FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jon Hautamäki, Max Atallah and Mikael Huhtala, Nordic Law
From a prudential and conduct perspective, AIFMs with crypto-asset exposure must address the asset class within their risk management frameworks, valu- ation policies and investor disclosure documents. DORA’s operational resilience requirements apply to AIFMs as financial entities, adding a further layer of governance requirements where technology-driven crypto-asset strategies are employed. SFDR sustain- ability disclosure obligations may also apply depend- ing on the fund’s investment strategy and marketing approach. 2.4 Token Issuance Finland has a viable crypto-asset issuance market operating under MiCA’s harmonised framework. The issuance of crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs requires the publication of a compliant white paper, which must be notified to the FIN-FSA prior to pub- lication but does not require prior approval for most crypto-asset categories. The white paper must con- tain prescribed information including details of the issuer, the project, the rights attached to the crypto- asset, the underlying technology, and the environmen- tal impact of the consensus mechanism used. iXBRL formatting requirements for white papers entered into application in December 2025. The issuance of EMTs requires the issuer to hold either a credit institution licence or an EMI licence from the FIN-FSA. The issuance of ARTs requires specific authorisation from FIN-FSA under MiCA. Both EMT and ART issuers are subject to more stringent ongo- ing requirements including own funds requirements, reserve asset management obligations and redemp- tion rights for holders. MiCA’s passporting mechanism enables issuers authorised in Finland to offer crypto-assets across the EEA without requiring separate national approv- als, making Finland an attractive base for EU-wide issuance. The successful launch of the Paxos USDG stablecoin through Paxos Issuance Europe Oy dem- onstrates the viability of Finland as a jurisdiction for significant crypto-asset issuance projects. 2.5 Market Abuse MiCA introduces a comprehensive market abuse framework specifically applicable to crypto-assets
admitted to trading on a trading platform, representing a significant development from the pre-MiCA position where no equivalent framework existed for crypto- assets in Finland. The framework prohibits insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information, and market manipulation in relation to crypto-assets. Insider dealing occurs where a person possesses inside information relating to a crypto-asset and uses that information to acquire or dispose of that crypto- asset, or recommends or induces another person to do so. Inside information means information of a pre- cise nature that has not been made public, relating directly or indirectly to a crypto-asset or its issuer, which if made public would be likely to have a signifi- cant effect on the price of that crypto-asset. The MiCA market abuse framework differs from the EU Market Abuse Regulation applicable to traditional securities in several respects. It applies only to crypto- assets admitted to trading on MiCA-regulated trading platforms, meaning crypto-assets traded exclusively on decentralised exchanges or peer-to-peer fall out- side its scope. The framework also addresses manip- ulation techniques specific to crypto-asset markets, including wash trading and layering on crypto trading platforms. The FIN-FSA is responsible for supervising and enforcing the market abuse framework in Finland. 2.6 Non-Compliance FIN-FSA has demonstrated an increasingly active supervisory approach in the context of the MiCA tran- sition. The expiry of the grandfathering period on 30 June 2025 meant that operators continuing to pro- vide crypto-asset services without CASP authorisa- tion became subject to enforcement action. FIN-FSA has powers to issue public warnings, impose admin- istrative fines, suspend or withdraw authorisations and refer matters for criminal prosecution where war- ranted. Finland’s regulatory culture has historically been char- acterised by proportionate and constructive super- vision rather than aggressive enforcement, with the FIN-FSA typically engaging with firms to achieve compliance before resorting to formal sanctions. The authority openly shares legislative interpretations with market participants and regularly publishes regula-
230 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook