ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Francesco Paolo Patti and Marta Vittoria Colombo, Studio Patti
2. Regulation 2.1 Regulators and International Alignment In Italy, the regulatory landscape for blockchain and crypto-asset activities is characterised by a clear allo- cation of responsibilities among established financial authorities, combined with a high degree of alignment with the evolving European framework. At the centre of the system is Consob, which acts as the primary authority for conduct of business, trans- parency and investor protection. Under the MiCAR regime, Consob has been designated as the com- petent authority responsible for the authorisation and supervision of CASPs. Its supervisory approach reflects its traditional mandate in securities markets, with a strong emphasis on disclosure standards, mar- keting practices, conflicts of interest and client pro- tection. In parallel, within the Italian implementation of the EU DLT Pilot Regime, Consob plays a key role in approving and supervising the “ responsabili del registro ” (operators of DLT-based registers for digital financial instruments), ensuring that such infrastruc- tures meet transparency and integrity requirements. Alongside Consob, the Banca d’Italia exercises pru- dential supervision. Its remit covers organisational requirements, risk management, ICT governance and operational resilience of regulated entities, includ- ing CASPs where prudential aspects are relevant. The Bank adopts a conservative and risk-focused approach, consistent with its broader supervisory phi- losophy in the banking and payments sectors, and pays particular attention to outsourcing, cybersecurity and business continuity in blockchain-based models. In the area of anti-money laundering, oversight is shared with the Unità di Informazione Finanziaria (UIF) and other competent authorities under the Ital- ian AML framework. Italy has historically maintained a robust AML regime, and the extension of obligations to crypto-asset operators has been implemented in a manner fully consistent with European directives and international standards. The approach of Italian authorities is closely aligned with European supervisory convergence, in particular through adherence to the guidelines, technical stand-
ards and supervisory practices developed by the Euro- pean Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA). In practice, this results in a high degree of consistency with EU-level interpretations of MiCAR and related legislation, and a cautious, co-ordinated approach to innovation. More broadly, Italy can be regarded as fully aligned with international regulatory standards. In the AML domain, the Italian framework is widely considered advanced and reflects a thorough implementation of the principles developed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), including the extension of due diligence, reporting and monitoring obligations to crypto-asset activities. Similarly, the prudential and market conduct approaches adopted by Italian authorities are con- sistent with the policy directions promoted by bodies such as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the International Organization of Securities Com- missions (IOSCO), particularly with regard to risk man- agement, investor protection and market integrity. In this context, Italy does not position itself as a regula- tory outlier or first mover, but rather as a jurisdiction that faithfully implements and operationalises Euro- pean and international standards. 2.2 Crypto-Asset Regulatory Frameworks In Italy, the classification and regulatory treatment of crypto-assets is now primarily determined by the European framework introduced by MiCAR, which has significantly reduced the degree of interpretative uncertainty that previously characterised the sector. The starting point of any legal analysis is therefore a functional classification exercise, aimed at deter- mining whether a given token qualifies as a finan- cial instrument or as a crypto-asset falling within the scope of MiCAR. As to the classification of crypto-assets, Italian legisla- tion adopts the same distinction embedded in EU law. Where a crypto-asset qualifies as a financial instru- ment within the meaning of MiFID II – typically in cases involving transferable securities or instruments with profit participation rights – it falls outside the scope of MiCAR and is instead subject to the full application of the traditional capital markets regime, including pro- spectus requirements, licensing of intermediaries and market abuse rules.
342 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook