When the issuer changes jurisdiction: what to do first
A change of the issuer's registered office does not suspend anything. Authorisation, the white paper, and every disclosure duty under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) continue exactly as before, until a new authorisation is granted or the existing one is formally transferred. The first task is not to announce the move — it is to find out which authority currently holds supervisory competence, and to notify that authority before anyone else hears about the change.
This sounds procedural, and it is. It is also the point where issuers most often lose time: an internal decision to relocate gets treated as an operational matter, while the authorisation attached to the old address quietly keeps running its own clock. The sequence below assumes the token is already authorised or notified under MiCA, and that the relocation is genuine rather than a change of registered agent only.
The authorisation does not travel with the issuer
Under MiCA, authorisation of an issuer of an asset-referenced token or an e-money token sits with a single competent authority in the issuer's home Member State. A change of registered office, effective place of management, or main establishment can shift which authority holds that competence — but the shift is not automatic. Until a transfer is confirmed in writing by both authorities involved, the original authorisation stays in force, together with every obligation attached to it: ongoing disclosure, reserve requirements for e-money and asset-referenced tokens, and reporting to the authority that granted the licence in the first place.
The white paper itself does not relocate either. It was notified or approved by reference to a specific home authority, and any material change described in it — including a change of the issuer's own jurisdiction — normally has to be reflected in an update, submitted through the authority that currently holds the file.
Where crypto-asset service providers handle transfers of the token during the move, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) keeps requiring accompanying originator and beneficiary information. That duty sits with the service provider carrying out the transfer, not with the issuer, and it does not pause because the issuer is between two jurisdictions.
What actually changes
The relocation itself creates no gap in supervision. What it creates is a window in which two authorities may each have a partial, unresolved claim to competence, and in which the issuer's own public statement can easily outrun the paperwork behind it. A press release, a website update, or even an internal memo shared with distributors, made before either authority has confirmed the transfer, produces a mismatch between what is disclosed publicly and what is actually supervised at that moment. That mismatch is, on its own, a reason for a supervisory enquiry — independent of whether the underlying relocation was justified.
There is a second, quieter consequence. Distributors and trading venues that list the token typically rely on the authorisation status shown against the issuer's current home authority. If that status is ambiguous during the transition, some venues will suspend listing decisions rather than take a position on which authority is currently competent. The practical cost of an unmanaged relocation is often this pause in distribution, not a formal sanction.
What to do first
- Confirm, in writing if possible, which authority currently holds competence under MiCA before drafting any announcement or amending any public document.
- Notify that authority of the intended change, describing the new registered office, management, and any effect on the white paper, before any public statement is made.
- Instruct the crypto-asset service providers handling the token's transfers to keep originator and beneficiary information current under the TFR, regardless of the issuer's registered address on the day of the transfer.
- Request written confirmation from the receiving authority, where one already exists, of the date from which it will exercise competence.
- Hold outbound communication to token holders and distributors until both authorities confirm which one is currently competent.
- Keep a dated record of every notification sent and received; the order in which notifications were made matters if competence is later disputed.
Who decides
| Situation | Authority with competence | What is already running |
|---|---|---|
| Relocation within the EU or EEA | Home competent authority in the new Member State, once the transfer is confirmed | The notification procedure set by that authority |
| Relocation outside the EU or EEA | Authority in the original Member State, until authorisation is formally withdrawn | Wind-down or re-authorisation procedure, depending on the destination |
| Issuer's registered address changes, service providers stay the same | Original competent authority; service providers unaffected | Transfer information duties under the TFR, unchanged throughout |
In every row, competence rests with a named authority, not with the issuer's own choice of address. An authority does not lose competence merely because a company registers a new office abroad; it loses competence when a transfer is confirmed between the two authorities concerned, and not before.
Three scenarios
If the token is an asset-referenced token or an e-money token: the authorisation transfer under MiCA is a filing made before the relocation is publicised, addressed to the current authority, and normally followed by a corresponding filing with the receiving authority.
If the token sits outside MiCA's authorisation regime — a purely utility token with no ongoing MiCA licence — the relocation itself triggers no MiCA filing. Transfers through EU-based service providers, however, remain subject to the TFR regardless of where the issuer is now registered.
If the change is administrative only — a new registered agent or a change of correspondence address, without a genuine shift of management or main establishment — no transfer of competence is usually needed, but the distinction between an administrative change and a true relocation is exactly the point an authority will want confirmed, not assumed.
Cost and response time
Cost depends on how many registries and jurisdictions need checking, whether a notification deadline has already started to run, and whether a second authority is already involved in the file. A partner replies within minutes during business hours. A written scope and price follow within one business day, once the current authorisation status is clear.
What this page does not cover
This page sets out the order of notifications and who is competent to receive them. It does not establish facts about the receiving jurisdiction, about the issuer's counterparties, or about documents already lodged there — those facts need separate verification, from registry sources rather than from legal reasoning alone.
For an issuer or counterparty linked to Sweden, a Counterparty report sweden establishes who stands behind a given entity, from public registry data.
A Document report sweden confirms which filings exist and when they were lodged, without interpreting what they mean for the relocation itself.
A Jurisdiction report sweden sets out which registries were checked and which questions stay open after the check.
None of the three answers whether the relocation itself complies with MiCA; that question needs legal advice on the specific file, not a registry check on its own.
Checked
Checked on 2025-01-15. This page relies on Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), both applying from 30 December 2024. For how the underlying registry sources behind our reports are tiered and delivered, and who decides which route applies, see Sources by tier and delivery route and who decides.
Related situations
A related situation follows the same logic for distribution rather than relocation: When a token is airdropped to existing users: what to do first covers the equivalent order of notifications for a different trigger.
Frequently asked questions
What is the first step when the issuer changes jurisdiction?
Confirm which authority currently holds competence under MiCA, then notify that authority before any public statement about the move. The notification, not the announcement, starts the new phase of the file.
Which deadline is already running?
The disclosure duty toward existing token holders and toward the current authority keeps running throughout the relocation; it does not pause for a change of registered office. The exact timing of any filing is set by the competent authority's own procedure, not by the issuer's own calendar.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The competent authority in the issuer's home Member State decides, based on the authorisation file, the white paper on record, and written confirmation of the current registered office and effective management. Evidence filed before the relocation is publicised carries more weight than evidence assembled after the fact.