Detailed overview
Belgium: FSMA MiCA Authorisation and Article 60 Notification
Belgium is a full MiCA jurisdiction. The Belgian framework is based on MiCA at EU level and Belgian implementing legislation that assigns supervisory powers between the Financial Services and Markets Authority and the National Bank of Belgium.
The FSMA is the main licensing authority for stand-alone crypto-asset service providers. The National Bank of Belgium is relevant for banks, stockbroking firms, electronic money institutions, payment institutions, and other prudentially supervised entities. The correct authority depends on the applicant’s existing regulatory status and the crypto-asset services it intends to provide.
Regulator
The main regulator for a stand-alone Belgian crypto-asset service provider is the FSMA. The National Bank of Belgium has competence for certain prudentially supervised institutions and for specific MiCA functions.
The FSMA is also responsible for conduct supervision for important CASP obligations, including client information, complaints, custody-related conduct rules, trading platform rules, exchange rules, order execution, placing, reception and transmission, advice, portfolio management, and transfer-service conduct obligations.
Licensing route
A business that provides crypto-asset services in Belgium generally needs MiCA authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider unless it is an eligible financial institution using the Article 60 notification route or a duly authorised EU CASP passporting into Belgium.
Authorised crypto-asset services include custody and administration of crypto-assets for clients, operation of a crypto-asset trading platform, exchange of crypto-assets for funds, exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets, execution of client orders, placing of crypto-assets, reception and transmission of orders, advice on crypto-assets, portfolio management on crypto-assets, and transfer services for clients.
The licence perimeter applies only where the asset is a crypto-asset within MiCA. Tokens that qualify as financial instruments or fall under another EU or Belgian financial-services regime require separate analysis. Token labels are not determinative.
Article 63 authorisation
A stand-alone CASP generally applies for Article 63 authorisation. Applications may be submitted to the FSMA at casp@fsma.be.
A credible application should include a full service mapping, legal perimeter analysis, governance package, fit and proper materials for management, shareholder and qualifying holding information, prudential capital analysis, business plan, AML framework, outsourcing framework, IT and operational resilience materials, custody and safeguarding arrangements, complaints procedures, conflicts management, client disclosures, and service-specific policies.
For stand-alone applicants, the FSMA authorises the CASP and may request the advice of the National Bank of Belgium on relevant prudential matters. The application should therefore be prepared to withstand both legal and prudential review.
Article 60 notification
Article 60 is not a general shortcut for all regulated firms. It is a limited notification route for eligible financial institutions that provide crypto-asset services equivalent to services already covered by their existing authorisation.
Article 60 notifications may be submitted to the FSMA at amc@fsma.be.
Portfolio-management and investment-advice companies, UCITS management companies, and AIF managers may use the notification route only for permitted equivalent services. These entities are not permitted to hold client funds, client crypto-assets, or access means to client crypto-assets under this route.
A regulated entity that wants to provide non-equivalent crypto-asset services may still need full Article 63 CASP authorisation.
Transitional position
Belgium’s transitional position is narrow. CASPs that provided services lawfully under the national law of an EU Member State before 30 December 2024 may continue to provide the same services until 1 July 2026 or until authorisation is granted or refused, whichever occurs first.
Belgium did not have a pool of Belgian pre-MiCA registered VASPs that could roll into local grandfathering. The FSMA granted no registrations under the former Belgian national regime because no applicant had submitted a complete application before that regime expired.
A CASP from another EU Member State may rely on transition in Belgium only if it was already active in Belgium without an establishment on 30 December 2024, was permitted to conduct those activities in Belgium under its home-country national authorisation, and remains compliant with applicable home-state and AML obligations.
New Belgium-facing activity should be structured through MiCA authorisation, a valid MiCA passport, or a valid Article 60 notification route. It should not be based on Belgian local grandfathering.
Current official lists
The FSMA maintains official lists of Belgian Article 63 authorised CASPs and Belgian Article 60 notified CASPs. At the review date, both Belgian lists showed no entries. These lists should be checked immediately before launch or publication because they are live regulatory records.
Costs
FSMA cost-recovery contributions apply.
For an Article 63 CASP application submitted to the FSMA, the base contribution is EUR 20,000. This is increased by service-specific contributions. Custody and administration adds EUR 15,000. Operation of a crypto-asset trading platform adds EUR 25,000. Each of the other listed services adds EUR 2,500.
The same structure applies to annual permanent-supervision contributions for FSMA-supervised CASPs. The annual base amount is EUR 20,000, increased by the same service-specific increments.
A whitepaper notification for crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens carries an FSMA contribution of EUR 6,000. A modified whitepaper notification carries an FSMA contribution of EUR 500.
These figures should not be treated as an all-in launch budget. Legal, governance, AML, audit, technology, custody, outsourcing, substance, and prudential implementation costs may be substantial. NBB-supervised entities should also check any additional prudential cost implications.
Ongoing obligations
Belgian CASPs must comply with MiCA prudential, governance, conduct, and service-specific obligations. These include requirements on own funds or insurance, management suitability, shareholder controls, internal procedures, client disclosures, complaints handling, conflicts management, custody safeguards, trading-platform rules, exchange rules, execution rules, order reception and transmission rules, advice and portfolio-management rules, transfer-service duties, and recordkeeping.
Belgian-facing CASPs must also maintain AML and sanctions controls appropriate to their risk profile. Transitional CASPs remain subject to applicable AML obligations while they continue activity before the end of the transitional period.
Marketing
MiCA marketing rules apply where the advertisement falls within MiCA. In those cases, MiCA takes precedence over the Belgian FSMA advertising regulation.
However, this precedence is not universal. Transitional CASPs that provide services in Belgium under the MiCA transitional regime must continue to comply with the Belgian FSMA advertising regulation for advertisements distributed when offering virtual currencies to Belgian consumers.
Marketing should therefore be reviewed separately for authorised CASPs, transitional CASPs, token offers, influencer activity, no-identifiable-issuer crypto-assets, and consumer campaigns.
Enforcement risk
Belgium is not a light-touch jurisdiction. Unauthorised CASP activity can trigger administrative sanctions, supervisory measures, criminal penalties, and civil-law consequences.
For FSMA-supervised Title V CASP breaches, administrative fines for legal persons may reach EUR 5,000,000 or 5 percent of annual turnover. Natural-person fines for Titles II, III, and V may reach EUR 700,000. Where a breach generated profit or avoided loss, the maximum fine may be increased by reference to that benefit.
The FSMA may also impose supervisory measures, suspend or withdraw authorisation, request suspension or withdrawal where another authority is responsible for the licence, and impose management bans in serious cases.
Belgian law also provides criminal exposure for carrying out CASP activity in Belgium without satisfying the Article 60 conditions or obtaining Article 63 authorisation.
Practical assessment
Belgium is suitable for firms seeking access to an established EU financial centre with a clear MiCA implementation framework and a sophisticated regulator. It is not suitable for firms looking for informal registration or a low-substance route.
A Belgian application should be prepared as a full regulatory authorisation project. The main execution risks are incorrect service classification, assuming Article 60 applies when the service is not equivalent, underestimating the FSMA and NBB competence split, relying on transition without evidence, and launching consumer-facing marketing without a Belgian advertising review.