FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jon Hautamäki, Max Atallah and Mikael Huhtala, Nordic Law
and underlines the importance of MiCA’s requirement that authorised CASPs segregate client crypto-assets from their own funds. The transfer of crypto-assets is not specifically regu- lated under Finnish law beyond the MiCA framework. In practice, transfers are determined by the underly- ing blockchain protocol, with on-chain transactions generally treated as the operative transfer mechanism. Where crypto-assets are held through a CASP, con- tractual arrangements govern the transfer and control of assets, subject to MiCA’s custody and client asset segregation requirements. The use of crypto-assets in collateral arrangements is not specifically addressed under Finnish law. General rules on financial collateral under the Act on Financial Collateral Arrangements may apply in principle, but their interaction with the technical characteristics of crypto-assets – including custody models, private key control and on-chain settlement – creates legal uncer- tainty as to whether such assets fall within the scope of financial collateral as defined in that legislation. This remains an area that requires careful structuring and case-by-case legal analysis. 1.2.2 Access to Banking There are no Finland-specific rules that automatically prohibit crypto-asset service providers from using banking or payment service partners, and Finnish law does not designate crypto-asset businesses as a category that must be refused access to banking services. In practice, access is driven by private con- tracting and is heavily influenced by risk-based obli- gations under AML/CFT and sanctions compliance frameworks, including customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring requirements. In practice, access to banking can be a recurring operational challenge for crypto-asset firms, as in many other jurisdictions. FIN-FSA’s thematic work on de-risking indicates that rejection rates for legal persons’ account applications and terminations of corporate banking relationships have increased, with a significant share linked to AML-driven risk manage- ment, which FIN-FSA interprets as indicating a de- risking phenomenon for legal persons. At the same time, rejection rates for private persons remain low,
which FIN-FSA links in part to banks’ statutory obliga- tion to provide basic banking services to individuals. MiCA may improve the situation to some extent by providing a more harmonised EU framework for authorised CASPs and clearer supervisory expecta- tions, which can help banks differentiate between authorised and unauthorised operators when assess- ing risk. FIN-FSA has highlighted that MiCA tightens requirements and harmonises the market, and EU- level guidance has also noted elevated ML/TF risks where institutions engage with providers that are not authorised under MiCA Nevertheless, individual banks retain discretion in cus- tomer acceptance decisions, and de-risking practices have not disappeared. CASPs seeking banking rela- tionships in Finland should expect thorough onboard- ing and periodic reviews and should be prepared to provide detailed documentation on their authorisa- tion status, governance, source of funds/wealth con- trols, transaction monitoring, and broader AML/CFT arrangements. 1.2.3 ESG/Sustainable Finance There is no ESG or sustainable finance framework in Finland that applies specifically to digital assets or crypto-asset services. However, Finnish CASPs and other regulated financial entities are increasingly sub- ject to EU-level sustainability disclosure and reporting requirements that apply on a sector-neutral basis. The most directly relevant framework within MiCA is the requirement that crypto-asset white papers include information on the principal adverse impacts on the climate and other environmental drawbacks associated with the consensus mechanism used in the issuance of the crypto-asset. CASPs are addition- ally required to make this environmental impact infor- mation readily available and prominently displayed on their websites. ESMA, in close collaboration with the EBA, is mandated to develop regulatory technical standards governing the content, methodologies and presentation of this information, meaning the frame- work is expected to become more prescriptive over time. These requirements are particularly significant in relation to proof-of-work-based crypto-assets, which
226 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook