MiCA and Bulgarian law regulate relevant tokens and services; professional CASPs usually need authorisation unless a specific legal route applies.
By Atty. George Chisuse, Managing Partner · 2026-11-01 · Legal review: 1 November 2026
Their issuance, public offering, admission to trading and related services are regulated according to the nature of the token and the activities actually performed. The central framework is the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), supplemented by Bulgaria’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Act. A crypto business may need CASP authorisation, an issuer-specific approval, a notification or an authorisation under a separate financial-services regime. There is no single licence covering every blockchain business model.
Bulgaria applies Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), together with the national Markets in Crypto-Assets Act (Закон за пазарите на криптоактиви). The Bulgarian Act was adopted in 2025 and amended in 2025 and 2026, including amendments published in State Gazette No. 71/2026. Ordinance No. 77 of 12 March 2026, published in State Gazette No. 30/2026, further regulates application procedures and operational requirements within the FSC's remit. Applicable Commission delegated and implementing regulations also specify technical requirements under MiCA.
MiCA applies directly in Bulgaria. The national legislation allocates supervisory powers and establishes local procedures, enforcement measures and sanctions; it does not replace the EU Regulation. Depending on the arrangement, other EU and Bulgarian rules may apply alongside MiCA, including financial-instrument, payment-services, anti-money laundering, consumer-protection, data-protection and tax legislation.
MiCA defines a crypto-asset by reference to a digital representation of value or rights that can be transferred and stored electronically using distributed ledger technology or similar technology. The regulatory analysis is based on the rights and economic functions of the token, not merely its description as a cryptocurrency, utility token, stablecoin or NFT.
MiCA distinguishes asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs) and crypto-assets other than ARTs or EMTs. Different rules apply to issuing, publicly offering and admitting each category to trading. An EMT generally references the value of one official currency, while an ART is designed to maintain a stable value by reference to other values or rights, or a combination of them. A crypto-asset may also fall outside MiCA if it qualifies as a financial instrument, deposit or another excluded product. Genuinely unique and non-fungible crypto-assets are excluded from MiCA’s scope, but attaching an NFT label does not by itself establish an exemption.
Tokenised shares, bonds or other instruments with the legal characteristics of financial instruments require a separate assessment under the relevant securities framework. A business should therefore establish the regulatory classification before deciding how the token will be issued, marketed, held or traded. ESMA’s guidelines on the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments provide important interpretative guidance.
A crypto-asset service provider (CASP) is an undertaking providing one or more of the crypto-asset services defined in MiCA to clients on a professional basis. Those services include custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients; operation of a trading platform; exchange of crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto-assets; execution and reception or transmission of orders; placing of crypto-assets; advice; portfolio management; and transfer services on behalf of clients.
Under Article 59 of MiCA, an undertaking normally needs the relevant CASP authorisation before providing regulated crypto-asset services in the EU. Article 60 establishes a separate notification framework for certain already authorised financial institutions, restricted to the services and conditions specified in that provision. The legal analysis must identify precisely which services the business will actually perform.
The Bulgarian transitional regime ended on 1 July 2026. Previous entry in the anti-money laundering register does not now constitute a CASP licence. An application that is still pending does not, by itself, confer permission to continue providing regulated services. The Bulgarian Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) has expressly addressed the end of the transition and the need for unauthorised providers to cease or suspend regulated activity. Any specific exception or entitlement under MiCA must be established separately.
The Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) is Bulgaria’s principal competent authority for MiCA matters, including ordinary CASP authorisations and supervision within its remit. The Bulgarian National Bank (BNB) and other competent authorities exercise powers expressly assigned to them, including in relation to e-money tokens and relevant institutions already subject to banking or payment-services supervision. The precise allocation should be checked against the current wording of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Act, as amended in August 2026, and the legislation governing the relevant supervised entity.
Companies can consult the FSC’s crypto-assets guidance and the register of authorised crypto-asset service providers. A former registration, an application or an overseas business licence should not be presented to clients as equivalent to a current MiCA authorisation.
