What Licensing Do You Need?
The licence required depends on three variables: which regulated activity the business performs; which markets it sells into; and whether it holds client money or assets. A centralised crypto exchange needs a CASP authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 to serve EU users. Payments fintechs need a Payment Institution (PI) or Electronic Money Institution (EMI) licence under PSD2 or EMD2. Sportsbooks need a gambling licence. Most scaled fintechs need more than one.
Activity is the first filter. Different authorities under different primary legislation govern custody of private keys, issuance of tokenised e-money, order execution in financial instruments, hosting games of chance, and running a derivatives event-contract venue; a business model that sits across two activities triggers two regimes.
For example, a euro-denominated stablecoin issuer is caught by MiCA Title IV as an E-Money Token (EMT) issuer and by Directive 2009/110/EC as an Electronic Money Institution; MiCA Article 48(1) explicitly requires both.[1]
Market access is the second filter. An EU CASP benefits from single-market passporting across all 27 member states from one home regulator. Crypto businesses in the United States face FinCEN plus state-by-state money transmitter licensing plus, for assets that meet the Howey test, SEC oversight. Malta-licensed sportsbooks cannot passport into the United Kingdom, where the UKGC requires its own authorisation under the Gambling Act 2005.
The common mistake is choosing a licence jurisdiction before mapping the activity. We begin the other way round: regulated activity, market, capital, substance, then jurisdiction.
Licensing Categories
Six licensing verticals cover the regulated activities Jagelski & Partners clients most commonly run, each with its own dedicated page setting out jurisdictions and capital requirements alongside timelines and costs. The cards below are routing signposts, not guides.
Crypto & Fintech Licensing (VASP / CASP / MiCA)50 jurisdictions
A Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) is a legal person authorised under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) to provide crypto-asset services in the EU.[2] The regime succeeded the fragmented national VASP registrations built on FATF Recommendation 15 and has been fully applicable since . Minimum own funds range from €50,000 to €150,000 depending on the service class (Article 67, Annex IV).
Transitional grandfathering under Article 143(3) closed no later than ; grandfathered firms cannot passport. Jagelski & Partners advises centralised exchanges, custodial wallet providers, brokers, and stablecoin issuers across 50 jurisdictions covering the EU, Asia-Pacific, the Gulf, and the Caribbean.
See Crypto & Fintech Licensing →
Gambling & iGaming Licensing9 jurisdictions
A gambling licence authorises an operator to offer remote or land-based games of chance to consumers, or to supply core systems to licensed operators, subject to probity, player-protection, AML and technical-standards obligations set in primary legislation. In Europe, authorisations are granted under the UK Gambling Act 2005, Malta’s Gaming Act 2018, Gibraltar’s Gambling Act 2005 and equivalents.
Offshore, the Curaçao Landsverordening op de Kansspelen (LOK) entered into force on , replacing the master/sub-licence model with direct licences from the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA).[3] Coverage spans 9 jurisdictions across Europe, the Caribbean, Central America, and Africa, for both B2C operators and B2B suppliers.
Forex Broker Licensing10 jurisdictions
Retail and institutional FX and CFD brokers targeting EU clients operate under Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), typically as a Cyprus Investment Firm authorised by CySEC under Law 87(I)/2017. Initial capital is tiered at €75,000, €150,000 or €750,000 depending on whether the firm deals on own account or holds client funds.
CySEC authorisation carries EEA passporting and is subject to permanent retail leverage caps, including 30:1 on major FX pairs and 2:1 on cryptocurrencies. ESMA introduced those limits as temporary product-intervention measures under Decision (EU) 2018/796; it is the national competent authorities, CySEC among them, that made equivalent measures permanent in national rules.[4] Outside the EU, licensing is structured through Gibraltar’s GFSC, the UAE’s three regulatory clusters (the federal CMA, the DFSA in the DIFC and the FSRA in ADGM), the established offshore tier of Belize, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Labuan, and the light-touch tier of SVG, Saint Lucia, and Costa Rica. Offshore markets still exist; their banking and PSP relationships are narrower.
EMI & Payment Institution Licensing17 jurisdictions
An Electronic Money Institution (EMI) is authorised under Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD2) to issue electronic money, with minimum initial capital of €350,000 (Article 4).[5] A Payment Institution (PI) is authorised under Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) to provide the payment services listed in Annex I, with tiered initial capital of €20,000, €50,000 or €125,000.[6] Both licences carry EEA-wide passporting from a single home regulator.
As of , the PSD3/PSR package has moved past its political agreement: the final compromise texts were settled on and the ECON Committee voted on , but neither instrument has yet appeared in the Official Journal. Publication was expected around mid-2026 and has slipped; the PSR enters into force twenty days after it is published, and PSD3 then runs a national transposition period.
Once in force, the package folds EMD2 into a single PI regime and indexes capital thresholds upward. Coverage extends across EMIs, PIs, PISPs and AISPs in 17 jurisdictions.
Fund & Investment Structuring6 jurisdictions
An Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM) is a legal person authorised under Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD) to manage one or more Alternative Investment Funds (AIF). Minimum initial capital under Article 9 is €125,000 for an external AIFM and €300,000 for an internally managed AIF, plus 0.02% of AuM above €250 million (capped at €10 million).[7] Sub-threshold managers below €100 million in leveraged AuM or €500 million in unleveraged closed-ended AuM may register rather than obtain full authorisation.
For retail-distributed funds, UCITS V (Directive 2014/91/EU) applies.[8] Jagelski & Partners scopes offshore and onshore vehicles, structured through its partner network, across BVI, the Cayman Islands and Panama.
Prediction Market Licensing8 jurisdictions
Prediction markets occupy a contested regulatory perimeter. In the United States, event-contract exchanges operate as CFTC-designated contract markets under the Commodity Exchange Act, a path reinforced by Kalshi’s 2024 DC Circuit victory and by Polymarket’s Amended Order of Designation issued on .[9] In the United Kingdom, binary options are banned for retail consumers under FCA Policy Statement PS19/11, effective , which pushes event-outcome products toward UKGC gambling authorisation.[10]
In the EU, MiCA does not cover prediction markets; treatment defaults to MiFID II for derivatives or to national gambling law. Platforms are advised on CFTC designation pathways, UK perimeter analysis, and EU structuring across eight jurisdictions and four regulatory regimes.
Read side by side, the six verticals differ less in difficulty than in what the regulator asks first. Four run on a single EU instrument with a stated capital floor; two do not, and for those the figure that matters is set nationally or by the regime the product falls into.
| Vertical | Governing instrument | Minimum capital | Jurisdictions covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crypto & fintech (CASP) | Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Art. 59 | €50,000–150,000 by service class (Annex IV) | 50 |
| Gambling & iGaming | National acts: UK Gambling Act 2005, Malta Gaming Act 2018, Curaçao LOK | Set by each national act | 9 |
| Forex broker | Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) | €75,000 / €150,000 / €750,000 by permission | 10 |
| EMI & payment institution | Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD2) · Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) | EMI €350,000; PI €20,000 / €50,000 / €125,000 | 17 |
| Fund & investment structuring | Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD), Art. 9 | €125,000 external AIFM; €300,000 internally managed | 6 |
| Prediction markets | Commodity Exchange Act (CFTC-designated contract market) · MiFID II or national gambling law in the EU | None of its own; set by the regime that claims the product | 8 |
The two capital cells that carry no figure are not gaps in the research. Gambling capital is set by each licensing act rather than by a single instrument, and prediction markets have no floor of their own because the product is authorised under whichever regime claims it: derivatives, gambling, or neither.
How Jagelski & Partners’ Licensing Service Works
Every licensing mandate runs through the same five-stage sequence, scaled to the regulator involved. The starting point is not a jurisdiction recommendation; it is the regulated activity and the commercial model.
- Regulated activity assessment. We map the client’s products and markets onto regulated activities and identify every licensing trigger the business touches. For a multi-product fintech this is rarely a single licence. The output is a written scope statement that the client’s counsel and board can sign off before any application work begins.
- Jurisdiction recommendation. We compare two to four realistic jurisdictions against six criteria: market access; capital efficiency; timeline; tax model; substance cost; and, decisively, banking access. The real constraint at this stage is not the regulatory fee schedule but whether a correspondent bank or payment institution will open the operating account once the licence is granted. See Banking for Regulated Businesses for how that decision is de-risked up-front.
- Entity formation and substance. The licensed entity is almost always a new incorporation, with share capital and governance, management locus and local office all calibrated to the target regulator’s expectations. Formation happens in parallel with policy drafting, not sequentially. See Company Formation.
- Application preparation and submission. Policies, financials, governance documentation, fit-and-proper packs for directors and key function holders, IT security, and operational resilience documentation, and the structured application itself. Experienced applicants front-load the documentation burden; delays at this stage compound through the rest of the regulator’s timeline.
- Post-licensing compliance. Authorisation is not the end of the work. Once the licence is live, reporting, audit, ongoing capital monitoring, AML effectiveness testing and, for EU licences, DORA ICT-risk obligations run continuously.
The sequence is the same across verticals; the pressure points differ. Capital and cyber-resilience dominate EMI files; fit-and-proper and AML dominate gambling files; substance and own funds dominate MiCA CASP files.
Frequently Asked Questions
A VASP licence authorises crypto-asset services (exchange, custody, transfer) under FATF Recommendation 15-aligned national regimes. In the EU, VASP registrations have been replaced by the MiCA CASP authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, with tiered initial capital of €50,000 to €150,000 by class. An EMI licence authorises the issuance of electronic money and the provision of payment services under Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD2) and PSD2, with minimum initial capital of €350,000. The regimes overlap for stablecoin issuers: MiCA Article 48(1) requires E-Money Token issuers to be authorised as a credit institution or an EMI. As of , a euro-denominated stablecoin issuer therefore needs both EMI authorisation and MiCA EMT compliance.
Yes, in every major jurisdiction. In the EU, MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) requires CASP authorisation from a national competent authority, with EU-wide passporting; it has been fully applicable since . In the United States, exchanges must register federally with FinCEN as a Money Services Business (MSB) and hold state Money Transmitter Licences (MTLs), with additional BitLicense obligations in New York and potential SEC or CFTC oversight depending on assets traded.
In the United Kingdom, firms must register with the FCA under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017; a broader FSMA authorisation regime will commence on under The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026, with the authorisation gateway open from to .[13]
Ordered on the Year 1 set-up ranges in our crypto-licensing cost tables, the cheapest routes are Panama at USD 8,000–25,000, Georgia at USD 15,000–43,000, the Marshall Islands at USD 15,500–24,500 (a DAO LLC corporate vehicle rather than a financial licence) and Belize at USD 20,000–70,000. Saint Vincent follows at about USD 27K–50K, and the widely quoted USD 50,000–80,000 for SVG is not this figure: it adds the refundable statutory deposit and the per-officer levies that no gazetted schedule sets. The larger offshore builds are BVI at USD 39,800–156,000, El Salvador at USD 53,000–150,000, Mauritius at USD 55,000–150,000 and the Seychelles at USD 55,500–158,000, in each case before capital and ongoing compliance. Comoros / Anjouan is left out of the ordering deliberately: the Banque Centrale des Comores names the authority issuing those certificates among bodies holding no legal authorisation, so a rank would imply a route. “Cheapest” is usually the wrong question.
Offshore licences frequently come with restricted banking access, counterparty trust issues and, in several cases, FATF grey-listing exposure, none of which are solved by a low application fee. Total cost of ownership (banking, external audits, substance, MLRO, and compliance hires, ongoing supervisory fees) determines viability more accurately than the government fee schedule alone.
Timelines vary materially by vertical. MiCA CASP authorisation takes 3 to 6 months for well-prepared applications under the Article 63 statutory 25+40 working-day clock, 6 to 12 months where the regulator raises supplementary questions. EMI authorisation under EMD2 realistically takes 12 to 27 months in the EU and 9 to 16 months in the UK, including pre-application preparation; the FCA targets 3 months for complete applications, but end-to-end timelines run far longer. MGA gambling authorisation runs 4 to 6 months to a temporary licence and 6 to 12 months end-to-end.
CySEC CIF authorisation typically takes 6 to 12 months. Offshore forex licences typically run 2 to 4 months in practitioner experience, though no regulator publishes an official service level for these timelines. Experienced applicants add 2 to 4 months of pre-application preparation before filing.
Generally, no. Issuing e-money without prior authorisation is prohibited under Article 10 EMD2. Operating an unlicensed gambling business is a criminal offence in the UK and Malta. Providing MiFID investment services without authorisation breaches Article 5 of MiFID II. Crypto is the partial exception: MiCA Article 143(3) grants transitional relief for CASPs that lawfully provided services under national law before , which allowed them to continue until or until the national regulator decided their CASP application.
Member-state windows vary from 0 to 18 months under ESMA’s published list: Article 143(3) lets a Member State apply no transitional period at all.[11] Grandfathered firms cannot passport during the transition.
“Fintech licensing” is an umbrella term covering every non-bank financial authorisation: payment institutions and e-money institutions under PSD2 and EMD2, MiFID II investment firms, AIFMD fund managers, credit institutions (banking licences under CRD/CRR) and, increasingly, crypto.[12] “Crypto licensing” specifically denotes VASP, CASP, DPT or MSB-for-crypto regimes. In the EU, this is the MiCA CASP authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
In Singapore, it is DPT or DTSP authorisation under the Payment Services Act 2019. In the US, it is FinCEN MSB plus state MTLs. The regimes overlap where a crypto business needs fiat rails: a CASP typically cannot issue E-Money Tokens without an accompanying EMI authorisation (MiCA Article 48).
Typically yes. A crypto-native neobank offering spot trading, euro e-money wallets, equities brokerage, and a euro stablecoin needs three to four authorisations: a MiCA CASP authorisation for trading and custody, an EMI authorisation under EMD2 for the wallet and for EMT issuance (MiCA Article 48), and a MiFID II investment firm authorisation for equities brokerage.
Under the EU single market, each authorisation passports across all 27 member states from a single home regulator, which materially reduces marginal cost. US expansion, by contrast, requires state-by-state money transmitter licences in most states plus FinCEN MSB, with FINRA or SEC authorisation for securities and a CFTC footprint where derivatives apply.
Yes. Through its partner network, Jagelski & Partners covers six licensing verticals: crypto and fintech (CASP, VASP, MiCA), gambling and iGaming, forex broker authorisation, EMI and payment institution licensing, fund, and investment vehicle structuring, and prediction markets. Jurisdictional coverage is deepest in crypto (50 jurisdictions). Gambling coverage spans Europe, the Caribbean, Central America, and Africa, and forex coverage spans Gibraltar, Cyprus, the UAE, Labuan, and offshore Caribbean options.
We work across all six verticals with the same five-stage mandate structure, coordinating with banking and formation in parallel where a single business needs multiple licences.
Book a Licensing Assessment
Tell us your business model and target markets. We will map the regulated activities, identify every licensing trigger, and recommend two to four viable jurisdictions with realistic timelines, capital, and total-cost figures.
References
Show all references
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Article 48, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Articles 59 and 67 and Annex IV, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- Curaçao Gaming Authority, Landsverordening op de Kansspelen (LOK), cga.cw, accessed .
- European Securities and Markets Authority, Product intervention measures on CFDs, esma.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD2), Article 4, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2), Article 7 and Annex I, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD), Article 9, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive 2014/91/EU (UCITS V), eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- US Court of Appeals DC Circuit, KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC, Order of , cadc.uscourts.gov, accessed .
- Financial Conduct Authority, PS19/11: Product intervention measures for retail binary options, fca.org.uk, accessed .
- European Securities and Markets Authority, List of MiCA grandfathering periods (Article 143(3)), esma.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- Financial Conduct Authority, A new regime for cryptoasset regulation, fca.org.uk, accessed .