Netherlands AFM CASP Authorisation 2026 — Practitioner Guide

The DNB-to-AFM transition

The Netherlands ran one of the EU’s earliest and strictest 5AMLD crypto-asset registers. De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) — the central bank — supervised the register from May 2020 with an unusually strict application process. Several international crypto-asset businesses that had been operating in the Netherlands left during 2020-2022 because they could not meet DNB’s substance and governance expectations even under the lighter AML-only framework. The Dutch crypto-asset industry that emerged from that filter was smaller but well-governed.

When MiCA took effect, the Netherlands rewired its supervisory architecture. The Wft amendments designated AFM — the Dutch markets authority, akin to France’s AMF or Germany’s BaFin in markets-conduct role — as the CASP authorisation and conduct supervisor. DNB retained AML supervisory authority and shares prudential supervision under a coordinated framework.

The architectural logic: MiCA is a markets-conduct regulation with prudential and AML overlays. The markets supervisor is the natural home for MiCA. The Dutch authorities chose to align the supervisory map with that logic rather than keep DNB as a one-stop CASP supervisor.

What the transition changed for existing providers

DNB-registered providers had 12 months from MiCA application to file an AFM CASP application. The transitional window closed at the end of 2025. The transition was not a simple re-papering exercise:

• DNB’s register required AML programme, fit-and-proper assessments, and limited governance documentation
• AFM’s CASP authorisation requires AML programme, fit-and-proper assessments, full conduct and consumer-protection programme, marketing-communications compliance, complaints procedures, conflicts of interest policy, ICT risk-management framework, and prudential calculation under Article 67

For providers used to the DNB AML-only standard, the AFM file represented a meaningful uplift. Several DNB-registered providers used the transitional window to upgrade their compliance programmes; a small number exited the Dutch market rather than make the investment.

By 2026 the transition is complete. New entrants file fresh AFM applications under the standard MiCA five-month clock.

What AFM looks for

AFM has published its CASP application guidance and supervisory expectations. The recurring themes:

Conduct-first orientation. AFM is a conduct supervisor. Consumer protection, marketing-communications compliance, conflicts of interest, and client treatment receive disproportionate attention compared with what a prudential-first supervisor would emphasise. Applicants are well-advised to over-invest in the conduct file relative to industry standard.

Governance fit for the planned business. A management body sized for the operations. Independent directors expected at larger file sizes. Three-lines-of-defence framework with independent compliance and internal audit. AFM is comfortable with venture-stage start-ups but wants to see governance plans that scale with the business.

Substance in the Netherlands. Registered office in the Netherlands. At least one senior manager resident in the Netherlands. The AFM has been clear about substance expectations — Dutch substance is not interchangeable with “EU substance” from another member state.

ICT and operational resilience. Framework consistent with DORA expectations. Cyber controls demonstrated effective. Business continuity tested. AFM and DNB coordinate on ICT supervision; the prudential and conduct sides of ICT both matter.

AML programme aligned with DNB expectations. DNB’s AML supervisory practice is well-established. The CASP AML programme needs to be designed for ongoing DNB supervisory engagement, not just for the AFM authorisation review.

English-language filing — the Dutch practical advantage

AFM accepts CASP applications in either Dutch or English. The choice has practical implications:

Dutch file. Helpful for case-team comfort, particularly on internal-policy documents that have a long supervisory life. Slightly faster in early-screen review because no internal translation is required.

English file. Standard for international applicants. Avoids translation cost and risk. AFM case officers are fluent in English. The choice does not slow the substantive review.

The accommodation is unusual in the EU — most other NCAs require national-language filing. For international groups, the English-language option makes the Netherlands one of the more accessible EU CASP jurisdictions for first-time applicants without local language capacity.

Client-facing materials remain a separate matter. Marketing communications, pre-contractual information, and consumer disclosures must be in Dutch for services marketed to Dutch consumers, regardless of the supervisory file language.

The realistic Dutch timeline

AFM is one of the more efficient EU supervisors but the MiCA framework adds substantive review time over what AFM applies to comparable MiFID authorisations. A clean first-time file:

• Pre-filing preparation: 6-10 weeks
• AFM pre-screen and DNB preliminary review: 4-6 weeks
• Active five-month clock: 16-22 weeks
• Decision and onboarding: 2-3 weeks

Six to nine months end-to-end is the working assumption. Class 1 service files complete faster; Class 3 trading-platform files use the full statutory window.

When the Netherlands is the right home supervisor

The Netherlands works well for:

• CASPs with a Northern European or DACH customer focus
• International groups that want English-language supervisory access without the larger jurisdiction’s pipeline congestion
• Businesses that need a serious markets supervisor with a strong financial-stability framework next to it
• Operators that value substance, governance, and conduct fit — AFM’s standards push CASPs to mature their operating models

The Netherlands is a weaker fit if the priority is the lowest-friction or fastest authorisation. AFM is not the slowest EU supervisor but it is also not the fastest, and the conduct-supervision emphasis raises the application bar. CASPs prioritising speed-to-market with minimum compliance investment typically choose Lithuania or Estonia instead.

For a buyer triaging EU options: the Netherlands sits in the upper-middle tier alongside Spain, France, and Ireland — significant supervisory expertise, strong reputational signal for the CASP, and a working application pipeline. The English-language filing accommodation is the Netherlands’ distinctive advantage and the reason a meaningful share of international applicants choose the AFM path.