CASP Authorisation in Austria
Austria is a German-speaking EU CASP route for teams that need FMA-supervised MiCA authorisation, credible DACH/EU positioning and a serious operating model built around governance, substance, AML, audit and banking readiness.
Confirm current FMA MiCA/CASP application forms, service categories, fees, transitional rules and supervisory guidance before using this page for client advice.
Regulatory status should be confirmed by local counsel before relying on this route.
What is Austria CASP authorisation?
Austria CASP authorisation is the FMA-supervised route for crypto-asset service providers under MiCA. It is most relevant for teams that want a German-speaking EU base, DACH credibility and EU/EEA market planning without choosing the heavier German route by default.
- Jurisdiction
- Austria
- Regulator
- Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA)
- Regime
- CASP
- Legal basis
- Legal basis: MiCA CASP authorisation supervised by the Austrian Financial Market Authority.
Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.
CASP service scope in Austria
The application should start with a precise scope of crypto-asset services. Exchange, custody, brokerage, wallet, advisory, staking-adjacent and payment-related models can each change the FMA evidence expected for governance, safeguarding, AML and technology controls.
Exchange
ConditionalExchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
Exchange
Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
ConditionalCustody
ConditionalCustody may require separate review or additional controls.
Custody
Custody may require separate review or additional controls.
ConditionalBrokerage
ConditionalBrokerage or OTC activity typically fits within scope.
Brokerage
Brokerage or OTC activity typically fits within scope.
ConditionalWallet provider
ConditionalExchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
Wallet provider
Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
ConditionalEU market
IncludedEU/EEA passporting available.
EU market
EU/EEA passporting available.
IncludedStartups
ExcludedHigh setup complexity means significant budget is needed.
Startups
High setup complexity means significant budget is needed.
Excluded
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
EU/EEA passporting from Austria
Austria is an EU route, so approved MiCA/CASP services can be positioned for EU/EEA passporting. The passporting plan should be tied to the approved services, target countries and notification process rather than presented as automatic market access.
Define target EU/EEA markets, client types and service categories before filing.
Map passporting plans to each approved CASP service instead of assuming one authorisation covers every future activity.
Use the DACH story only where the team can support German-language governance, client communication, policies or local operating substance.
Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.
Capital, governance and audit expectations
Austria is a high-complexity route. The CSV snapshot indicates share capital from 50,000 EUR, state fee from 3,000 EUR, annual supervision fee from 3000 EUR, local staff, physical office and audit.
- Board, senior management, compliance, AML and technology ownership should be named and credible.highBoard, senior management, compliance, AML and technology ownership should be named and credible.high
- Capital planning should match the requested activity scope, especially for custody, exchange or fiat-heavy operations.highCapital planning should match the requested activity scope, especially for custody, exchange or fiat-heavy operations.high
- Audit, reporting, outsourcing, safeguarding and incident-management workflows should be budgeted as ongoing obligations.highAudit, reporting, outsourcing, safeguarding and incident-management workflows should be budgeted as ongoing obligations.high
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Austria CASP application bottlenecks
Typical blockers are operating-model issues rather than simple form-filling problems. Austria works best when scope, substance, controls and banking are resolved before treating the application as a timeline exercise.
- High
Unclear CASP service perimeter or EU/EEA passporting plan
- High
DACH positioning that is not supported by real governance, staffing or client-service capability
- High
Weak custody, safeguarding, wallet or technology-control evidence
- High
Generic AML policies that do not match client geography, tokens and fiat flows
- High
Banking or PSP package prepared too late
- High
Route selection driven by low budget or speed rather than regulated EU operations
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Activity fit for this route
Review which crypto activities fit within the scope of this route.
Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
Custody may require separate review or additional controls.
Brokerage or OTC activity typically fits within scope.
Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.
EU/EEA passporting available.
High setup complexity means significant budget is needed.
Not sure if your model fits? Request a licensing assessment
Is Austria CASP authorisation right for your project?
Best for
- EU passporting and regulated CASP operations
- EU/EEA market access
Not suitable for
- Low-budget or fast offshore setup
- Projects without a prepared banking strategy
Banking difficulty is high for this route. Prepare a banking strategy before committing to the Austria route.
Core requirements
Use this section to check the main regulatory and operational requirements before committing to a jurisdiction.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Local substance in Austria
Local staff and a physical office should be planned as operating requirements. A nominal footprint is weak if key decision-making, compliance and technology accountability are controlled elsewhere without a defensible oversight model.
Local staff
RequiredRequired
At least one locally-accountable staff member or director is expected.
Physical office
RequiredRequired
A genuine office presence is expected, not a nominal registered address.
Audit
RequiredRequired
External audit is required for ongoing supervision compliance.
Planning notes
- Plan Austrian compliance ownership and regulator-facing accountability before submission.
- Document what is controlled in Austria and what is outsourced to group entities or technology providers.
- Budget local staff, office, audit and ongoing compliance separately from application advisory fees.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Cost breakdown
Budget for service price, regulatory fees, share capital and ongoing costs separately.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Cost breakdown — Austria
Budget for service price, regulatory fees, share capital and ongoing costs separately.
| Cost item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Service priceApplication preparation and professional services. | €26,400 |
| State fee | €3,000 |
| Required share capitalMust be held, not an expenditure. | €50,000 |
Summary
- One-off costs
- €79,400
- Annual (year 1)
- €0
- Total year 1
- €79,400
Adjust to convert to your base currency.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Application process
The sequence below shows the usual project flow. Exact steps depend on the regulator, business model and application scope. Austria — From 6 months.
Pre-assessment and scope review
1–3 weeksDefine the activity scope, governance model and target markets before formal preparation.
Company setup in Austria
2–6 weeksEstablish legal entity, appoint local staff and set up local operating structure.
Documentation and compliance packBottleneck risk
3–8 weeksPrepare AML/CFT policies, governance documents, controls framework and application materials.
Application submission to Austrian Financial Market Authority
1–2 weeksSubmit complete application with all required documentation.
Regulator reviewBottleneck risk
From 6 monthsRegulator reviews the application. May request clarifications. Incomplete files extend this phase.
Depends on: File quality and completeness
Authorisation or registration confirmation
1–4 weeksRegulator confirms authorisation or registration. Commence operations.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
What can delay or increase cost
These factors are most likely to affect timelines and budgets for this route.
Setup complexity is rated high for Austria. Company setup, governance and documentation take longer than average.
Banking difficulty is rated high. Opening accounts for crypto businesses in Austria requires extensive documentation.
Ongoing supervision, audit and compliance costs are above average. Budget for these separately from the application fee.
Incomplete files are the most common cause of delay. Regulator queries extend review by weeks or months.
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Banking and PSP strategy
Austria has a high regulatory reputation, but banking difficulty remains medium to high and PSP availability is only medium. Banking and payment-provider readiness should run in parallel with the CASP application.
Reflects how challenging it is to open and maintain business bank accounts in this jurisdiction.
Reflects availability of payment service providers willing to onboard crypto-licensed entities.
A licence or registration does not guarantee bank account or payment provider approval. Banking feasibility should be reviewed before the application strategy is finalized.
Preparation checklist
- Prepare ownership evidence, source-of-funds materials, flow-of-funds diagrams, token policy and client geography before approaching banks.
- Explain safeguarding, fiat rails, transaction monitoring and incident handling in a way that matches the requested CASP scope.
- Do not assume FMA authorisation will automatically solve account opening or PSP onboarding.
Business model fit — Austria
Assess how well this route covers your planned activities.
Fit score
- Good fit
- 0/6
- Partial fit
- 6/6
- Poor fit
- 0/6
Austria may not cover your primary activities
Consider an alternative route that better matches your activity profile.
FMA application profile
Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA)
An Austria CASP file should read like a regulated financial services application: clear service perimeter, accountable management, Austrian substance, product-specific AML controls, safeguarding, technology evidence and a practical banking strategy.
- FMA positioning is strongest for teams that value EU reputation and DACH credibility over a low-cost setup.
- Austria may be a less heavy German-speaking route than Germany, but it is still a high-complexity MiCA authorisation.
- AML, sanctions, travel rule, transaction monitoring, outsourcing and cybersecurity evidence should match the product, client geography and token policy.
- Legal and regulatory source updates should be checked before relying on timelines, fee assumptions or service categories.
Strong international recognition and established supervision track record.
Reflects documentation depth, governance requirements and expected review friction.
Reflects likelihood of delays, additional information requests or policy uncertainty.
Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.
Compliance documentation
Most crypto licensing routes require a documented compliance framework before submission, not only after approval.
- RequiredAML/CFT policy and risk assessmentDocument your customer risk model and control framework.
- RequiredCustomer due diligence (CDD) procedures
- RequiredEnhanced due diligence (EDD) proceduresFor high-risk clients and jurisdictions.
- RequiredTransaction monitoring system and rules
- RequiredSanctions screening procedures
- RequiredSuspicious activity reporting (SAR) process
- RequiredMLRO / Compliance officer appointmentLocal accountability may be required.
