Binance withdrew its MiCA application in Greece after reported resistance, telling users that the lack of a formal decision before the transition deadline forced it to seek approval elsewhere.
Reports noted that talks with regulators in Ireland and Latvia also encountered friction, although Binance claims Greece was the only formal application.
ESMA has since ordered unauthorized crypto asset service providers to stop onboarding new EU customers and limit existing services to exit and withdrawal activities.
A crypto asset service provider license under MiCA is a suitability test administered by a national regulator, which, upon approval of the applicant, extends that approval through a passport to all 27 EU member states.
That regulator certifies Binance’s management body, qualified shareholders, AML controls, custody systems, customer asset separation, internal governance and group structure as solid enough to operate without borders.
Article 62 of MiCA describes exactly what applicants must document. Article 63 gives national competent authorities explicit grounds to refuse an authorization where the management body endangers sound and prudent management, client interests or market integrity, or poses a serious risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Regulators may also consult AML authorities and financial intelligence units before granting a license. That architecture makes Binance’s history the most important licensing evidence that regulators weigh before making an authorization decision.
| MiCA license area | What the supervisor must assess | Why Binance is harder to approve |
|---|---|---|
| Management body | Good reputation, competence, healthy and prudent management | CZ stepped down, but questions remain around influence and board culture |
| Qualifying Shareholders | Ownership, control, risk of the beneficial owner | Zhao remains an important economic owner |
| AML/CFT checks | Risk of money laundering and terrorist financing | DOJ, FinCEN and OFAC settlements are directly relevant |
| Client custody and assets | Safeguarding, segregation, operational resilience | A passport license would apply throughout the EU |
| Group structure | Clear legal entities and supervisory access | Belgium previously reported uncertainty surrounding Binance entities |
| Market integrity | Systems to prevent abuse and protect customers | Regulators must defend the approval for the entire bloc |
A record to follow
In November 2023, the US Department of Justice announced that Binance pleaded guilty and agreed to pay more than $4 billion to resolve violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, money transmission and sanctions, while Changpeng Zhao separately pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective AML program.
Treasury’s FinCEN settlement was $3.4 billion and OFAC’s was $968 million, both accompanied by oversight and compliance commitments.
A European regulator assessing Binance under MiCA must weigh that record as active evidence.
The DOJ and Treasury Department’s findings directly address the same controls that MiCA requires regulators to evaluate before approving passporting rights: anti-money laundering systems, sanctions screening, management accountability and group governance.
Binance says it has since rebuilt its compliance infrastructure, employs approximately 1,500 compliance employees and has no outstanding MiCA issues. The regulator’s question is whether this rebuilding is supported by evidence or merely alleged.
The European pre-MiCA history with Binance gave regulators in Greece, Ireland and Latvia a record to consult as the company looked for an authorization route, and before a regulator had to make a block-wide licensing application.
Binance left the Netherlands in 2023 after failing to register, following a fine from the Dutch Central Bank for its unauthorized activities. In Germany, the company withdrew its application for a BaFin custody license after regulators reportedly made it clear they would not grant it.
The Belgian FSMA has ordered Binance to stop offering virtual currency services from outside the European Economic Area, noting that Binance had not demonstrated which legal entities offered services and whether they had the appropriate authority.
The FSMA also pointed to Binance’s own terms and conditions, which referred to 27 business entities, 19 of which were outside the EEA. French prosecutors launched a judicial investigation in 2025 into allegations of money laundering and tax fraud, which Binance denied.
MiCA consolidates that collected data into one authorization decision that cannot be reversed at the border.
The CZ issue
Zhao stepped down as CEO in November 2023 as part of the DOJ settlement but remained a major beneficial owner, and Reuters reported that European regulators were investigating his continued influence over the company.
Binance regional head Gillian Lynch told Reuters that Zhao has been completely removed from the company’s management.
MiCA’s suitability standards go beyond job titles: they require regulators to assess whether management and qualified shareholders exercise effective control in a manner consistent with good governance, customer protection and market integrity.
A European authority approving Binance must document and verify a group structure that proves the EU entity is insulated from informal control, reputational taint, or group-level interference from outside the bloc.
MiCA’s architecture places CASP authorization with the national competent authority, coordinated through AML/CFT consultation channels and ESMA guidelines.
The ECB’s explicit opinion role under the regulation applies to asset-related token issuers when monetary policy, payment systems or financial stability are at stake, and there is no equivalent route for regular exchange authorization.
The ECB has separately called for stronger EU-level supervision of systemically important cross-border companies, an institutional reform position that focuses on the supervisory architecture.
France, Italy and Austria have each warned that differences in national supervision could allow crypto companies to choose the regulator that imposes the lightest scrutiny.
French officials have explicitly described “regulatory shopping” as a search for the weakest link. A Greek, Irish or Latvian regulator that approves Binance would make a bloc-wide political judgment and take on reputational damage if that decision later turns out to be wrong.
Reports indicate that regulators in Ireland, Latvia and Greece worked closely together, indicating collective supervision.
Two futures
If an EU member state approves Binance after the company implements verifiable governance reforms, MiCA will serve as a standardization path for major exchanges with compliance obligations, giving Binance EU-wide access and regulators a documented framework that can withstand scrutiny in Paris and Rome.
If no regulator accepts that burden in the short term, the result will be a prolonged period of limited EU activity, with Binance users ordered to sell or withdraw while competitors with existing MiCA licenses absorb European market share.
| Scenario | What’s happening | Which supervisors signal | Market implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normalization path | Binance Obtains MiCA Authorization in Another EU Member State Following Verifiable Governance and Compliance Reforms | A national regulator is willing to certify that Binance’s controls, ownership and governance are now defensible across the bloc | Binance retains access to the EU; MiCA will be a route for major fairs to rehabilitate |
| Gatekeeper path | No supervisor accepts the political and supervisory burdens in the short term | National authorities are treating Binance’s past AML, governance and group structure issues as unresolved licensing issues | Binance faces limited EU operations; licensed rivals absorb users and liquidity |
Chainalysis estimated that illicit cryptocurrency addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025, with stablecoins accounting for 84% of illicit transaction volume. This backdrop gives regulators a stronger incentive to test major exchanges’ AML controls against evidence rather than guarantees before granting passporting rights to the entire bloc.
The battle is over over who bears the liability of the passport: Binance brought 300 million global users and more than 4 million app downloads into the EU last year, along with the compliance story, while EU regulators have the authorization power and the reputational incentive to use it carefully.
MiCA’s first major credibility test is whether a national authority considers Binance’s evidence of change strong enough to risk the entire bloc’s supervisory reputation.