Italy

Crypto Licensing

Italy's MiCA-based crypto-asset licensing regime passed a further incremental milestone this cycle. As of 8 October 2026, nine entities hold CONSOB authorisation as Crypto-Asset Service Providers in Italy, up from eight at the close of the national transitional period on 1 July 2026. The ninth authorisation, granted to YouHodler Italy, was issued via CONSOB Resolution No. 24156 of 8 October 2026, with CONSOB acting in coordination with Banca d'Italia as is standard for CASP authorisations under the joint statutory framework. The transitional period itself, which ended 1 July 2026 under MiCA Article 143(3), required firms previously registered with the OAM (Organismo Agenti e Mediatori) that had not secured full MiCA authorisation in any EU member state by that date to cease business in Italy save for wind-down activities; this was confirmed in the joint CONSOB-Banca d'Italia statement of 30 June 2026.

The practical effect is that Italy's crypto-asset licensing landscape is now a single-track regime: MiCA authorisation, granted under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 as implemented via Legislative Decree No. 129/2024, with CONSOB as the supervisory authority, is the sole lawful basis for crypto-asset service provision in the jurisdiction. The incremental pace of cohort growth, from eight to nine authorised entities in just over three months, suggests an orderly ongoing authorisation pipeline rather than either a stalled backlog or a completed one-off wave. The evidentiary basis for the specific YouHodler Italy authorisation rests on a single T3 press source citing the CONSOB resolution number; the resolution text itself was not directly retrieved this cycle, which should be weighed when relying on the precise authorisation date.

Outlook

The key marker to watch is the continued trajectory of the CASP cohort: whether growth remains incremental, consistent with the pattern observed since the transitional period ended, or whether further legacy OAM-registered firms complete authorisation in a shorter window. Confirmation of CONSOB Resolution No. 24156 against CONSOB's own public record would strengthen the sourcing for this cycle's headline figure.

Crypto Licensing

Italy's national MiCA transitional regime for legacy virtual-asset service providers closed on 1 July 2026. The legal basis is Legislative Decree 129/2024 Article 45, as amended by Decree-Law 95/2025: OAM-registered VASPs that filed a complete CASP application by 30 December 2025 were permitted to continue operating under the transitional arrangement until the window closed. From 1 July 2026, only entities holding MiCA authorisation directly in Italy, or passported in from another EU Member State under MiCA Article 65, may lawfully provide crypto-asset services to Italian clients. This is confirmed directly by the joint CONSOB and Banca d'Italia statement announcing the transition's closure, which is the competent dual-regulator structure for crypto-asset supervision in Italy — CONSOB handling market-conduct and authorisation matters, Banca d'Italia the prudential dimension.

The same joint statement reports the number of newly authorised CASPs as either eight or nine, with the release's own title and body text diverging on this point; the discrepancy has not been resolved by any subsequent publication identified. This leaves Italy with a small and still-settling population of authorised crypto-asset service providers following the transition's closure, a materially different landscape from the broader pool of OAM-registered VASPs that operated under the prior transitional regime.

Enforcement against unauthorised crypto-asset activity continues through CONSOB's existing abusivismo-finanziario programme, now supplemented by a MiCA-specific website-blocking power under MiCA Article 94(1)(h). CONSOB's communication of April 2026 reports a cumulative count of 168 crypto-related blocked websites against a total of 1,654 financial-abusivismo blocks issued since the power's introduction in July 2019 under the so-called Decreto Crescita. This indicates that unauthorised crypto-asset activity is treated by CONSOB as one strand within its pre-existing financial-abusivismo enforcement architecture rather than as a freestanding new enforcement category.

Separately, no Italy-specific token-classification ruling or guidance beyond direct application of MiCA's own asset-referenced-token, e-money-token and utility-token definitions was identified this cycle; CONSOB appears to treat unauthorised fiat-referenced or investment-type tokens as abusivismo in the absence of a published MiCA-compliant white paper, rather than applying any additional national classification test.

Outlook

The principal open item is resolving the discrepancy between the eight and nine authorised-CASP figures reported in the joint regulator statement, which would clarify the precise size of Italy's newly-authorised population. A second open item is whether any Italian EMT or ART issuer authorisation, as distinct from CASP service authorisation, has been granted or refused; the 30 June 2026 joint statement addressed CASP authorisation only. Custody requirements under MiCA Article 75 and prudential capital requirements under MiCA Article 67 and Annex IV for Italian CASPs were not separately verified this cycle and remain a gap for future confirmation.

