Fintech 2026

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Christian Inmann and Markus Stelzl, Inmann Stelzl & Partner Attorneys at Law Partnership

the EEA implementation process by 1 February 2026. Consequently, investment firms, including fintechs, will no longer be permitted to receive PFOF when exe - cuting orders for retail or opt-in professional clients. 6.8 Market Integrity Principles In Liechtenstein, trading is governed by principles of market integrity and investor protection, primarily through MAR and MiFIR, as implemented in national law. • MAR prohibits insider trading, market manipula - tion and unlawful disclosure of inside information, and sets requirements for insider lists, disclosure of inside information, and reporting of suspicious transactions. • MiFIR complements this framework by requiring pre- and post-trade transparency and transaction reporting, enabling the FMA to monitor markets effectively. These rules apply to all investment services, including fintech platforms and robo-advisers handling securi - ties or security tokens, ensuring fair, transparent and orderly trading, while extending similar principles to tokenised financial instruments under the TVTG and MiCAR where relevant. 7. High-Frequency and Algorithmic Trading 7.1 Creation and Usage Regulations Algorithmic trading exists where a computer system automatically determines key order parameters with little or no human intervention. High-frequency trad - ing is a subset of algorithmic trading, characterised by very low latency and high order volumes, and is subject to enhanced regulatory requirements due to its systemic risk potential. High-frequency trading and algorithmic trading in Liechtenstein are regulated as specific trading activi - ties, not as technologies. The decisive factor is there - fore not the use of algorithms, but the type of asset traded and the potential impact on market integrity.

• Where algorithms are used to trade traditional financial instruments such as shares, bonds or derivatives, MiFID II applies in full and imposes detailed organisational and supervisory obligations on investment firms engaging in algorithmic trad - ing. Firms must in particular (i) implement robust systems and risk controls, (ii) notify their home regulator, as well as the competent authorities of the trading venues on which they operate, that they engage in algorithmic trading, and (iii) keep com - prehensive records of their trading algorithms and make these available to regulators upon request. Crucially, trading systems must be designed in a way that prevents their use for market abuse or any conduct contrary to the Market Abuse Regulation or the rules of the relevant trading venue. • By contrast, algorithmic trading in crypto-assets that do not qualify as financial instruments falls under MiCAR. MiCAR does not establish a specific high-frequency trading regime, focusing instead on the authorisation and organisational duties of CASPs and on general market abuse rules. Across all asset classes, market manipulation is pro - hibited and trading algorithms are fully attributable to the firm deploying them. From a Liechtenstein regulatory perspective, there is no separate licence or registration category called “market maker”. Acting in a principal capacity does not, by itself, trigger a market-maker registration requirement. Instead, regulatory obligations depend on the nature of the instruments traded and the role assumed in the market. For financial instruments (such as shares, bonds or derivatives), trading on own account is a regulated investment service under MiFID II. As a general rule, firms engaging in proprietary trading on a professional basis must be authorised as investment firms, unless a specific exemption applies. In crypto-asset markets, the position is different. Under the MiCAR, there is currently no regulated concept of a market maker comparable to MiFID II. 7.2 Requirement To Be Licensed or Registered as a Market Maker When Functioning in a Principal Capacity

499 CHAMBERS.COM