EU/EEA PassportingMiCA CASP authorisation

CASP Authorisation in Romania

Romania is an ASF-supervised EU CASP route under MiCA for teams that want regulated crypto-asset operations with CEE/EU positioning and can support substance, governance, AML, audit and banking expectations.

Processing time
From 6 months
Service price
16 900 EUR
Required share capital
From 50 000 EUR
State fee
Approx. 3,000 EUR
Annual supervision fee
Approx. 2,000 EUR
Banking difficulty
Medium to high
RegulatorRomanian Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF)

Verify current ASF MiCA/CASP application procedures, fees, forms and local implementation rules before using this page for client advice.

Regulatory status should be confirmed by local counsel before relying on this route.

What is Romania CASP authorisation?

Romania CASP authorisation is the ASF-supervised Romanian route for crypto-asset service providers under MiCA. It is an EU route for regulated CASP operations, but it should be planned as a full authorisation file rather than a quick offshore setup.

CASP
Jurisdiction
Romania
Regulator
Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF)
Regime
CASP
Legal basis
Legal basis: MiCA CASP authorisation through Romania's ASF-supervised framework.

Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.

CASP service scope in Romania

The application should define the intended CASP services before cost or timing is treated as reliable. Exchange, custody, brokerage, wallet, advisory and payment-related models may be possible, but each scope adds evidence requirements.

  • Exchange

    Conditional

    Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.

  • Custody

    Conditional

    Custody may require separate review or additional controls.

  • Brokerage

    Conditional

    Brokerage or OTC activity typically fits within scope.

  • Wallet provider

    Conditional

    Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.

  • EU market

    Included

    EU/EEA passporting available.

  • Startups

    Excluded

    High setup complexity means significant budget is needed.

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 Romania

Romania can be relevant for EU/EEA passporting because it is an EU MiCA CASP route. The passporting plan should be tied to approved activities, target markets and notification steps, not presented as automatic market access.

  • Define target EU/EEA markets, client categories and service lines before submission.

  • Map the passporting plan to each requested CASP service and expected operating model.

  • Compare Romania with other CEE/EU routes when the business values EU access but wants a practical cost profile.

Country-specific regulatory statements should be checked against current regulator guidance before relying on this route.

Capital, governance and audit expectations

The CSV profile indicates share capital from 50,000 EUR, approximate state fees of 3,000 EUR, annual supervision fees around 2,000 EUR, required local staff, office and audit. The lower fee profile does not remove the MiCA governance and operating burden.

  • Board, senior management, compliance, AML and technology ownership should be clearly assigned.high
  • Capital planning should match the selected service scope, especially for exchange, custody and fiat-heavy models.high
  • Audit, reporting, outsourcing oversight and incident-management processes should be treated as ongoing costs.high

Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.

Romania CASP application bottlenecks

The main blockers are likely to be operating-model issues rather than the headline service price. Romania is not suitable when the team cannot support local substance, governance, AML, audit and banking readiness.

  • Unclear CASP service perimeter or EU/EEA target-market plan

    High

  • Insufficient Romanian substance, staff accountability or office planning

    High

  • Weak custody, safeguarding, wallet or technology-control evidence

    High

  • Generic AML policies that do not match tokens, fiat flows and client geography

    High

  • Banking or PSP readiness left until after the application strategy

    High

  • Route selection driven by a low-budget or fast offshore objective

    High

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
Conditional

Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.

Custody
Conditional

Custody may require separate review or additional controls.

Brokerage
Conditional

Brokerage or OTC activity typically fits within scope.

Wallet provider
Conditional

Exchange activity may require additional scope or separate licensing.

EU market
Suitable

EU/EEA passporting available.

Startups
Not suitable

High setup complexity means significant budget is needed.

Not sure if your model fits? Request a licensing assessment

Is Romania 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 Romania route.

Core requirements

Use this section to check the main regulatory and operational requirements before committing to a jurisdiction.

Required share capitalFrom 50 000 EUR
Required
Local staffRequired
Required
Physical officeRequired
Required
AuditRequired
Required

Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.

Local substance plan — Romania

A credible local presence can be as important as the filing itself. Regulators, banks and payment providers may all review whether the company has real operating substance.

Local staff

Required

Required

At least one locally-accountable staff member or director is expected.

Physical office

Required

Required

A genuine office presence is expected, not a nominal registered address.

Audit

Required

Required

External audit is required for ongoing supervision compliance.

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.

Service price (professional fees)Application preparation and professional services.
16 900 EUR EURFixed
State fee
Approx. 3,000 EURFrom
Annual supervision feeRecurring annual cost after authorisation.
Approx. 2,000 EURFrom
Required share capitalMust be held, not an expenditure.
From 50 000 EURFrom
High ongoing cost

Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.

Cost breakdown — Romania

Budget for service price, regulatory fees, share capital and ongoing costs separately.

Cost itemAmount
Service priceApplication preparation and professional services.€16,900
State fee€0
Required share capitalMust be held, not an expenditure.€50,000

Summary

One-off costs
€66,900
Annual (year 1)
€0
Total year 1
€66,900

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. Romania — From 6 months.

Total timelineFrom 6 months

  1. Pre-assessment and scope review

    1–3 weeks

    Define the activity scope, governance model and target markets before formal preparation.

  2. Company setup in Romania

    2–6 weeks

    Establish legal entity, appoint local staff and set up local operating structure.

  3. Documentation and compliance packBottleneck risk

    3–8 weeks

    Prepare AML/CFT policies, governance documents, controls framework and application materials.

  4. Application submission to Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority

    1–2 weeks

    Submit complete application with all required documentation.

  5. Regulator reviewBottleneck risk

    From 6 months

    Regulator reviews the application. May request clarifications. Incomplete files extend this phase.

    Depends on: File quality and completeness

  6. Authorisation or registration confirmation

    1–4 weeks

    Regulator 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.

High setup complexity
High

Setup complexity is rated high for Romania. Company setup, governance and documentation take longer than average.

Likely impactAdd 4–8 weeks to the preparation phase.
MitigationStart company setup and governance planning immediately after scope confirmation.
Banking difficulty
High

Banking difficulty is rated high. Opening accounts for crypto businesses in Romania requires extensive documentation.

Likely impactBanking can delay or block operations for 3–6 months after authorisation.
MitigationIdentify and pre-qualify banking partners before submitting the application.
High maintenance cost
Medium

Ongoing supervision, audit and compliance costs are above average. Budget for these separately from the application fee.

Likely impactRecurring annual cost significantly above the one-time service price.
MitigationModel annual compliance costs before committing to this route.
Application completeness
Medium

Incomplete files are the most common cause of delay. Regulator queries extend review by weeks or months.

Likely impactEach regulator query adds 2–6 weeks to the review phase.
MitigationUse a structured compliance pack. Review file completeness before submission.

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 in Romania

Romania has a high regulatory reputation in the CSV profile, but banking difficulty remains medium to high and PSP availability is medium. Banking preparation should run in parallel with the CASP file.

Banking difficulty
High

Reflects how challenging it is to open and maintain business bank accounts in this jurisdiction.

Medium PSP availability
Medium

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, source-of-funds, flow-of-funds, token policy and client geography evidence.
  • Explain fiat rails, safeguarding and transaction monitoring before bank or PSP outreach.
  • Do not assume ASF authorisation will automatically solve account opening or payment provider onboarding.

Business model fit — Romania

Assess how well this route covers your planned activities.

Fit score

Good fit
0/6
Partial fit
6/6
Poor fit
0/6

Romania may not cover your primary activities

Consider an alternative route that better matches your activity profile.

ASF application profile

Regulatory authority · Romania

Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF)

ASF-supervised CASP authorisation should be approached as a regulated financial services application. Romania may be commercially attractive for CEE/EU positioning, but weak substance, generic policies or unclear service scope can still block the file.

Likely areas of scrutiny
  • The regulator-facing file needs clear activities, management accountability, local substance, risk controls and client asset handling.
  • AML, sanctions, travel rule, transaction monitoring, outsourcing and cybersecurity evidence should match the product and client geography.
  • Current ASF guidance and Romanian implementation details should be checked before relying on timelines or fees.
Regulatory reputation
High

Strong international recognition and established supervision track record.

Setup complexity
High

Reflects documentation depth, governance requirements and expected review friction.

Regulatory risk
Medium

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.

  • Required
    AML/CFT policy and risk assessmentDocument your customer risk model and control framework.
  • Required
    Customer due diligence (CDD) procedures
  • Required
    Enhanced due diligence (EDD) proceduresFor high-risk clients and jurisdictions.
  • Required
    Transaction monitoring system and rules
  • Required
    Sanctions screening procedures
  • Required
    Suspicious activity reporting (SAR) process
  • Required
    MLRO / Compliance officer appointmentLocal accountability may be required.
  • Recommended
    Board-approved governance charter
  • Conditional
    Outsourcing policy and monitoringRequired if functions are outsourced.
  • Recommended
    ICT / cybersecurity policy
  • Required
    Complaints handling procedure
  • Required
    Annual 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.

0 / 12 required
Required
Recommended
Depends on scope

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 Romania route.

Banking difficulty
High

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.

Setup complexity
High

Route risk rating — setup complexity: High.

Maintenance cost
High

Route risk rating — maintenance cost: High. Budget for ongoing compliance, fees and supervision separately.

Regulatory reputation
High

Route risk rating — regulatory reputation: High.

Regulatory risk
Medium

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.

Romania CASP vs alternatives

Compare Romania with Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland for CEE/EU CASP positioning, and with Malta when an established MFSA crypto-asset regulator profile is commercially more important than the lower fee profile shown in the CSV.

Current

Romania

CASP

Price
16 900 EUR
Timeline
From 6 months
Passporting
EU/EEA
Banking
Medium to high
Reputation
High

Bulgaria (CASP)

CASP

Price
19 600 EUR
Timeline
From 6 months
Passporting
EU/EEA
Banking
Medium to high
Reputation
High

+ CEE/EU CASP route with similar MiCA passporting objective

− Route selection should compare regulator fit, local substance and banking plan

View route

Hungary (CASP)

CASP

Price
17 200 EUR
Timeline
From 6 months
Passporting
EU/EEA
Banking
Medium to high
Reputation
High

+ Central European MiCA route for teams comparing CEE operating bases

− Not a lighter alternative if the same MiCA governance and AML burden applies

View route

Poland (CASP)

CASP

Price
16 900 EUR
Timeline
From 6 months
Passporting
EU/EEA
Banking
Medium to high
Reputation
High

+ Large EU market positioning with comparable service price

− May involve a different regulator interface and local execution profile

View route

Malta (CASP)

CASP

Price
20 700 EUR
Timeline
From 6 months
Passporting
EU/EEA
Banking
Medium to high
Reputation
High

+ Established MFSA crypto-asset regulator profile under MiCA

− Higher quoted service and authority fee profile in the current CSV snapshot

View route

Fees, timelines and capital figures are indicative and may vary by business model, regulator feedback, application scope and third-party costs.

Romania vs other CASP routes

Compare key parameters across CASP authorisation routes.

Sort by:
RomaniaCurrent
Price16 900 EUR
TimelineFrom 6 months
BankingMedium to high
ReputationHigh
Bulgaria
Price19 600 EUR
TimelineFrom 6 months
BankingMedium to high
ReputationHigh
Hungary
Price17 200 EUR
TimelineFrom 6 months
BankingMedium to high
ReputationHigh
Poland
Price16 900 EUR
TimelineFrom 6 months
BankingMedium to high
ReputationHigh
Malta
Price20 700 EUR
TimelineFrom 6 months
BankingMedium to high
ReputationHigh

Check your readiness for Romania CASP authorisation

Documented AML/CFT policies, risk assessment, compliance officer.

Share capital

From 50 000 EUR minimum capital required.

AML/CFT framework

Documented AML/CFT policies, risk assessment, compliance officer.

Governance structure

Board, management, accountability chain defined.

Banking preparation

Banking strategy and identified partners.

Local substance plan

Local staff and office in Romania.

Readiness status

Answer the criteria on the left to see your readiness status.

Frequently asked questions

Romania 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 access for every service or future activity.

Usually no. The quoted service and authority fees may look practical compared with some EU routes, but the business still needs MiCA-level substance, governance, AML, audit, capital and banking readiness.

Check ASF procedures, service scope, share capital, local staff, office, audit, governance, AML controls, outsourcing, banking and the exact EU/EEA passporting plan before committing to the route.

All are EU/CEE CASP routes in this comparison set. Romania is attractive for practical CEE/EU positioning and a clear cost profile, while the final choice should depend on regulator fit, local substance, banking and target-market strategy.

Compare Malta when an established MFSA crypto-asset regulator profile, Malta substance or Malta-facing market positioning matters more than Romania's practical CEE cost profile.

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 Kärvinen

    Enrico

  • Rein Tammik

    Rein

  • Jurata Žukaitė

    Jurata

  • Andrej Kazlauskas

    Andrej

  • Marta Värna

    Marta

  • Katrin Lepik

    Katrin

  • Inga Stankavičiūtė

    Inga

Request a Romania CASP assessment

Share your planned activities, target markets and timeline. We will review which crypto licensing route is likely to fit.

Leave open if you want a country comparison.
Select every activity you plan to offer. The licence route may change if you include custody, exchange, trading platform or fiat flows.
Include service fees, regulator fees, share capital, local office or staff, audit and ongoing compliance.

By submitting this form, you agree to be contacted about your crypto licensing request. Do not include passwords, private keys or confidential customer data.