the formal assessment window. Ensure that all annexes, translations (where required), and signatures are in order before uploading.

Step 11 AFM Assessment Timeline and Information Requests

Under MiCA, the AFM has 25 working days to acknowledge receipt and assess completeness. If additional information is needed, the AFM may request it within the first 20 working days of the assessment period, at which point the statutory clock is suspended until the applicant responds. Once the application is deemed complete, the AFM has 40 working days to issue a draft decision. Respond to any clarification or completeness requests as promptly as possible delays on the applicant’s side extend calendar time significantly. Keep a response log that tracks every AFM query, your response date, and evidence provided.

Step 12 Post‑Decision: ESMA Register and Cross‑Border Notification

After the AFM grants authorisation, it notifies ESMA for inclusion in the EU‑wide CASP register. If you intend to provide services in other Member States, the cross‑border notification under Article 65 is triggered: the home NCA communicates the details to the host‑state authorities, and the CASP may begin operations in the host state upon communication or, at the latest, within 15 calendar days. This EU passporting mechanism is one of MiCA’s most significant commercial advantages.

How Global Law Experts supports applicants: Global Law Experts connects organisations with experienced crypto‑licensing professionals across the Netherlands who understand both the AFM’s procedural expectations and DNB’s prudential requirements. From pre‑scan preparation through to post‑licence compliance, the network provides practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance to accelerate time‑to‑decision.

Comparison Table AFM vs DNB Under MiCA

The table below provides a detailed breakdown of supervisory responsibilities. Use it as a reference when determining which authority to engage at each stage of your MiCA NCA application in the Netherlands.

Key Requirements and Eligibility for a CASP Licence in the Netherlands

Before preparing a submission, applicants should verify that they can satisfy each of the following core requirements set out in MiCA and enforced by the AFM. A failure in any single area can result in a refusal or significant delay.

• Legal entity and registered office: The applicant must be a legal person incorporated in the Netherlands with its place of effective management in the EU (Article 62).
• Governance and management body: At least two directors who are fit and proper, with collective knowledge and experience in financial services, technology and risk management (Article 68).
• AML/CFT compliance: A fully documented, operationally embedded AML framework including CDD, transaction monitoring, suspicious‑activity reporting, and a firm‑wide risk assessment aligned with EU anti‑money‑laundering legislation and its Dutch transposition.
• IT security and operational resilience: Demonstrated alignment with digital operational resilience expectations (DORA); penetration testing, incident response and business continuity plans.
• Custody and client‑asset segregation: Where custody services are offered, robust hot/cold architecture, segregation proof, and contractual protections for client crypto‑assets.
• Insurance or equivalent guarantee: Adequate professional indemnity insurance or comparable arrangements where required.
• Whitepaper obligations: If issuing or offering crypto‑assets to the public, a compliant whitepaper containing all prescribed disclosures (Articles 6–12 for non‑ART/EMT assets).
• Minimum own funds and capital: Compliance with applicable own‑funds thresholds specified in MiCA for the relevant service categories (Article 67).
• Ownership transparency: Full UBO disclosure and qualifying‑holding notifications to DNB where applicable (Article 63 read with Article 84).

Applicants should cross‑reference each requirement against the specific MiCA Articles (in particular Articles 62, 63, 65 and 68) and note where the AFM applies additional national emphasis for example, enhanced scrutiny of the Dutch AML risk assessment and governance structures.

Documents Required Downloadable Checklist and Evidence Pack

A complete AFM CASP application requires a substantial and carefully organised evidence pack. Global Law Experts has prepared a downloadable template pack the Netherlands MiCA CASP application checklist GLE template pack available in XLSX and PDF formats. The pack includes: a template applicant questionnaire, an evidence table mapping each document to the applicable MiCA Article, a sample whitepaper checklist, a template organisation chart, a management CV checklist, an IT security evidence list, and an AML policy checklist.

As a quick reference, the top twelve documents required for most applications are:

1. Certificate of incorporation and articles of association
2. Chamber of Commerce extract and statutory registers
3. Ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) declarations and supporting evidence
4. Detailed CVs and diplomas for all management body members
5. Criminal‑record certificates (certificates of good conduct) for directors and UBOs
6. Board‑approved AML/CFT policy and firm‑wide risk assessment
7. IT security and operational resilience report (including penetration‑test results)
8. Custody architecture documentation and segregation evidence
9. Audited financial statements and capital adequacy calculations
10. Three‑year business plan with revenue and cost projections
11. Governance matrix, organisational chart and compliance function description
12. Crypto‑asset whitepaper (if issuing or offering tokens to the public)

Timelines, Fees and Common Pitfalls

Statutory Timelines

MiCA prescribes clear deadlines for the NCA assessment process. Once an application is submitted, the AFM has 25 working days to confirm receipt and assess completeness. If additional information is required, the AFM must request it within the first 20 working days of the assessment period; the statutory clock is suspended from the date of the information request until the applicant responds. After the application is deemed complete, the AFM has 40 working days to reach a draft decision. In practice, the calendar time from first contact to final decision can be significantly longer when pre‑scan engagement, information‑request cycles, and DNB parallel reviews are factored in. Industry observers expect that well‑prepared applicants who engage the AFM pre‑scan early and submit fully complete packs may achieve total timelines of approximately four to six months.

Fees

The AFM charges administrative fees for processing CASP applications. The exact fee schedule is published on the AFM website and may be updated periodically. Applicants should consult the AFM’s requirements and licences pages for the current fee amount before budgeting. Beyond regulator fees, firms should budget for external costs including legal advisory, compliance consulting, IT security audits, and (where applicable) independent financial audits. These external costs vary materially by scope and complexity verify with procurement.

Common Pitfalls

• Incomplete AML evidence: Submitting a policy document without operational evidence of implementation (e.g., transaction‑monitoring rules, SAR logs, training records).
• Weak management fit‑and‑proper documentation: Missing foreign criminal‑record checks, incomplete CVs, or failure to demonstrate collective board competence.
• Unclear custody segregation: Architectural diagrams that do not clearly distinguish client assets from proprietary holdings.
• Missing whitepaper items: Omitting required disclosures (risk factors, environmental impact, technology description) from a token whitepaper.
• Inconsistent ownership and UBO evidence: Ownership charts that do not reconcile with the UBO register or source‑of‑funds declarations.
• Undefined product perimeter: Failing to specify precisely which crypto‑asset services will be provided, leading to AFM queries and scope re‑drafting.

Post‑Licence Obligations and EU Passporting

Obtaining the CASP authorisation is not the finish line it is the starting gate for ongoing regulatory compliance. Once authorised, the firm must maintain compliance with all MiCA conduct and prudential requirements, submit periodic reports to the AFM, keep AML controls current, and cooperate with both AFM and DNB on supervisory requests.

For cross‑border operations, Article 65 of MiCA establishes the EU passporting mechanism. The CASP notifies the AFM of its intention to provide services in another Member State. The AFM then communicates the relevant details to the host‑state NCA and ESMA within a prescribed period. The CASP may begin providing services in the host state upon receipt of that communication or, at the latest, 15 calendar days after the notification. This mechanism allows a single Dutch MiCA licence to serve as a gateway to the entire EU single market a significant commercial advantage that makes the Netherlands an attractive jurisdiction for initial MiCA NCA application.

Ongoing obligations also include ESMA register updates, consumer‑protection compliance, AML/CFT cooperation with foreign FIUs, and adherence to any level‑2 delegated and implementing acts published by the European Commission. A MiCA post‑licence compliance calendar is an essential tool for managing these obligations.

Closing Summary and Next Steps

Securing a MiCA NCA application in the Netherlands requires disciplined preparation, a clear understanding of the AFM vs DNB supervisory split, and a meticulously organised evidence pack. Your immediate next steps should be: (1) run a legal triage to define your service perimeter and applicable MiCA Articles; (2) request an AFM pre‑scan to identify potential blockers early; and (3) download the checklist and begin mapping every required document to the relevant Article. Global Law Experts has deep experience connecting applicants with crypto‑licensing professionals across the Netherlands who have guided numerous CASP filings from initial scoping through to successful AFM authorisation and EU‑wide passporting.

Sources

• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Markets in Crypto‑Assets (MiCA) EUR‑Lex full text
• AFM Requirements and licences for crypto parties (MiCAR / CASP)
• De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) MiCAR supervisory responsibilities
• ESMA MiCA interactive single rulebook
• European Commission MiCA delegated and implementing acts
• AFM MiCAR step‑plan (stappenplan) for CASP applicants
• AFM CASP notification portal