ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Francesco Paolo Patti and Marta Vittoria Colombo, Studio Patti
ties’ intention to transfer the asset. Where intermedi- aries are involved, transfers may be reflected through internal account entries, with the user holding a con- tractual claim against the provider rather than direct on-chain control. The use of crypto-assets as collateral remains an evolv- ing area. Italian law does not provide a comprehensive regime specifically tailored to security interests over crypto-assets. In practice, collateral arrangements are typically structured through contractual mechanisms that rely on control, such as the transfer or escrow of private keys or the use of custodial accounts. Where the relevant tokens qualify as financial instruments, the European regime on financial collateral may apply, offering greater legal certainty. Outside that perimeter, issues of enforceability and third-party effectiveness require careful structuring. An area where practice has developed more clearly concerns corporate law. In Italy, contributions in kind ( conferimenti in natura ) are permitted in the context of share capital increases, provided that the contrib- uted asset is capable of economic valuation. On this basis, crypto-assets are increasingly used in practice as contributions in kind, subject to the applicable safeguards, including valuation requirements (typi- cally through an expert report under Article 2343 of the Italian Civil Code for joint stock companies). This confirms that, while not formally classified as tra- ditional property, crypto-assets are recognised as assets with economic value that can be integrated into established legal structures. Overall, the Italian approach remains pragmatic. Crypto-assets are not yet fully embedded within the system of property law, but their use, transfer and economic exploitation are addressed through exist- ing legal tools, with increasing support from sector- specific regulation. 1.2.2 Access to Banking Prior to the entry into force of MiCAR, access to banking services represented a significant barrier for crypto-asset firms operating in Italy. Italian banks adopted a distinctly cautious approach towards cryp- to operators, largely driven by the absence of a com- prehensive and coherent regulatory framework. This
regulatory vacuum created uncertainty around cus- tomer qualification, AML/CFT risk classification, and reputational exposure, prompting many credit institu- tions to decline or restrict relationships with crypto businesses. The introduction of MiCAR has materially improved this landscape. The establishment of a har- monised EU licensing regime, combined with clear prudential and conduct requirements, has provided banks with the regulatory certainty necessary to reas- sess their risk appetite. While some residual caution persists – particularly with respect to correspondent banking and fiat on/off-ramp services – the trend is shifting. Nevertheless, crypto firms must still demon- strate robust compliance frameworks to secure and In Italy, ESG and sustainable finance requirements applicable to crypto-assets stem directly from MiCAR, which introduces sustainability considerations primar- ily through disclosure and conduct-of-business obli- gations rather than through substantive environmental restrictions. maintain banking relationships. 1.2.3 ESG/Sustainable Finance A first level of ESG integration concerns crypto-asset white papers. Under MiCAR, issuers must include information on the principal adverse environmental and climate impacts of the crypto-asset, with particu- lar reference to the consensus mechanism used. This ensures that investors are informed of the energy con- sumption and broader environmental footprint associ- ated with the underlying technology. A second and more operational level concerns crypto- asset service providers (CASPs). Article 66 MiCAR, which governs the general duty to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients, frames ESG disclosure within the broader obligation to provide information that is fair, clear and not mis- leading. Sustainability-related information is therefore not ancillary, but part of the overall transparency duty owed to clients. More specifically, Article 66 (5) requires CASPs to make publicly available, in a prominent place on their website, information on the principal adverse impacts on the climate and other environment-related impacts of the consensus mechanisms of the crypto-assets in
340 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook