Germany vs France for a CASP Licence: BaFin and AMF Compared

Two heavyweight markets, no easy door

Germany and France are the EU’s two largest economies, and they appear together on a shortlist for reasons of weight. Both are major financial centres. Both have serious, well-resourced regulators. And — unlike many member states — both took crypto seriously before MiCA, building national regimes when most of the EU had none.

So the comparison is not “which is the lighter touch.” Neither is light. The honest question is narrower: where does this particular business belong, given that the licence is the same MiCA instrument either way?

How Germany regulates crypto

Germany supervises crypto through BaFin — the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority. Germany was an early mover: from 2020, it ran a crypto-custody licence under the German Banking Act (KWG), treating crypto custody as a regulated financial service before most of the EU had any framework at all.

That gave BaFin years of crypto-supervisory experience and a population of licensed firms. Under MiCA, the crypto-custody permission gives way to the full CASP authorisation. BaFin is a large, methodical regulator with a deep prudential tradition — and it brings that exacting style to crypto.

How France regulates crypto

France moved early too, on a different track. From 2019, under the PACTE law, France ran the PSAN regime — prestataire de services sur actifs numériques, the digital-asset service provider framework — supervised by the AMF, the Autorité des marchés financiers. The PSAN regime had a registration tier and an optional fuller licence, and France used it to build a regulated crypto sector ahead of the EU.

Under MiCA, the PSAN framework gives way to the CASP authorisation. The AMF, like BaFin, carries real crypto experience into MiCA — and, like BaFin, it is a demanding, deliberate supervisor.

The comparison, side by side

Dimension	Germany (BaFin)	France (AMF)
Regulator	Federal Financial Supervisory Authority	Autorité des marchés financiers
Pre-MiCA regime	Crypto-custody licence under the Banking Act (2020)	PSAN regime under the PACTE law (2019)
Crypto experience	Several years, prudential-supervision tradition	Several years, markets-supervision tradition
MiCA capital	Annex IV floors — €50k / €125k / €150k	Annex IV floors — €50k / €125k / €150k
EU passport	Yes — via the EU passport mechanism notification	Yes — via the EU passport mechanism notification
Process style	Thorough, methodical, demanding	Thorough, methodical, demanding
Best fit	Business or investors centred on Germany	Business or investors centred on France

The table makes the real point. On the mechanics — capital, passport, rigour — Germany and France are level. MiCA flattened them, and neither regulator offers a shortcut. The deciding column is the last one.

The decision is presence, not paperwork

If neither is easier and neither is cheaper in any way that should drive the choice, what does?

Market presence. A CASP whose customers, team, banking relationships, or investors are centred in Germany belongs in Germany. The same is true for France. Authorisation in the home market of the business is coherent — it puts the licence where the activity, the relationships, and the supervisory conversations naturally sit.

A firm with no real link to either market gains little from a German or French base. It takes on the cost of substance in an expensive jurisdiction and a demanding regulator, in exchange for prestige it could source more cheaply elsewhere. For that firm, the question is not Germany versus France — it is whether either is the right answer at all. The Best Jurisdiction Finder is a quicker way to test that.

Working with counsel on the Germany-versus-France decision

The diagnostic for counsel: ask them to tie the recommendation to where the business actually operates — customers, team, investors — and to be honest that neither BaFin nor the AMF is a fast or light route. Counsel that pitches Germany or France on prestige, without a presence argument, is selling the size of the economy rather than the fit of the licence. For the rules themselves, see the crypto licensing pillar guide and the practitioner guides to Germany and France. The firms in our index with German and French experience are listed below.