ESMA Seeks Powers Over Crypto Scam Sites

The European Securities and Markets Authority wants sharper tools against crypto fraud and against firms that reach European Union investors without permission. ESMA MiCA scam site freeze powers is the part of that request covering websites and asset freezes. On 30 September 2026 ESMA answered the European Commission's consultation on reviewing MiCA. The document is ESMA's own review paper. It is not a case against a named exchange, and this article will not turn it into one.

What happened

MiCA is the European Union's framework for crypto assets. A consultation on reviewing it asks how the law should change. It is not itself a new statute and not a court judgment. ESMA's answer is dated 30 September 2026. The powers in the shared accounts are the ones below. A dispute with a particular trading venue is not part of this story.

ESMA wants powers to detect, block, and take down websites used for crypto scams or for unauthorized firms. Detection finds the site. Blocking stops people reaching it. Taking it down removes it. A scam site and an unauthorized firm are not the same object. One is fraud. The other is a firm operating without the authorization MiCA requires. ESMA is asking to move against both. Asking is not the same as holding the power today.

ESMA also wants to make firms freeze crypto assets suspected of crime, including terrorist financing. A freeze here is a hold so assets cannot move while suspicion of crime is dealt with. Terrorist financing is named, so the category is not limited to theft or ordinary fraud. The request would put the freeze duty on firms. It is not, in these accounts, a power already used against a named company. It is a power the review is being asked to provide.

The paper also seeks stronger tools against non-EU firms that solicit EU investors without MiCA authorization. The conduct is solicitation into the Union by an outside firm that lacks the authorization. "Stronger tools" is as specific as the shared facts get. They do not name the penalty or the firm. This article will not add a name the paper is not built on.

Two further requests sit beside those powers. ESMA wants tighter rules on third-party crypto marketing, and fuller disclosure of costs. Third-party marketing is promotion by someone other than the firm whose product is sold. Fuller cost disclosure would show more of what a customer pays. Neither point, as stated, includes a fee table or a finding that a named charge is unlawful. Cost disclosure is a transparency ask. It is not a price control.

Taken together, the shared contents are a website power, a freeze power that includes terrorist financing, a cross-border solicitation power, a marketing rule, and a cost-disclosure rule. They sit inside a review answer. The Commission consulted. ESMA replied. Publication of the reply does not amend MiCA.

Why it matters

A crypto scam often meets the victim in a browser before it meets them in a wallet. A regulator that can supervise authorized firms, but cannot detect, block, or take down the site, is watching the permissioned market while the other storefront stays up. ESMA is asking for those storefront tools, aimed at scam sites and at sites of unauthorized firms. An unauthorized site is not automatically a scam, and a scam is not cured by a later application. The request covers both because both reach people outside the authorized perimeter.

The freeze request answers a different gap. Once assets move, a public warning does not bring them back. ESMA wants firms to freeze crypto when crime is suspected, and it names terrorist financing so the suspicion is not read as a commercial dispute. A freeze on suspicion is a serious power, and in this paper it is still a requested one. Firms do not pick up a new Union-wide duty merely because the watchdog asked. Nor does the paper identify a firm that failed to freeze. It is a review paper, not a charge sheet.

Non-EU solicitation is the third gap. Authorization is a Union permission. A firm outside the Union that still solicits EU investors without it is using the market while skipping the permission. ESMA wants stronger tools against that pattern. Investors are in the sentence because they are the people being solicited. Nothing here recommends an asset.

Marketing and costs are the consumer-facing half. Third-party promoters may not carry the issuer's duties. Tighter rules would attach the promotion more firmly to those duties. Fuller disclosure would show the price of the service more completely. Neither request sets a fee cap or bans a category of advertisement by name. The clause text would have to come later, in a legislative draft. A consultation answer is not that draft.

What's next

If the review becomes a proposal to change MiCA, the next step belongs to the Commission and then to the legislature. ESMA cannot give itself detection, blocking, takedown, or freeze powers by publishing a paper. Until a legal act confers them, they remain requests. The same is true of stronger tools against unauthorized non-EU solicitation, tighter third-party marketing rules, and fuller cost disclosure.

This piece stops at that list. The live points are the five asks, the 30 September 2026 date, and the character of the document: a review answer, not a case against a named exchange. For related MiCA context, see stablecoin reserves and reverse solicitation.

ESMA's announcement is here. A second account is here.