EU regulatory register · MiCA
Article 70Safekeeping of clients’ crypto-assets and funds
CELEX 32023R1114 · Read on 2026-08-18
Short answer
1. Crypto-asset service providers that hold crypto-assets belonging to clients or the means of access to such crypto-assets shall make adequate arrangements to safeguard the ownership rights of clients, especially in the event of the crypto-asset service provider’s insolvency, and to prevent the use of clients’ crypto-assets for their own account.
Verbatim from the article. Source: NovaCopilot · https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/rattsakter/mica-2023-1114/artikel-70 · Short answer as data · Official text
MiCA, crypto-assets in short
Crypto-asset service providers need authorisation, and issuers need a white paper. Stablecoins have special rules.
Source: NovaCopilot
Official text
Read from the EU Publications Office for this CELEX number. The wording stands as published; nothing here is rewritten or summarised.
1. Crypto-asset service providers that hold crypto-assets belonging to clients or the means of access to such crypto-assets shall make adequate arrangements to safeguard the ownership rights of clients, especially in the event of the crypto-asset service provider’s insolvency, and to prevent the use of clients’ crypto-assets for their own account.
2. Where their business models or the crypto-asset services require holding clients’ funds other than e-money tokens, crypto-asset service providers shall have adequate arrangements in place to safeguard the ownership rights of clients and prevent the use of clients’ funds for their own account.
3. Crypto-asset service providers shall, by the end of the business day following the day on which clients’ funds other than e-money tokens were received, place those funds with a credit institution or a central bank.
Crypto-asset service providers shall take all necessary steps to ensure that clients’ funds other than e-money tokens held with a credit institution or a central bank are held in an account separately identifiable from any accounts used to hold funds belonging to the crypto-asset service providers.
4. Crypto-asset service providers may themselves, or through a third party, provide payment services related to the crypto-asset service they offer provided that the crypto-asset service provider itself, or the third party, is authorised to provide those services under Directive (EU) 2015/2366.
Where payment services are provided, crypto-asset service providers shall inform their clients of all of the following:
(a)
the nature and terms and conditions of those services, including references to the applicable national law and to the rights of clients;
(b)
whether those services are provided by them directly or by a third party.
5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall not apply to crypto-asset service providers that are electronic money institutions, payment institutions or credit institutions.
Follow-up questions
Knowledge card
- Applies
- casp: Safeguard clients' crypto-assets and funds.
- Risk if ignored
- critical
- What to do
- Safeguard clients' crypto-assets and funds.
- Deadline
- No fixed deadline in the register
card:eu:article:mica--art-70 · sha256 a5e7e2cb45d5 · Source: NovaCopilot
Obligations, actions and sanctions
Article 70 · Role: casp
Safeguard clients' crypto-assets and funds.
Decision chain (JSON)
Sanction: Administrative penalties decided by the competent national authority under Article 111; amounts follow the Regulation and national law.
Summary of the obligation in the register; the official language versions on EUR-Lex are authoritative. Source: NovaCopilot
Risk, sanction and outcome
Art. 70 · casp
Risk: high · Sanction: administrative_fine, högst At least EUR 5 000 000 maximum for legal persons where Article 111 so requires · Authority: Competent national authority
Decisions applying the provision: none in the register
Full chain (JSON)
Outcomes are counted from stored judgments that cite the provision verbatim. Source: NovaCopilot
The text is quoted from the official source and is not legal advice. A national court reads the language version that binds in its jurisdiction.
Verifiable trust signals
- Source-linked answers and explicit evidence gaps
- Obligations, controls, risks and consequences
- Stable objects and verifiable checksums
- Rule-based objects, optional source-linked reasoning
- Model card, source status and audit