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, unless it is an eligible financial entity using the Article 60 notification route.[2] 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, an ART issuer established in the Union ordinarily needs authorisation under MiCA Article 21, while a credit institution can use the Article 17 route; the narrow Article 16 exemptions remain available where their conditions are met.[1]
A euro-denominated stablecoin is instead an E-Money Token (EMT). Article 48(1) permits a credit institution or an EMI to issue it. The issuer notifies and publishes its white paper under Article 51 rather than seeking an extra standalone Title IV authorisation, and separately gives at least 40 working days’ notice of its intention to offer the EMT or seek admission to trading under Article 48(6). Article 48(4)–(5) preserves narrow EMD2 exemptions, but Article 48(7) retains the white-paper requirement on those routes.[1]
Market access is the second filter. An EU CASP benefits from single-market passporting across the EEA 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)Worldwide
A Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) is a legal person or other undertaking that provides crypto-asset services in the EU on a professional basis and is permitted to do so under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), either by CASP authorisation or, for certain financial entities, by notification under Article 60.[2] An undertaking that is not a legal person qualifies only if its legal form protects third parties as a legal person would and it is subject to equivalent prudential supervision (Article 59(3)). The regime succeeded the fragmented national VASP registrations built on FATF Recommendation 15 and has been fully applicable since . Prudential safeguards must equal at least the higher of a permanent minimum capital of €50,000 to €150,000 by service class (Annex IV) and one quarter of the preceding year’s fixed overheads (Article 67).
Transitional grandfathering under Article 143(3) closed no later than ; grandfathered firms could not passport. Jagelski & Partners scopes crypto and fintech licensing worldwide. The published crypto guides cover 51 jurisdictions, and the comparison tool covers 50 of them.
See Crypto & Fintech Licensing →
Gambling & iGaming Licensing9 jurisdiction cases
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 2025 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] The guide compares nine jurisdiction cases across Europe, the Caribbean, Central America, North America and Africa, for both B2C operators and B2B suppliers: Costa Rica and Saint Lucia are corporate-only routes, and Anjouan is an excluded case, not a licensing route.
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 under Article 9 of the Investment Firms Directive (EU) 2019/2034 is tiered at €75,000, €150,000, or €750,000 depending on whether the firm deals on own account or holds client funds.[18]
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), and the established offshore tier of Belize, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Labuan. SVG, Saint Lucia, and Costa Rica issue no forex broker licence; they are corporate-only routes that rely on a licence held elsewhere. 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.
The PSD3/PSR package has moved past its political agreement: COREPER confirmed the final compromise texts on (Council note ST 8401/26) and the ECON Committee approved them on . As of neither instrument had been formally adopted or published in the Official Journal, and the Parliament listed as the indicative plenary date.[17] 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 own funds of 0.02% of the portfolio value above €250 million, with initial capital and that additional amount together capped at €10 million. Managers whose AIFs total no more than €100 million, including assets acquired through leverage, or €500 million where the AIFs are unleveraged and grant no redemption rights for five years, may register rather than obtain full authorisation (Article 3(2)).[7]
UCITS V (Directive 2014/91/EU) applies to UCITS. Retail distribution is also possible through separately permitted AIF routes, including authorised ELTIFs subject to their suitability and notification conditions; retail distribution alone does not make a fund a UCITS.[8] Jagelski & Partners scopes fund vehicles in BVI, the Cayman Islands, and Panama, and EU manager domiciles in Luxembourg, Ireland, and Malta, structured through its partner network.
Prediction Market Licensing8 jurisdiction cases
Prediction markets occupy a contested regulatory perimeter. In the United States, event-contract exchanges may seek designation as CFTC-designated contract markets under the Commodity Exchange Act; Kalshi’s 2024 court win over its election contracts, in which the D.C. Circuit refused the CFTC a stay on , concerned its dispute with the CFTC, not state gaming law.[9]
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US received an Amended Order of Designation issued on . The remaining order stays in force subject to ongoing compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act, CFTC regulations and the company’s representations, and preserves the Commission’s restriction powers; it is not a blanket legality guarantee for all event contracts.[15]
In the United Kingdom, the contract determines the regulatory route. Non-financial betting may fall under UKGC rules, but Gambling Act 2005 section 10(1) excludes a contract whose making or acceptance is a regulated activity under FSMA section 22. The FCA retail binary-options ban, effective , cannot be bypassed through a gambling licence.[10][16]
In the EU, MiCA sets up no prediction-market regime; treatment defaults to MiFID II for derivatives or to national gambling law. The guide compares four regulatory regimes across eight jurisdiction cases, with Anjouan only as an excluded case. Scoping covers the routes outside the United States, including UK perimeter analysis and EU structuring. The US CFTC track is described for comparison only.
Read side by side, the six verticals differ less in difficulty than in what the regulator asks first. Four run on EU legislation 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 / €125,000 / €150,000 by class (Annex IV), or a quarter of fixed overheads if higher (Art. 67) | 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 (IFD Art. 9) | 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
The licensing route has five stages, scaled to the regulator involved. Jagelski & Partners records the activity scope and jurisdiction recommendation in writing, then introduces an independent specialist. The client contracts directly with that specialist for formation, the application and post-licensing compliance; the firm’s role ends at the introduction.
- Regulated activity assessment. We map the client’s products and markets onto regulated activities and identify the licensing triggers the business model 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 applicable ICT-risk obligations run continuously. DORA applies to the financial entities in its scope, subject to its exclusions; an EU gambling licence alone does not bring an operator within DORA. Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, Article 2.
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 prudential safeguards of at least the higher of a €50,000, €125,000 or €150,000 class minimum and one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year, held as own funds, an insurance policy or a comparable guarantee, or a combination.[2] 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.
For an EMT, MiCA Article 48(1) permits a credit institution or an EMI to issue. The issuer follows the Article 51 white-paper notification and publication framework rather than obtaining an extra standalone Title IV authorisation. ART issuance follows the distinct Article 21 authorisation or Article 17 credit-institution route, subject to the narrow Article 16 exemptions.[1]
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, unless an eligible financial entity notifies under Article 60; it has been fully applicable since .[2] In the United States, exchanges must register federally with FinCEN as a Money Services Business (MSB) and hold state Money Transmitter Licences (MTLs) in most states, 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 Costa Rica at USD 5,700–21,000 (a mandatory SUGEF AML registration, not a licence), Panama at USD 10,560–39,110, Georgia at USD 15,000–43,000, and the Marshall Islands at USD 15,500–24,500 (a DAO LLC corporate vehicle rather than a financial licence). Belize is not ranked because only its USD 20,000 government-fee floor is fixed; professional and substance costs are quoted per case. 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 44,800–161,000, El Salvador at USD 54,000–151,000, the Seychelles at USD 57,500–158,000 and Mauritius at USD 65,900–218,000 by class scope, 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; the ranges that follow are our planning estimates, while the statutory clocks and targets named are the regulators’ own. MiCA CASP authorisation takes 3 to 6 months for well-prepared applications and 6 to 12 months where the regulator raises supplementary questions; within that, the Article 63 clocks are completeness within 25 working days and a decision within 40 working days of the complete application.[16] 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 about 4 to 6 months from formation to licence grant; the MGA’s application-process guidance sets no processing time.[19]
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. For MiCA-scope crypto-asset services, Article 59(1) requires a CASP authorisation under Article 63 or an eligible financial entity permitted under Article 60. A pending application is not a separate operating permission.[2]
The Article 143(3) transition has ended: it ran only until or an earlier grant or refusal, and Member States could shorten or disapply it.[2][11] Separate MiCA scope exclusions and the narrow reverse-solicitation rule still require case-specific analysis.
“Fintech licensing” is an umbrella term covering financial authorisations: 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, DPT services remain under the Payment Services Act 2019. The distinct DTSP regime in Part 9 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 requires a section 137 licence to provide digital token services outside Singapore: for a Singapore corporation, whether it operates from Singapore or elsewhere, and for an individual or partnership from a place of business in Singapore. Services that already fall to be licensed, or are exempted, under the Securities and Futures Act, the Financial Advisers Act, or the Payment Services Act are carved out (section 137(5)).[14] In the US, the route is FinCEN MSB plus state MTLs.
Typically yes. A crypto-native neobank offering spot trading, euro e-money wallets, equities brokerage, and a euro stablecoin needs three to four permissions: a MiCA CASP authorisation for trading and custody (or, where the group already holds a credit-institution or investment-firm licence, an Article 60 notification),[2] a credit-institution or EMI route for EMT issuance under MiCA Article 48 and the e-money wallet, and a MiFID II investment firm authorisation for equities brokerage. The exact count depends on whether one authorised entity can lawfully carry more than one part of the stack.[1]
Under the EU single market, each authorisation passports across the EEA 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 works worldwide across 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. The published crypto guides cover 51 jurisdictions, and the comparison tool covers 50 of them. Gambling coverage spans nine jurisdiction cases across Europe, the Caribbean, Central America, North America and Africa, with Anjouan shown only as an excluded case, and forex coverage spans Gibraltar, Cyprus, the UAE, Labuan, and offshore Caribbean options.
We scope cases across all six verticals in writing and introduce independent specialists. The specialists use the five-stage structure and coordinate banking and formation where a business needs multiple licences.
Book a Licensing Assessment
Tell us your business model and target markets. We will map the regulated activities, identify the licensing triggers the brief discloses, and recommend two to four viable jurisdictions with indicative timelines, capital, and cost estimates.
References
Show all references
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Articles 16, 17, 48 and 51, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Articles 59, 60, 67, 143(3) 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), Articles 3(2) and 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 .
- Singapore, Financial Services and Markets Act 2022, Part 9, section 137, sso.agc.gov.sg, accessed .
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission, QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US: Amended Order of Designation, issued , cftc.gov; order PDF, accessed .
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Article 63 (authorisation of crypto-asset service providers), consolidated text, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Parliament, Legislative Observatory, procedure files 2023/0209(COD) and 2023/0210(COD) (text agreed at early second reading approved in committee on 5 May 2026; indicative plenary 14 December 2026); Council of the European Union, “I” item note ST 8220/26, 17 April 2026, oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu, accessed .
- European Union, Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (Investment Firms Directive), Article 9, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- Malta Gaming Authority, Application Process Guidance Note (February 2023, v1; stages from application to licence issue, no processing time stated; a Gaming Licence is valid for 10 years), mga.org.mt, accessed .