ESMA Q&A 2949: where MiCA CASPs may hold client fiat, and in whose name

What ESMA published

On 16 October 2026, ESMA published five new Q&As. One of them, Q&A 2949, is titled "Use by CASPs of payment accounts provided by non-bank payment service providers for holding clients’ funds". The answer is dated 6 October 2026. It interprets Article 70 of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which governs how crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) safeguard client assets and funds.

The question had two parts. Could an authorised CASP place client funds temporarily in an account with a non-bank payment service provider, such as an e-money or payment institution, while safeguarding them under Article 70(2), provided they reach a credit institution or central bank by the end of the next business day? And could the funds then stay beyond that deadline in a bank account opened in the name of, and held by, the e-money or payment institution for the CASP, technically segregated from all other accounts?

What the rule already says

Article 70(3) of MiCA provides that CASPs "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". Article 70(2) requires CASPs to have "adequate arrangements in place to safeguard the ownership rights of clients". Article 70(4) allows CASPs to provide payment services related to their crypto-asset services themselves or through a third party, provided that the CASP or the third party "is authorised to provide those services under Directive (EU) 2015/2366".

What the answer adds

ESMA answers the first part yes, with a condition, and the second part no.

• A CASP "may temporarily hold those funds in a payment account held with a non-bank payment service provider". During that period, "the CASP must continue to comply with the safeguarding requirements laid down in Article 70(2) of MiCA".

• By the Article 70(3) deadline, the funds must sit with a credit institution or central bank, in an account that "must be opened and maintained directly in the name of the CASP", or otherwise in accordance with the applicable legal asset segregation arrangement.

• "An account held in the name of a non-bank payment service provider does not satisfy Article 70(3) of MiCA". This holds "even where the account has been established specifically for the CASP and is technically segregated from other accounts".

ESMA's reasoning is about who holds the claim. With a payment-institution-named account, the CASP "would retain a claim against the payment service provider rather than being the account holder vis-à-vis the credit institution".

What does not change

The deadline itself is not new; it is in Article 70(3). E-money tokens are outside it, because the rule covers "clients’ funds other than e-money tokens". The answer states no effective date or transition period. In our view, a Q&A does not change MiCA's text; it states how ESMA reads it.

Who should look at this

In our view,, the structures most exposedstructures structures are those where an exchange or an on- and off-ramp provider collects client fiat through an e-money or payment institution partner, and the money then rests in a bank account opened in the partner's name for the CASP's benefit. Article 70(3) also requires CASPs to take all necessary steps to ensure that client funds held with a credit institution or central bank are in an account "separately identifiable from any accounts used to hold funds belonging to the crypto-asset service providers".

A practical check is to map, for each flow, where client fiat sits at the end of the next business day after receipt, in whose name each account is held, and whether that account is separately identifiable from the firm’s own accounts. In our view , the cost of any change is operational, through bank onboarding and daily sweeps, rather than a change to trading revenue.

Also this week

The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions (Overseas Territories) Order 2026 (SI 2026/1089) came into force on 15 October 2026. It applies the new regime to all British overseas territories except Bermuda and Gibraltar. Cryptoasset exchange providers and custodian wallet providers are listed as relevant firms for its reporting obligations.

Sources

• ESMA, Q&A 2949 (answer dated 6 October 2026): https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2949

• ESMA, "New Q&As available", 16 October 2026: https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-27

• MiCA Article 70 (ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook): https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-and-data/interactive-single-rulebook/mica/article-70-safekeeping-clients-crypto-assets

• SI 2026/1089, made 14 October 2026: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1089/made

This article is not legal advice.