Crypto Licensing

Italy's crypto-asset licensing landscape underwent a hard transition on 1 July 2026, when the MiCA transitional regime for crypto-asset service providers formally ended. Before that date, entities that had registered under Italy's national OAM (Organismo Agenti e Mediatori) framework could continue operating under a grandfathered transitional status while their MiCA authorisation applications were pending. From 1 July 2026, that grandfathering ended: crypto-asset services to EU clients are now reserved exclusively to entities that hold MiCA authorisation as a CASP (crypto-asset service provider) or that are already-supervised financial intermediaries which have formally notified their intention to provide crypto-asset services under the relevant notification procedure.

The scale of this transition is significant. As of the joint CONSOB/Banca d'Italia communiqué dated 30 June 2026, Italy's regulators had authorised eight entities as CASPs under MiCA. A ninth entity, Banca Sella, took the notification route available to already-supervised bank intermediaries rather than seeking fresh CASP authorisation, bringing the total qualifying population to nine entities as of the transition date. This stands in sharp contrast to the much larger population of entities that had been registered under the legacy OAM framework, which was itself an AML-driven registration regime rather than a financial-services licence, and therefore carried a materially lower bar for entry than MiCA authorisation now requires.

The legal character of the OAM register is worth stating precisely, because it explains why the transition matters as much as it does: OAM registration was never equivalent to a financial licence. It existed to bring virtual-asset service providers within Italy's anti-money-laundering perimeter, not to authorise them to provide regulated financial services to the public in the way that MiCA-based CASP authorisation now does. Consequently, the end of the transitional period is not simply an administrative renewal exercise; it is the point at which a population that had only ever cleared an AML registration bar is now required to clear a substantively higher financial-services authorisation bar, and the great majority of that population has not yet done so, at least based on the nine-entity count captured in the 30 June 2026 communiqué.

What has not been resolved, and what constitutes the most significant open question for the licensing module going into the second half of 2026, is the fate of OAM-registered entities that did not secure CASP authorisation or complete the intermediary-notification route by the 1 July 2026 cutoff. Two distinct possibilities exist in principle: such entities could be required to wind down their crypto-asset-service activity entirely, ending client-facing operations in Italy; or they could be permitted to continue in some narrower capacity, for instance limited to facilitating self-custodied transfers that do not constitute a regulated crypto-asset service under MiCA's own scope. Neither outcome was confirmed in the sources available this cycle, and this gap has direct commercial consequences for any operator that held OAM registration without having yet obtained MiCA authorisation as of the cutoff date.

A related structural point concerns the authorisation process itself. CONSOB's CASP-authorisation procedure requires applicants to demonstrate alignment with ESMA and CONSOB guidance on market-abuse detection systems and consumer-protection procedures as a condition of authorisation, meaning these requirements are front-loaded into the authorisation gate rather than imposed as a subsequent supervisory layer. This raises the practical bar for new entrants seeking CASP authorisation in Italy beyond the baseline MiCA requirements applicable EU-wide, since applicants must show CONSOB-specific procedural alignment as part of the application itself.

On cross-border activity, a MiCA-authorised CASP based in Italy, or authorised elsewhere in the EU, may passport its crypto-asset services across the EEA. No Italy-specific restriction on this passporting right was identified this cycle, suggesting that Italy is applying the EU-wide MiCA passporting mechanism without additional domestic conditions layered on top, at least based on currently available evidence.

Outlook

The near-term outlook for Italy's crypto-licensing module turns on resolution of the legacy-OAM question: whether entities that missed the 1 July 2026 cutoff without securing authorisation must exit the Italian market entirely or may continue in a residual, self-custody-only capacity. This is likely to be clarified through further CONSOB or Banca d'Italia guidance, or through enforcement action against non-compliant former OAM registrants, in the coming reporting cycles. The narrow nine-entity authorised/notified population as of 30 June 2026 should also be watched for growth as additional applications complete the CASP-authorisation process; a meaningful increase in that count over subsequent cycles would indicate the authorisation pipeline is functioning at scale, while stagnation would suggest continuing friction in the authorisation process itself.

Crypto Licensing

Italy's crypto-licensing perimeter became fully binding on 1 July 2026, when MiCA's transitional period ended. From that date, provision of crypto-asset services to EU clients in Italy is reserved exclusively to entities authorised as CASPs under MiCAR, or to supervised intermediaries that have notified their intention to provide crypto-asset services. This is a directly-applicable EU regulation now fully in force, with no residual transitional carve-out remaining.

The practical authorisation picture, however, is narrow. The 30 June 2026 joint CONSOB/Banca d'Italia communiqué confirmed that CONSOB, working in close coordination with Banca d'Italia, had authorised 8 CASPs, with one additional bank having notified its intention to provide crypto-asset services, for a total of nine authorised entities. This stands in contrast to faster single-regulator EU hubs such as Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg and Austria, where authorisation volumes have moved more quickly. The structural driver appears to be Italy's split CONSOB/Banca d'Italia supervisory model, which has required 12 to 18 months to process CASP applications, a materially longer runway than single-regulator jurisdictions.

A related classification point concerns the pre-MiCA OAM register. The Organismo Agenti e Mediatori register for VASPs, established under Italian AML law, was a transitional AML-driven registration rather than a financial licence. Post-1 July 2026, it carries only grandfathering relevance: it does not substitute for CASP authorisation under the now fully-in-force MiCA licensing perimeter, and entities relying on OAM registration alone face a live compliance gap if they have not separately secured or notified CASP status.

The combination of a hard regulatory deadline with a narrow authorised-entity outcome is the defining licensing story of this cycle. Firms serving Italian clients without CASP authorisation, or without having filed the requisite notification as a supervised intermediary, now operate outside a fully binding legal perimeter, with no transitional buffer remaining.

Outlook

Watch whether Italy's authorised-CASP count grows materially beyond nine in the coming cycles, or whether the 12-to-18-month processing timeline continues to constrain domestic authorisation growth relative to passported providers established in faster EU hubs. The exact number of pending CASP applications in the pipeline was not established this cycle, since the primary regulator registry was not directly queried for pipeline data; this is a gap to close in the next research pass. Given the narrow current perimeter, near-term market-access friction favoring EU-passported entrants over domestic authorisation appears the more probable trajectory.

Crypto Licensing

Italy's crypto-licensing framework completed a defining structural transition this cycle. As of 1 July 2026, the national transitional regime that had allowed pre-MiCA virtual asset service providers to continue operating under legacy registration lapsed entirely. From that date forward, only entities holding full MiCA authorisation as crypto-asset service providers, or intermediaries already notified and supervised under the prior regime, may lawfully provide crypto-asset services to clients within Italy. This is a confirmed, high-materiality finding sourced directly to CONSOB's own publication, and it represents the culmination of the phased MiCA rollout that has governed Italian crypto-asset regulation since Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 came into force at EU level.

The practical authorisation picture is now concrete rather than aspirational: CONSOB, in close coordination with Banca d'Italia, confirmed in a joint press release dated 30 June 2026 that eight CASPs had been authorised in Italy to date. The supervisory division of labour follows the pattern typical of MiCA implementation across EU member states, CONSOB handles authorisation of operators, their conduct, and market integrity, while Banca d'Italia focuses on prudential and systemic concerns. This dual-authority model is now the operative supervisory architecture for the sector, superseding the single-register approach that preceded it.

That single-register predecessor, the OAM (Organismo Agenti e Mediatori) register, had been mandatory for VASPs operating in Italy since July 2022, but functioned as an AML-driven registration mechanism rather than a financial licence in the proper sense. With the transitional window now closed, the OAM register's role has narrowed to a transitional grandfathering mechanism under MiCA, a characterisation that rests on lower-tier sourcing this cycle and is accordingly held at Probable confidence rather than Confirmed. Operators or entrants who previously relied on OAM registration alone as their basis for operating in Italy must now hold, or be in the process of finalising, full MiCA authorisation to continue lawfully.

An open question flagged this cycle, though outside this module's direct remit to resolve, concerns the boundary between ADM's gambling-licensing authority and MiCA CASP authorisation where crypto-denominated wagering products are concerned; no official joint guidance addressing this overlap has been identified. This is noted as a genuine regulatory gap rather than a settled feature of the licensing landscape.

Outlook

The closed transitional window means the near-term trajectory for crypto licensing in Italy is now about completing and consolidating the CASP population rather than further transitional rule-making. Expect the authorised-CASP count to grow incrementally beyond the confirmed eight as remaining applicants complete the MiCA authorisation process under CONSOB and Banca d'Italia's joint supervision. The unresolved ADM/MiCA boundary for crypto-denominated gambling products remains worth monitoring, as does the durability of the OAM register's residual transitional role as MiCA grandfathering arrangements continue to wind down.