A Bulgarian CASP applicant must assess the proposed services, its group structure and ownership, governance, suitability of management, prudential safeguards, safeguarding of client assets and funds, conflicts of interest, complaint handling, outsourcing, ICT arrangements and business continuity. Relevant anti-money laundering controls and financial-crime risks must be addressed in a manner consistent with the actual operating model.
The application process is governed by MiCA, the applicable delegated and implementing regulations and Bulgaria’s Ordinance No. 77. The regulator expects real operational substance, suitably qualified personnel and coherent documentation. A nominal registered address or policies that do not reflect actual activities are not adequate substitutes. The FSC provides further information on application content, submission procedures and supervisory expectations in its official FAQ.
Authorisation is a regulatory decision, not an automatic consequence of incorporation or payment of an application fee. Approval, timing and the scope of any authorisation depend on the applicant’s facts and compliance with applicable requirements. For the detailed process, see VC Law’s separate guide to MiCA and CASP licensing in Bulgaria.
An authorised CASP may provide the crypto-asset services covered by its authorisation in other EU Member States, subject to the cross-border notification procedure under Article 65 of MiCA. This is often described as EU passporting. It does not extend the provider’s authorisation to additional services or replace licences that may be required under other financial-services legislation.
For a business established outside the EU, marketing and onboarding EU clients require separate scrutiny. The exception for services provided at the client’s own exclusive initiative under Article 61 of MiCA is narrow. It cannot be created by a disclaimer where the provider has in substance solicited clients in the EU.
No. Issuer and service-provider obligations are distinct. The public offering or admission to trading of crypto-assets other than ARTs or EMTs may require a compliant crypto-asset white paper and notification to the competent authority, subject to applicable exceptions. Where the Title II notification regime applies, a notified white paper is not a document pre-approved by the regulator merely because it was filed.
The offering or admission to trading of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) is generally subject to the Title III issuer regime, including authorisation or the specific credit-institution route, with narrowly defined exemptions. E-money tokens (EMTs) are subject to Title IV, under which the issuer generally must be a credit institution or an electronic money institution and must comply with the applicable white-paper requirements. A CASP authorisation alone does not permit a firm to issue an EMT without meeting those issuer requirements.
Token admission, listing, exchange and marketing also require care where an ART or EMT does not comply with MiCA. In its opinion of 8 October 2026, ESMA set out supervisory expectations that authorised CASPs should cease providing services involving non-MiCA-compliant ARTs and EMTs to clients in the EU, subject to narrowly limited, supervised arrangements for winding down existing exposures. Token classification, issuer status, authorisation and the services actually provided must therefore be assessed together.
Decentralised finance (DeFi) and decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) do not automatically fall outside regulation. Where services are provided in a genuinely fully decentralised manner without an intermediary, MiCA may not apply to that activity, but the label “DeFi” is not decisive. Governance controls, upgrade rights, fee arrangements, interfaces and any identifiable operator or service provider require case-by-case analysis. The legal character of an organisation and its contractual arrangements must also be examined independently.
Likewise, the exclusion for genuinely unique and non-fungible crypto-assets does not remove other potentially applicable laws. Tokenisation of financial instruments, real estate claims or investment rights raises questions about the underlying rights, transfer formalities, custody, investor protection and enforceability. The technology used to represent an asset does not, by itself, determine the legal nature of that asset.
MiCA authorisation is only one part of compliance. Depending on the activity, crypto-asset businesses must also address Bulgaria’s Measures Against Money Laundering Act, customer due diligence, beneficial-ownership checks and sanctions obligations. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 sets out information requirements for transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets, commonly called the Travel Rule.
Relevant financial entities, including authorised CASPs within its scope, must also consider the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, along with ICT risk, incidents, outsourcing and third-party provider arrangements. Data processing may engage the GDPR. Certain arrangements, particularly those involving e-money tokens or payment functionality, require additional analysis under payment-services and electronic-money law.
