On-shore VASP in Netherlands
Locally-incorporated VASP that operates under full local jurisdiction, holding all required licenses and registrations.
On-shore VASP is conditionally permitted in Netherlands with a local entity, subject to AML obligations and high licensing burden.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- conditional
- Local entity required
- Yes
- Licensing burden
- High
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
AML Obligations
- DNB AML/CFT supervision under Wwft (Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act) — mandatory KYC, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting
- Travel Rule adopted with EUR 0 threshold (no de minimis) under TFR recast — beneficiary VASP information must be transmitted with all transfers
- Fit-and-proper tests and substantial UBO integrity screening required by DNB
- Suspicious transaction reporting (onverwijlde melding) to DNB/FIU under Wwft — non-compliance risks fines or imprisonment
Key Restrictions
- Must obtain CASP authorization under MiCA via DNB/AFM — pre-MiCA DNB registration path is closed post-transitional period (ended June 30, 2025)
- DNB pre-MiCA registration had ~90% rejection rate; application scrutiny is extremely high
- Several crypto exchanges previously withdrew from the Netherlands under the DNB registration regime
- EMT issuance restricted to licensed credit institutions or electronic money institutions only
- ART issuance requires a dedicated new license (Article 17 MiCA) unless already a licensed credit institution
Key Risks
- High rejection risk on CASP authorization application — DNB historically rejected ~90% of applicants; AFM/DNB dual supervision adds complexity
- Strict enforcement precedent — DNB has issued significant fines to unregistered platforms (e.g., Binance, Coinbase)
- Tax complexity — Box 3 wealth tax on deemed returns from crypto holdings (valued annually at Jan 1 market price) plus potential Box 1 income tax on staking/mining/professional trading
- Proposed 'Actual Return in Box 3 Act' (targeting 36% tax on actual returns from 2028) creates tax regime uncertainty if enacted
- Dual-regulator oversight (DNB for AML/CFT, AFM for conduct/MiCA) may create coordination burden and overlapping compliance obligations
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
DNB — VASP registration (~90% rejection rate pre-MiCA), AML/CFT supervision
MiCA Regulation (EU) (2023) — CASP authorization, comprehensive crypto regulation
WWFT (Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act) (2018) — Pre-MiCA VASP AML registration with DNB — rigorous WWFT compliance
VASP: CASP authorization under MiCA via DNB/AFM. Pre-MiCA DNB registration had ~90% rejection rate. Substantial UBO integrity screening. Several exchanges withdrew from Netherlands.
CUSTODY: CASP authorization — custody is a licensed MiCA activity
EXCHANGE: CASP authorization under MiCA; rigorous UBO integrity screening
AFM: Licenses and supervises crypto-asset service providers under MiCAR; opened its digital portal for MiCAR license applications as of April 22, 2024
DNB: Maintains the register of crypto service providers and oversees AML/CFT compliance under the Wwft
EMTs: Issued only by licensed credit institutions or electronic money institutions (EMI), with notification to supervisors via white paper before issuance (Articles 48(6) and 51(11) MiCA).
ARTs: New dedicated license required, except for already-licensed credit institutions (Article 17 MiCA).
Comprehensive: Regulated via Dutch implementation of EU rules (e.g., 5AMLD and MiCA) rather than standalone national laws; covers AML/CTF, licensing, and supervision without prohibiting crypto.
Applies to crypto exchanges, custodian wallet providers, and CASPs; stablecoins and unbacked cryptos (e.g., Bitcoin) have specific oversight.
Transitional period ended June 30, 2025: Existing CASPs could operate under prior rules while applying for MiCA licenses; only licensed entities allowed post-transition.
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB): Central bank; handles AML/CTF registration for crypto service providers (exchanges, custodians), monitors compliance, supervises stablecoin issuers under MiCA, and enforces Wwft/Sanctions Act. Requires fit-and-proper tests, business plans, and policies for registration.
Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM): Supervises conduct, handles MiCA license applications/notifications for CASPs (opened portal April 22, 2024), and applies Financial Supervision Act (Wft) if crypto qualifies as financial instruments.
Ministry of Finance: Oversees national policy, adapts laws to EU standards like MiCA.
Wwft (Dutch Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act): Implements 5AMLD (effective May 21, 2020); mandates DNB registration for exchanges and custodian wallets, with KYC, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting. Non-compliance risks fines/imprisonment.
Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA/MiCAR): EU-wide (enacted 2024, licenses effective December 30, 2024); AFM processes applications, promotes transparency; DNB focuses on stablecoins.
Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wft/FSA): Applies if crypto is a security or e-money.
Legal and encouraged with oversight: Trading/owning crypto permitted; providers must register with DNB (pre-MiCA) or obtain AFM MiCA licenses post-2025. AFM advises new providers to apply directly for MiCA rather than DNB registration.
Strict enforcement: Fines on unregistered platforms (e.g., Binance, Coinbase).
Crypto-friendly: Clear framework supports innovation while aligning with EU norms.
AFM MiCA portal: Referenced in CMS guide (applications since April 2024).
Travel Rule adopted — threshold: EUR 0 (no threshold under TFR recast)
Verdict Attribution
- Source:
- AI-Generated · Unreviewed
- AI synthesized:
- 2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
- Last updated:
- 2026-07-13
- Confidence:
- high
This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.
Conditional — a locally-incorporated VASP (on-shore) is permitted, but only after obtaining MiCA CASP authorization via AFM (conduct) and DNB (AML/CFT) dual supervision, with a high licensing burden, mandatory local entity, robust AML/Wwft obligations including zero-threshold Travel Rule compliance, and significant application scrutiny (historical ~90% DNB rejection rate).
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- What license(s) are required to operate locally?
- What capital, governance, and reporting obligations apply?
- What is the application process and timeline?