- RecommendedBoard-approved governance charter
- ConditionalOutsourcing policy and monitoringRequired if functions are outsourced.
- RecommendedICT / cybersecurity policy
- RequiredComplaints handling procedure
- RequiredAnnual external audit engagementRequired for ongoing supervision compliance.
Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.
Documents to prepare
Preparing these materials before filing reduces regulator questions and helps with banking or payment provider onboarding.
Corporate documents
AML and compliance
Operational
Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Risk assessment
Main risk dimensions for the Austria route.
Route risk rating — banking difficulty: Medium to high. Authorisation does not guarantee bank account opening.
Mitigation: Start banking outreach and compliance preparation before the application.
Route risk rating — setup complexity: High.
Route risk rating — maintenance cost: High. Budget for ongoing compliance, fees and supervision separately.
Route risk rating — regulatory reputation: High.
Route risk rating — regulatory risk: Low to medium. Weak compliance, vague scope or insufficient controls increase review risk.
Mitigation: Prepare an evidence-based compliance file before submission.
This content is for general orientation only. Crypto regulation changes quickly and the final scope should be confirmed through a jurisdiction-specific legal review before filing or incorporation.
Austria CASP vs alternatives
Compare Austria with Germany CASP for a heavier DACH supervisory profile, Slovakia CASP for a more pragmatic Central EU route, Liechtenstein CASP for German-speaking EEA positioning, and Malta CASP for an established EU crypto regulator profile.
Austria
CASP
- Price
- 26 400 EUR
- Timeline
- From 6 months
- Passporting
- EU/EEA
- Banking
- Medium to high
- Reputation
- High
Germany (CASP)
CASP
- Passporting
- EU/EEA
- Banking
- High
- Reputation
- Very high
+ Strongest DACH regulatory signal for teams prepared for a heavier supervisory profile
− Typically more demanding than Austria on operating depth, banking scrutiny and regulator workload
View routeSlovakia (CASP)
CASP
- Price
- 16 600 EUR
- Timeline
- From 6 months
- Passporting
- EU/EEA
- Banking
- Medium to high
- Reputation
- High
+ Central EU MiCA/CASP route with a more pragmatic setup profile
− Weaker DACH positioning than Austria and still requires MiCA-grade substance
View routeLiechtenstein (CASP)
CASP
- Passporting
- EU/EEA
- Banking
- Medium to high
- Reputation
- High
+ German-speaking EEA positioning with a specialist financial services profile
− Needs separate review of EEA access mechanics, local substance and current supervisory expectations
View routeMalta (CASP)
CASP
- Price
- 20 700 EUR
- Timeline
- From 6 months
- Passporting
- EU/EEA
- Banking
- Medium to high
- Reputation
- High
+ Established EU MiCA/CASP route with MFSA crypto supervision experience
− Less suitable when the commercial story needs German-speaking DACH positioning
View routeFees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.
Austria vs other CASP routes
Compare key parameters across CASP authorisation routes.
Check your readiness for Austria CASP authorisation
Documented AML/CFT policies, risk assessment, compliance officer.
From 50 000 EUR minimum capital required.
Documented AML/CFT policies, risk assessment, compliance officer.
Board, management, accountability chain defined.
Banking strategy and identified partners.
Local staff and office in Austria.
Readiness status
Answer the criteria on the left to see your readiness status.
Frequently asked questions
Austria CASP authorisation under MiCA can support EU/EEA passporting for approved services, subject to the required notification process. It should not be described as automatic market access for every current or future activity.
Austria can be a more practical German-speaking EU route than Germany for some teams, but it is not light-touch. The FMA file still needs governance, substance, AML, audit, safeguarding, capital and banking readiness.
Austria fits teams that need EU/EEA market planning, DACH credibility and a high-reputation regulated CASP base, and that can support local staff, office, audit, AML ownership and ongoing compliance cost.
The main risks are unclear service scope, weak Austrian substance, generic AML policies, insufficient custody or technology-control evidence, and banking preparation that starts too late.
Compare Malta when an established EU crypto-supervision profile is more important than DACH positioning. Compare Slovakia when the team wants a more pragmatic Central EU route and does not need Austria's German-speaking market signal.
The page is not legal advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for advice from qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Your dedicated specialists
Enrico
Rein
Jurata
Andrej
Marta
Katrin
Inga
Request a Austria CASP assessment
Share your planned activities, target markets and timeline. We will review which crypto licensing route is likely to fit.