ESMA has clarified how crypto-asset service providers can use non-bank payment institutions to receive client money: temporary collection is permitted, followed by placement with a credit institution or central bank by the end of the next business day. The final account must be held directly in the CASP’s name or under the applicable legal asset-segregation arrangement.[2][1][3]
The decisive issue is the legal claim. A bank account owned by the payment service provider leaves the CASP with a claim against that provider, even when the account is dedicated to the CASP and technically segregated. ESMA’s 6 October answer says that structure fails Article 70(3).[1]
From collection to required placement
Client-money placement under Article 70
| Stage | Permitted structure | Time or ownership condition |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | Client funds may enter a CASP payment account at an electronic-money or payment institution. | The CASP must continue to safeguard client ownership rights.Source 1Source 3 |
| Temporary holding | The non-bank PSP can hold the funds during the collection step. | Transfer onward in time to complete bank or central-bank placement by the Article 70(3) deadline.Source 1 |
| Required placement | Funds move to a credit institution or central bank. | No later than the end of the business day after receipt.Source 1Source 3 |
| Account name | The CASP is the direct account holder, or the account follows an applicable legal asset-segregation arrangement. | The CASP must not be left with only a claim against the PSP.Source 1 |
The ledger and the bank contract must agree
A dedicated sub-ledger can identify which money belongs to a CASP and prevent operational mixing, but it cannot change the name of the bank’s account holder. The bank contract and applicable legal segregation arrangement establish that relationship. Central-bank placement also depends on eligibility under the relevant access framework; MiCA does not itself provide a central-bank account.[1][3]
The control chain follows from those requirements: timestamp receipt, determine the business-day deadline, send the funds to the legally appropriate account and reconcile the movement. A payment cut-off or rejected transfer needs an exception process capable of completing placement within that deadline, rather than merely showing a balance on the PSP’s platform.[1][3]
Safeguarding interest passes to clients
A separate Commission answer published through ESMA says a CASP cannot retain interest earned on client funds placed to comply with Article 70. Any interest resulting from those safeguarding procedures must be transferred to the client because the arrangement exists for the client’s benefit rather than as a revenue source for the CASP.[4]
That interpretation links interest allocation to the same reconciled client-money record. The CASP must be able to identify the yield arising from safeguarded balances and transfer it to the clients whose funds generated it, rather than recognise it as proprietary revenue.[4]
The Q&As explain the existing MiCA safeguarding framework, which competent authorities apply with relevant national law. Bank placement and legal segregation address the custody chain; they do not eliminate bank-failure risk or create an investment guarantee.[3][1]
Sources & further reading
- ESMA Q&A 2949: CASP use of non-bank payment accounts for client funds European Securities and Markets Authority · 6 Oct 2026 · Accessed 16 Oct 2026
- ESMA publishes new Q&As on CASPs and other topics European Securities and Markets Authority · 16 Oct 2026 · Accessed 16 Oct 2026
- MiCA Article 70: safekeeping of clients’ crypto-assets and funds European Securities and Markets Authority · Accessed 16 Oct 2026
- ESMA Q&A 2486: interest earned from client funds European Securities and Markets Authority · 18 Feb 2026 · Accessed 16 Oct 2026