The ESMA non-compliant register, explained.

What this register is.

MiCA requires ESMA to maintain a central register. Articles 109 and 110 cover crypto-asset white papers, authorised crypto-asset service providers, and non-compliant entities. ESMA publishes it as an interim register: five CSV files, republished weekly, pending integration into ESMA’s IT systems. The fifth file is the one this page tracks. ESMA labels it, verbatim:

Two things follow from that, and they matter for how you read any row. First, the entries are the national authority’s, not ESMA’s — ESMA is the publisher, and the substantive decision sits with the competent authority named in the row. Second, the file lags: a decision taken by an authority appears only in the next weekly republication, so the register is a trailing record, not a live one.

The machine-readable version of everything on this page is published at /data/esma-non-compliant.json, with the source URL and as_of date on every figure.

What the register records, field by field.

ESMA publishes a field description alongside the register. Reading a row correctly depends on it — particularly the infringement field, which is routinely misread.

Field	ESMA’s own description	How to read it
Competent Authority	“Full name of the Competent Authority that declared the non compliant entity.”	The national authority that made the decision. ESMA publishes; the authority decides.
Non compliancy reason	“Non compliancy reason.” Free text.	Often empty. Where an authority supplies wording, this page reproduces it verbatim rather than paraphrasing.
Decision date	“Decision date, decided by the authority, of crypto-asset services in violation of Article 59 or 61.”	When the authority decided — not when ESMA published it. The two differ by days to weeks.
Case of infringement identified by ESMA	“Case of infringement identified by ESMA in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.” Yes / No.	Recorded as “No” for all 164 entries. This records that ESMA has not opened an Article 17 breach-of-Union-law case — it does not mean no national action was taken, and it does not qualify the authority’s own listing.
Last update	“Last update of the record.”	When the row itself last changed. Useful for spotting amendments.

The register at a glance.

Aggregated from ESMA’s published file. These counts describe the register as a whole and are not a determination about any individual firm.

Listing authority	Member state	Entries
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB)	Italy	162
Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)	Netherlands	1
National Bank of Slovakia (NBS)	Slovakia	1
Total		164

By decision year: 102 entries carry a 2025 decision date, 62 a 2026 one. The concentration in a single member state is a fact about enforcement publication practice, not about where non-compliance occurs — CONSOB routinely publishes website-blocking orders, and those flow into this file. Read the register as a partial picture of national action, not a complete map of the market.

Named entries.

NorthPoint reproduces individually only the entries it can verify field-by-field against ESMA’s own file: the two listed by an authority other than CONSOB, and the two most recent additions. The remaining 160 entries are CONSOB listings, carried in the aggregate counts above and not reproduced here. The register itself is the complete and authoritative list — this table is a reading aid, not a substitute. Without JavaScript the table below still renders in full — the controls are an enhancement, not a requirement.

Entity as listed	Listed by	Decision date	Authority’s wording	Source
MEXC Global Commercial name: MEXC	Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) NL	16 Sep 2025 Record updated 25 Sep 2025	“MEXC Global provides crypto-asset services in the Netherlands without the required MiCAR license. MEXC is in breach of section 59 MiCAR.” Verbatim, ESMA field ae_reason	ESMA register → AFM warning →
Reversal Investment Group	Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) IT	8 Jul 2026 Record updated 13 Jul 2026	No reason text published in ESMA’s file for this entry (field recorded as “None”). Not paraphrased — the field is empty	ESMA register →
Kortex	Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) IT	8 Jul 2026 Record updated 13 Jul 2026	No reason text published in ESMA’s file for this entry (field recorded as “None”). Not paraphrased — the field is empty	ESMA register →
LWEX	National Bank of Slovakia (NBS) SK	10 Feb 2025 Record updated 30 May 2025	No reason text published in ESMA’s file for this entry (field recorded as “None”). Not paraphrased — the field is empty	ESMA register →

What being on this list means — and what it does not.

ESMA set out its expectations in its Statement on the End of Transitional Periods under MiCA (ESMA75-113276571-1679), dated 17 April 2026. That statement, quoted below, is the clearest available answer to what a listing implies operationally.

What it means, in practice.

It does mean	Grounded in
Stop onboarding EU clients. An entity without a MiCA licence cannot take on new EU clients after 1 July 2026.	ESMA: any entity serving EU clients without a licence “must cease offering such services.”
Stop opening accounts and implement the wind-down plan. The plan was to be operational by 1 July 2026, not drafted after it.	ESMA: “any unauthorised CASP must have implemented its wind-down plan.”
Cease marketing and solicitation into the EEA. Soliciting EU clients is expressly covered, and reverse solicitation is a narrow exception, not a workaround.	ESMA: non-EU entities are “not permitted … to solicit EU clients.”
Offboard clients without undue harm. Transfer assets to an authorised CASP or a self-hosted wallet, with prior notice.	ESMA: wind-down plans “enable an orderly exit without causing undue economic harm to clients.”

What it does not mean.

It does not mean	Why
A finding of fraud, criminality, or dishonesty.	The register records a decision about authorisation under MiCA Articles 59 and 61. It is not a criminal or civil finding, and nothing on this page alleges one.
That ESMA itself investigated the entity.	The listing is the national authority’s. ESMA’s own Article 17 infringement field is recorded as “No” for all 164 entries.
That the position is current.	The file is republished weekly and lags the underlying decisions. Entries are added, amended, and removed — check the live register.
That the list is exhaustive.	162 of 164 entries come from a single authority. Absence from the register is not evidence that an entity is authorised — for that, check the authorised-CASP register instead.
Anything about an entity’s status outside the EU.	MiCA governs the provision of crypto-asset services to EU clients. A listing says nothing about other jurisdictions.

If you are a user.

ESMA’s consumer guidance in the same statement is direct, and worth quoting rather than paraphrasing:

If you market a crypto service into the EU.

The register is the downstream consequence of the authorisation gate — and marketing is usually the most visible surface an authority looks at. Under Article 88, every customer-facing message must be clear, fair, and not misleading, and claims about your own authorisation are exactly the statements that have to be accurate. If you are outside the EU and relying on being “outside,” the reverse-solicitation test is narrower than most teams assume.

If you are…	The immediate move	Start here
Checking whether you may be marketing into the EEA at all Non-EEA entity, EU visitors landing on your surfaces.	Run the targeting test on your live banners, pages, and posts before relying on being “outside.”	Free non-EEA targeting check →
Unsure whether a live asset still passes A banner, landing page, or availability claim running into the EU.	Paste the copy or URL and get a verdict against the MiCA marketing rules in seconds.	Free MiCA check →
Facing a licence change or a whole asset-set review A migration, a wind-down, or a high-stakes launch.	A signed, whole-asset-set review across your EU markets against MiCA, FCA, and GDPR in five business days.	Launch Audit →

Related rules.

• MiCA exchange availability tracker — authorised, restricted & withdrawn CASPs →

  The other half of the picture: who is authorised. Absence from the non-compliant register is not evidence of authorisation — check the authorised side here.

• What ESMA expects an unauthorised CASP to do now →

  The wind-down statement in plain language: what “orderly” means for your marketing surface, and the two paths still open.

• Reverse solicitation — can you still serve EU clients without a licence? →

  Why the “own exclusive initiative” exemption cannot be relied on systematically, and what counts as marketing into the EEA.

• What happens to unlicensed crypto firms after 1 July 2026? →

  The obligations that follow when authorisation was not obtained — the context in which a register listing arises.

• MiCA is now in force (1 July 2026) — what changed and what to do now →

  What the end of the transitional period changed, and what it means if a provider is not authorised.

• The full MiCA library →

  Every MiCA marketing rule NorthPoint tracks, quoted and explained.