In March 2026 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a Final Notice in which it prohibited Kasim Garipoglu from working in financial services in the UK, on the basis that he was not fit and proper due to a lack of honesty and integrity and also because the FCA considered that he posed a risk to consumers and to the integrity of the UK financial system. The FCA found that Mr Garipoglu repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for regulatory requirements and positively encouraged serious misconduct amongst his colleagues. For the key takeaways from this case, as well as the key findings, please see our latest Notice in a Nutshell briefing here. All of our publications in this series can also be found here.

The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, meaning organisations will be criminally liable where a senior manager commits any criminal offence in the UK while acting within their actual or apparent authority. This replaces and broadens the changes made by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (which applied senior manager liability to specific economic crime offences).Four key implications businesses should consider as this legislation advances: Companies will be much more likely to face prosecution (or at least investigation) in the event of suspected criminality. Need to conduct risk assessments and ensure compliance programmes are effective. Need to map and train senior management. Companies should expect much greater scrutiny of compliance programmes and internal investigations from financing parties, auditors and acquirers. For more information see our article here.Please let us know if you would like to discuss this very significant development.

On 30 April 2026, the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (made on 29 April 2026) were published on legislation.gov.uk with an explanatory memorandum.This instrument restates in legislation certain definitions, such as CRR firm, investment firm and financial institution that are currently defined in the UK Capital Requirements Regulation (UK CRR) and need to be maintained in legislation to ensure that the overall framework and wider legislation for banking prudential regulation continues to operate as intended after the revocation of the UK CRR comes into force on 1 January 2027. The legislation is also intended to improve the clarity of certain definitions and makes them consistent with the approach adopted in UK law, but it is not intended to change the substance of the definitions or alter the wider regulatory framework.

On 30 April 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that, from 11 May 2026, cryptoasset firms preparing for the new regulatory regime will be able to request a pre-application meeting with the FCA through its Pre-Application Support Service (PASS). The FCA also published a new webpage setting out what firms need to do when preparing for the new cryptoasset regulatory regime.Pre-application meetingsThe FCA explains that pre-application meetings through PASS are free of charge and give firms the opportunity to discuss their plans with the FCA and ask questions before applying for authorisation or variation of existing permissions. The FCA also sets out that pre-application meetings will take place from July 2026 but that it will schedule them as requests come in. It also reminds firms that the authorisation gateway will open on 30 September 2026 and the new regime will commence on 25 October 2027.Preparing for the new regimeThe FCA’s new webpage sets out what it considers cryptoasset firms need to do to prepare for the new regime, including: What the FCA expects firms to be doing now: The FCA encourages firms to develop a clear and credible plan that shows they have considered what the new regime will require of them, and how they will be ready. In particular, it highlights that firms that intend to apply for authorisation should: (i) review the new cryptoasset regulated activities and determine what type of authorisation is required, (ii) review proposed scope of permissions and ensure this aligns with their business model and risk profile, (iii) carry out a gap analysis against the expected Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) requirements, identifying where existing arrangements need to be strengthened, (iv) develop a realistic implementation plan, agreed at board level, (v) assess the resources and costs associated with preparation, authorisation and ongoing compliance, and (vi) where appropriate, invest in legal, compliance or regulatory advice to support preparations. Apply as soon as possible: The FCA also encourages firms to apply as soon as possible within the application period and to read the FCA’s information on how the application process works. In particular, the FCA highlights that firms that apply outside of the application period or submit poor quality applications may face: (i) having their application rejected if it does not contain the minimum information asked for, (ii) delays in the assessment of their application, (iii) refusal of authorisation, and (iv) for existing cryptoasset firms, the inability to continue carrying on cryptoasset activities when the new regime comes into force.  Becoming authorised: The FCA makes clear that, for MLR-registered firms, their current systems and controls will help demonstrate compliance with FSMA, but firms should also begin assessing what will need to change to meet the expectations, including in areas such as market conduct, customer treatment, and senior leadership. In relation to FSMA-authorised firms, these firms should consider how the new cryptoasset activities and requirements affect their current permissions, business model, governance and systems and controls.