MiCA also establishes market-conduct and client-protection duties. Depending on the services, providers must give fair, clear and non-misleading information, warn clients about risks and maintain procedures for complaints and conflicts of interest. Title VI prohibits insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation in crypto-assets within its scope. Under Article 92 of MiCA, persons professionally arranging or executing transactions in crypto-assets within the scope of those rules must maintain effective arrangements for preventing and detecting market abuse and report without delay any reasonable suspicion concerning an order, transaction or relevant aspect of the functioning of distributed ledger technology to the competent authority of the relevant Member State. Where the FSC is the designated competent authority in Bulgaria, such reports are made to the FSC. The arrangements and suspicious transaction and order reports (STORs) are further specified by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/885.
Market-abuse reporting under MiCA is distinct from reporting suspicions of money laundering. Under Article 72 of Bulgaria's Measures Against Money Laundering Act, entities subject to the Act must notify the Financial Intelligence Directorate of the State Agency for National Security where the statutory grounds arise. The obligations have different purposes and reporting channels; compliance with one does not automatically fulfil the other.
Tax consequences depend on the taxpayer, the transaction and the applicable tax rules. The treatment of disposal gains, business revenue, VAT and reporting obligations cannot be determined from the word “crypto” alone. Legal, accounting and tax analysis should be coordinated where the structure warrants it.
VC Law advises businesses and investors on the classification of crypto-assets, MiCA and CASP authorisation, issuer and white-paper issues, regulatory structuring, compliance and cross-border legal questions. Our approach is to examine the actual product, the rights and obligations involved, and the entities responsible for each regulated function before recommending a route to market.
VC Law has contributed the Bulgaria chapter to The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guides: Blockchain & Crypto Assets and has also participated in Chambers Global Practice Guides: Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026. Read our announcements about VC Law’s Bulgaria chapter in The Legal 500 and VC Law’s contribution to Chambers Global Practice Guides for more on these distinct author contributions. Neither publication guarantees a licensing or regulatory outcome. Explore our MiCA and regulated crypto-asset legal services.
Yes. Bulgaria does not impose a general ban on crypto-assets. The question is whether a particular offering, service or token falls within MiCA or another applicable legal framework and satisfies its requirements.
Not for every company using blockchain technology. A licence is generally required for activities qualifying as regulated crypto-asset services unless a specific legal route or exception applies. Issuing tokens and providing payment or investment services may trigger different rules.
No. The relevant transitional period ended on 1 July 2026. A previous registration or a pending CASP application is not, by itself, permission to provide regulated crypto-asset services.
A provider authorised under MiCA may provide the services covered by its authorisation in Bulgaria through the applicable EU cross-border notification framework. The provider’s status and scope of services should be checked in the relevant regulatory registers.
No. Genuinely unique and non-fungible crypto-assets and fully decentralised activities without an intermediary may fall outside particular MiCA provisions. Neither an NFT label nor a DeFi structure creates an automatic exclusion; other laws may still apply.
The FSC is the principal authority for ordinary CASP authorisations. For e-money tokens and entities subject to banking or payment-services supervision, the BNB and the competent authorities specified in the current Bulgarian legislation may have responsibility. The allocation depends on the activity and regulated entity.
No general tax exemption follows from MiCA. Bulgarian and other applicable tax rules must be considered according to the taxpayer and transaction.
If you are establishing a crypto-asset business, launching a token-based product or assessing MiCA requirements in Bulgaria, contact VC Law to discuss the regulatory classification, applicable authorisations and compliance steps for your specific project.
This article provides general information on the legal position as reviewed on 31 October 2026. It is not individual legal, regulatory, tax or investment advice. Laws, regulatory interpretation and supervisory practice may change. No authorisation or particular outcome is guaranteed.
The main EU legislation is Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers and Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience (DORA).
For Bulgaria, refer to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Act, the 2026 amendment in State Gazette No. 71, Ordinance No. 77 of 12 March 2026, the FSC crypto-assets guidance and the FSC public register of authorised crypto-asset service providers.
Further official materials relevant to these obligations include Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/885 on market-abuse reporting, the Bulgarian Measures Against Money Laundering Act and ESMA's opinion of 8 October 2026 on non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins. ESMA opinions describe supervisory expectations and are not a substitute for the applicable legislation.