The European Securities and Markets Authority, working alongside national regulators in France, Germany and Greece, is examining whether Binance Holdings Ltd. continued offering crypto-asset services to European Union customers without authorization under the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework (MiCA), according to a Financial Times report dated October 1, 2026.

The inquiry targets the legal foundation of Binance's European operations. Regulators are testing whether the exchange can keep relying on Article 61 of MiCA, the so-called reverse-solicitation exemption, which permits non-EU firms to serve clients who approach them on their own initiative.

What does the reverse-solicitation exemption cover?

MiCA took effect as the EU's harmonized licensing regime for crypto-asset service providers. Firms that want to serve customers across the bloc must hold authorization in a member state.

Article 61 carves out a narrow exception. It allows firms based outside the EU to onboard EU clients who seek the provider out independently, without the firm having marketed to them.

ESMA has indicated that reverse solicitation should be understood only in a narrow sense, signaling that compliance with Article 61 is not automatic and that the carve-out cannot anchor a continent-wide retail business.

How did Binance arrive at this point?

Binance withdrew its MiCA license application in Greece on June 24, 2026, one week before a July 1, 2026 deadline by which unlicensed firms were required to begin winding down their EU operations.

The withdrawal followed reported concerns about the strength of Binance's anti-money laundering controls and the suitability of its leadership, the FT said. After withdrawing, the exchange restricted new client onboarding and limited certain services across several EU member states while signaling it would pursue licensing elsewhere.

Binance has stated publicly that it complies with the rules and is working toward obtaining MiCA authorization. The exchange has not, however, identified a member state for a new application.

How does this connect to the 2023 US penalty?

The European scrutiny mirrors the 2023 US enforcement action against the exchange. In that matter, Binance pleaded guilty to federal charges and agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion in penalties tied to anti-money laundering failures, sanctions violations and unlicensed money-transmitting activity.

Concerns about Binance's AML controls in Europe echo the deficiencies that drove the US settlement, raising questions about whether the group's compliance remediation has been deployed consistently across operating jurisdictions, or concentrated in the US perimeter negotiated with the Department of Justice and Treasury.

What consequences could follow?

If regulators conclude that Binance's use of the reverse-solicitation exemption was improper, the exchange may face substantial fines and operational restrictions across the EU. A finding against Binance could also shape enforcement against other unlicensed platforms serving European customers, including offshore derivatives venues and stablecoin issuers using similar onboarding language.

The case carries compliance costs beyond Binance. Crypto exchanges serving the EU may need to reassess whether their own reliance on the reverse-solicitation exemption can survive ESMA's narrower reading, particularly where marketing, affiliate programs or localized user interfaces point EU residents toward the platform.

What happens next?

Three developments will determine the outcome. First, whether ESMA formalizes its narrow reading of reverse solicitation in binding guidance that applies across all member states. Second, whether France, Germany or Greece escalates from informal questions to formal enforcement action, including possible administrative fines or service-cessation orders. Third, whether Binance files a new MiCA application, and in which member state it does so.

The binding milestone has already passed: the July 1, 2026 MiCA compliance deadline for unlicensed firms. What remains open is the enforcement window ESMA and the national authorities choose to open from here, and the precedent any settlement sets for the next non-EU venue weighing the cost of an EU license against the risk of a reverse-solicitation defense.