Who is redeeming the token?

A token issuer that must buy its tokens back whenever a holder asks, but need not check who is asking. That, in AMLA's reading, is where some issuers of asset-referenced tokens sit today, and AMLA has asked the European Commission to look at it in the review of MiCA.

The document is AMLA's response to the Commission's targeted consultation on the review of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), dated Frankfurt, 30 September 2026. It is a consultation response: AMLA makes recommendations to the Commission, and nothing changes for any firm yet. AMLA's news item announcing it lists five areas: staking, lending and borrowing; DeFi arrangements; unauthorized stablecoins; certain asset-referenced token issuers not considered as obliged entities under the AML/CFT framework; and cross-border supervision of service providers. This card is about the fourth.

AMLA's account of the gap runs in steps. Under MiCA, it says, issuers of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) can either be credit institutions or ART issuers authorised with an ad hoc licence. A credit institution issuer is an obliged entity under the AML/CFT framework. However, AMLA notes, the AMLR does not mention ART issuers as obliged entities: they will be classified as obliged entity only if they decide to provide services in relation to their ARTs, that is, obtain a CASP licence.

From there AMLA concludes that pure-play ART issuers without engagement of another obliged entity placing the token are not directly subject to AML/CFT requirements, meaning that customer due diligence (CDD) is not performed when a token is issued or during redemption. In plainer words: on AMLA's reading, an issuer that is not a credit institution, holds no CASP licence and has no other firm subject to the AML rules placing its token is not itself under those rules, so CDD is not done when the token is issued or when it is handed back.

Two MiCA provisions, as AMLA cites them, give that its edge. Article 16(1) provides that an ART may be offered to the public by the issuer itself. Article 39 gives ART holders a permanent right of redemption against the issuer, regardless of its legal status. Put together, on AMLA's account: the issuer can offer the token to the public directly and must take it back on request, and where no other obliged entity is involved, neither step carries CDD. AMLA adds that several jurisdictions have already extended, or are considering extending, AML/CFT obligations to ART issuers, also in line with FATF recommendations. It does not name them.

The recommendation is in two stages. First, the Commission should review the interaction between MiCA and the AML/CFT framework to determine whether the existing regulatory perimeter sufficiently captures the AML/CFT risks associated with ART issuance and redemption activities not currently in scope by MiCAR, in AMLA's words, taking into account the roles of entities involved in the issuance, distribution and redemption of ARTs, including CASPs, custodians and credit institutions, and whether CDD and transaction monitoring are applied in each stage. In plainer words: first find out, stage by stage, whether anyone in the chain is doing the checks.

Then the Commission should consider whether the AMLR should be amended to include ART issuers that are not otherwise covered as obliged entities, and that issue or redeem ARTs directly without the involvement of another obliged entity applying appropriate AML/CFT measures, or whether equivalent AML/CFT requirements should apply to such entities. In plainer words: for the narrow group of issuers that are not already obliged entities and deal with holders directly, with no other AML-regulated firm doing the checks, two options to weigh: bring them into the AML rulebook, or apply equivalent requirements to them. AMLA asks the Commission to consider both; it does not choose. Its news item says AMLA suggests reviewing whether certain token issuers should fall within AML/CFT rules.

For Cyprus CASPs, custodians and credit institutions that sit in an ART's chain, the review AMLA proposes is about them too: their role at each stage, and whether CDD and transaction monitoring are applied there, is what AMLA says the assessment should take into account.

So, on AMLA's account, the issuer must take the token back on demand and, in the narrow case it describes, need not ask who is handing it back. Whether that changes starts with the review AMLA has asked the Commission to carry out.

Not legal advice. Verify against the primary source before acting.

Sources

• PRIMARY.
• CONTEXT.

Screen against the current lists in seconds

FIRMCY screens names against all of the lists above — plus a worldwide PEP database and adverse media — with fuzzy matching and an audit-ready report for every check. New organisations get 3 free full assessments, no card required.