On 30 April 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published Policy Statement 26/7: Progressing Fund Tokenisation (PS26/7).BackgroundThe FCA committed to progressing a roadmap for digital assets starting in asset management in its January 2025 letter to the Prime Minister, and its Strategy 2025-2030.As a result, in Consultation Paper 25/28, the FCA proposed new guidance intended to support firms seeking to launch tokenised authorised funds in the UK using the industry‑led ‘Blueprint’ model and the FCA also proposed rules to introduce a new direct dealing model for all authorised funds to promote fund efficiency and aid tokenisation models.PS26/7 summarises the feedback the FCA received on the tokenisation guidance and on the direct dealing proposals, its response to this feedback, and its final guidance and rules. The FCA also asked a series of discussion questions on near and long-term roadmaps for fund tokenisation in the UK to help inform its future work, as a result the FCA also share feedback on these discussion questions and set out how it will be taking forward the main themes raise by respondents.Summary Guidance on how managers can meet existing regulatory requirements when operating tokenised funds: The FCA set out that respondents almost all agreed with its proposed Handbook guidance on the operation of tokenised authorised funds, and that this would help firms meet the outcomes in the FCA’s rules. However, the FCA also highlighted that where firms gave feedback on additional areas that it would be useful to address in the guidance it had updated certain sections to reflect this, in particular to: confirm that an on‑chain record of transactions may be considered the primary books and records for unit deals and that a firm doesn’t need to maintain a full ‘mirror’ off‑chain record of this information if it has appropriate resiliency plans in place, and set out additional guidance on its rules on share classes, where units within a class are recorded on multiple blockchains, provided that the underlying rights of holders, and the nature of charges and expenses that may be taken from scheme property, remain the same. Introduction of a direct dealing model: The FCA also set out that respondents supported the introduction of a new direct dealing model, direct to fund, noting the operational efficiency gains and the effect of enhancing the UK’s competitiveness and that the new single-stage process would facilitate tokenisation, by removing the requirement for units to be issued to the fund manager before being transferred to unitholders. However, the FCA also highlighted that it had received significant feedback on two elements of its proposals, in particular the FCA had proposed: that all cash movements should be attributed to a given sub-fund, with unattributable payments either returned or moved to a client money account. Responses to the consultation argued that the costs of maintaining a standby client money account would be excessive. The FCA has therefore decided not to proceed with the client money account proposal and, instead, it sets out that it will apply enhanced rules on the reconciliation of umbrella cash accounts, and not to allow overdrafts on omnibus accounts, or for sums received ahead of settlement date on one sub-fund to cover unpaid sums on another. The FCA explained that it had considered this necessary to ensure compliance with the protected cell legislation. However, in light of feedback, the FCA explained that it is considering this further with industry and are working with HM Treasury to clarify the application of the protected cell legislation in respect of omnibus accounts. It also emphasised that, while this clarificatory work is ongoing, firms wishing to utilise omnibus accounts to support direct dealing schemes will need to individually assess any proposed operating model to ensure compliance. Feedback on discussion chapters on the future of tokenisation: The FCA explains that it had asked firms how it can support future use-cases for fund tokenisation, as well as where its rules may require further development. The FCA sets out a range of feedback from respondents to these discussion questions and, in relation to next steps, suggests that firms exploring tokenised portfolio management and composable finance take advantage of the FCA’s open-door policy, in particular that it wants to hear what initiatives firms currently have, and how composable finance may fit into firms’ existing roadmaps. The FCA also reminds firms of its Innovation Services, which support firms looking to explore use-cases. Finally, the FCA highlights that its digital assets roadmap includes work on a vision for how UK wholesale capital markets might adopt distributed ledger technology, including its thinking on regulatory principles and red lines, and that composability is a potential component of this work, but that it intends to seek views from firms on this later in 2026. Next stepsThe relevant guidance in relation to fund tokenisation and rules in relation to the direct dealing model come into force on the date of publication of PS26/7, 30 April 2026.

On 30 April 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a public statement on transitional provisions under the Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) review.The public statement sets out a BMR review timeline and then a table which includes information in relation to the applications for recognition and endorsement by third country benchmark administrators for which, as of the date of publication, the decision by ESMA is still pending. ESMA then sets out a further table that includes the list of administrators that are still included in the BMR register but, based on current information on the use of their benchmarks, are outside the scope of the BMR and will be removed from the register as of 1 October 2026, except if (1) any of their benchmarks will fall within the scope of the BMR in the meantime or, (2) the EU administrator requests to opt-in one or more benchmarks that it provides and fulfil the relevant conditions.

On 30 April 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) announced the launch of its sixth stress test exercise for central counterparties (CCPs). The CCP stress test framework drafted by ESMA for the purpose of this exercise is supported by an adverse market scenario provided by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). The exercise covers 16 CCPs including all authorised EU CCPs as well as two UK-based Tier 2 CCPs. The main innovation in this latest stress test is the introduction of the recovery and resolution component that aims at assessing how CCPs would deploy recovery tools in response to extreme loss scenarios and what would be the impact for various stakeholders.TimingThe design phase of the stress test exercise will be completed in April 2026 when the ESMA Board of Supervisors (BoS) approves the stress test framework.The next steps will be the: Launch of the data request. Validation of the data provided by CCPs. Calibration of the common sensitivity tables. The computation of the results. The finalisation of the report. The individual results will be reconciled with CCPs before finalising the analysis and discussed with Member State competent authorities before sending for discussion at the CCP SupervisoryCommittee and approval at the BoS.According to the projected plan, the exercise will be finalised in Q1 of 2027.

On 30 April 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a Call for Evidence on the market structure of European equity markets.ESMA’s paper has been published to provide stakeholders with an objective description of the European stock market trading landscape, based on Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation transaction data available since 2022. The publication seeks feedback from stakeholders on the identified trends and on the need to address developments identified via legislative or regulatory measures.Specifically, the paper: Describes the evolution of addressable and non-addressable liquidity as well as of on-book vs. off-book trading over the years 2022-2025. ESMA highlights that lit continuous trading has decreased over the period, with such decrease being counterbalanced by the increase of other forms of trading such as closing auctions, frequent batch auctions and systematic internaliser (SI) trading. ESMA also provides an analysis of the distribution of liquidity into different forms of trading on a per country basis. Provides a deep dive into some selected developments, which include a focus on dark trading, periodic auctions and SIs. Discusses the treatment of topics on a qualitative basis, namely, benchmark transactions and member preferencing. Focuses on the concept of addressable liquidity and next steps. More specifically, it analyses this concept under the framework of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/587 with the goal to assess if modifications to the post-trade transparency flagging system are necessary to better delineate this concept. The deadline for comments is 30 June 2026.ESMA expects to publish a feedback statement in Q3 2026.

On 17 April 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a statement to clarify supervisory expectations regarding the end of the transitional period(s) under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).The MiCA transitional period will officially expire across the EU on 1 July 2026. After this date, any entity providing crypto-asset services to EU clients without a MiCA licence will be in breach of EU law and must cease offering such services.In its statement ESMA sets out its expectations for crypto-asset service providers on wind-down and client migration. It also sets out its expectations for Member State competent authorities and provides certain warnings to consumers.

On 29 April 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a Final Report on guidelines on supervisory independence under the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) IV.BackgroundDirective (EU) 2024/1619 (CRD VI) amends the CRD IV as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks. It extends its scope to cover supervisory independence of competent authorities by introducing a new Article 4a in the CRD IV on this subject matter.The guidelines have been updated to reflect the feedback received during an earlier consultation including requirements to put in place appropriate internal channels for reporting breaches of conflicts ofinterest rules, or on how the CRD IV applies to periods on a governance body for appointments pre-11 January 2026.Next stepsThe guidelines will apply from 2 months after their publication in all official languages on the EBA’s website.

On 17 April 2026, the Bank of England (BoE) published proposals for its supervisory fees for financial market infrastructure (FMI) for 2026/27.The proposals include: Fee rates to meet the BoE’s 2026/27 funding requirement for its FMI supervisory activity and the policy activity that supports this: The BoE’s proposed fees represent a reduction of 3.2% for UK central counterparties (CCPs) and an increase of 7.7% for UK central securities depositories (CSDs) compared to 2025/26, which reflects activity to scope the work on the repeal and replacement of inherited EU legislation governing CSDs (CSDR) on which the BoE intends to work with the Financial Conduct Authority and HM Treasury to provide a full roadmap later this year. An extension to the phased recovery period for UK CCP rulebook costs: The BoE proposes to keep the 2026/27 cost recovery instalment at £1,500,000 and recover any excess over the original forecast in the 2027/28 fee year, and the BoE will levy fees in line with the principles set out in the November 2022 fees regime policy statements for non-UK CCPs and non-UK CSDs. Next stepsThe consultation closes on 18 May 2026.

On 16 April 2026, the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) issued two consultations on draft instruments that establish how obliged entities should identify, assess, and manage money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The first consultation concerns draft guidelines under Article 10(4) of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (Regulation 2024/1624) (AMLR) which set out minimum expectations for all obliged entities, across the financial and non‑financial sectors, while allowing for proportionality based on the entity’s size, business model and risk profile. They support entities in making informed, risk-based decisions on how to manage their specific risk exposure.  The second consultation concerns draft regulatory technical standards under Articles 16(4) and 17(3) of the AMLR which contain the minimum standards for group-wide anti-money laundering frameworks, including in cross-border situations and when obliged entities operate in third countries.Next stepsThere will be online public hearings to give stakeholders the opportunity to engage directly on the draft instruments: Draft RTS on group-wide requirements: 20 May 2026, 10:00–12:00 CET Draft Guidelines on business-wide risk assessment: 28 May 2026, 10:00–12:00 CET  The deadline comments of the consultations are: Draft RTS on group-wide requirements: 15 June 2026 Draft Guidelines on business-wide risk assessment: 15 July 2026

On 17 April 2026, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published proposals for its fees for 2026/27.SummaryThe PRA’s proposals include: The fees rates to meet the PRA’s 2026/27 Annual Funding Requirement (AFR): The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) provides a facility on its website to enable firms to calculate their periodic fees for the forthcoming year based on the proposed PRA consultative rates. An increase to the cost allocation to fund the PRA’s activities in the Future Banking Data (FBD) programme: The FBD cost has increased by £3.6million from 2025/26, reflecting the launch and subsequent development of the firm facing portal to include enhancements and additional authorisation applications, investigating the feasibility of a solution for UK mortgage data collection, and the identification of further proposed deletions and prioritisation of wider reforms to reduce firm reporting burden. No changes are proposed to the population of firms subject to this fee for the 2026/27 financial year. Changes to internal model application fees, the model maintenance fee, the Special Project Fee for restructuring and the new firm authorisation fee for Type 1 (friendly societies and credit unions) and 3 applications (banks, building societies and insurance firms): The PRA is proposing to increase the internal model application fees in line with CPI inflation in the year to December 2025 and rounded to the nearest £2,500; the PRA also proposes to increase the model maintenance fee and special project fee in line with CPI inflation; for 2026/27 the PRA proposes to lower the fee charged to Type 1 applications from prospective friendly societies and credit unions to £0. Introducing a new internal model application and model maintenance fee for Securities Financing Transactions Value-at-Risk (SFT VaR): The PRA is proposing to introduce a new internal model application fee and model maintenance fee for SFT VaR to also come into effect from the Basel 3.1 implementation date of 1 January 2027, both fees are scaled initially at half that of the Internal Model Method fees to reflect the lower complexity in the PRA’s processing of these applications. Setting out how the PRA intends to allocate the surplus from the 2025/26 AFR: In the PRA’s 2025/26 fee year, there was a surplus of £2.0 million. This is an estimate subject to auditing and therefore subject to change, with the final figure to be confirmed when the final policy is published. The PRA proposes to refund the difference between fees collected and actual spend in relation to the 2025/26 financial year. The amount of the FBD cost allocation to be refunded to fee payers is estimated to be £0.5 million. This is a draft, unaudited figure and therefore subject to change, with the final figure to be confirmed when the final policy is published. The retained penalties for 2025/26: In 2025/26, enforcement activity by the PRA resulted in fines and penalties of £1.9 million, of which £1.5 million is included into the calculation of the £2.0 million retained surplus from 2025/26. The remainder is remitted to HMT.

On 17 April 2026, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published its 2026/27 Business Plan, which sets out the workplan for each of its strategic priorities and its strategy to advance its objectives. SummaryThe PRA set out initiatives it will undertake in support of its strategic priorities this year, in particular: Maintain the safety and soundness of the banking and insurance sectors and ensure continuing resilience: The PRA set out that, since 2013, it has delivered extensive prudential reforms underpinned by a supervisory regime focused on core prudential outcomes and strong international collaboration. Further the PRA set out that it intends, during 2026/27, to focus on supervisory work around the implementation of Basel 3.1, Strong and Simple and operational resilience requirements and that it will aim to ensure that firms remain well-capitalised, maintain strong liquidity and stable funding profiles, and have robust operational resilience against cyber risks. Be at the forefront of identifying new and emerging risks, and developing international policy: The PRA highlighted that, during 2026/27, it will continue to identify and monitor emerging risks from geopolitical trends, economic and financial market developments, support responsible AI adoption including through monitoring the evolving use of AI by regulated firms, and scrutinise novel outsourcing arrangements and concentration risks, and that it will continue to support the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (BCBS’s) targeted review of elements of the international standard for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures. Relatedly, the PRA stated that it will also continue to monitor sector-wide resilience, including through the Bank’s second system-wide exploratory scenario, to build a clearer understanding of how private markets behave under severe but plausible stress and simulation exercises, and that it will also maintain both international and bilateral engagement in a range of areas. Support competitive, dynamic and innovative markets, alongside facilitating international competitiveness and growth: The PRA also made clear that it intends to seek to advance its secondary objectives by supporting the ability of UK firms to compete internationally and the UK’s attractiveness as a global financial centre, including that it intends to ensure that its rules remain proportionate and open to innovation. In particular, during 2026/27, it intends to undertake initiatives in support of this, such as the streamlining of regulatory reporting for banks, through the Future Banking Data (FBD) Programme, and that the PRA will also provide tailored support for fast-growing and innovative financial firms through its new Scale-up Unit and support the concierge services for new inbound international firms. Run an inclusive, efficient, and responsive regulator within the central bank: The PRA explained that it has streamlined and accelerated processes to help enable more efficient interactions with firms. During 2026/27, the PRA set out that it will increase its efficiency and productivity and ensure that costs are tightly managed, in line with wider Bank work and in support of investment to tackle technology obsolescence and will also increase its adoption of emerging technology tools to improve its regulatory processes for firm authorisations, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, internal model permission application and approvals.

On 14 April 2026, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten, the AFM) published an update on the implementation of the revised Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive II (AIFMD II). This update focuses on the revised conditions applicable to non-EU alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) marketing their non-EU alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the Netherlands.AIFMD II restricts the conditions under which non-EU AIFMs may market their funds in the European Union (EU) by amending the minimum conditions set out in AIFMD.Specifically, the third-country in which a non-EU AIFM and/or non-EU AIF is established must now meet two revised conditions: The jurisdiction must not be identified as a high-risk third country under the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive; and The jurisdiction must not be included in the revised EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. Non-EU AIFMs and/or AIFs domiciled in any of these listed jurisdictions should be aware that continued inclusion on these lists will ultimately result in the inability to market funds to investors in the Netherlands, requiring all offering and marketing activities to cease.Because the lists of high-risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions are dynamic, AIFMs bear an ongoing responsibility to monitor them. If any changes to these lists cause an AIFM to no longer meet the applicable AIFMD II requirements, the AIFM must inform the AFM.Where a non-EU AIFM and/or non-EU AIF is domiciled in a listed jurisdiction, the AFM requests that the affected AIFM provides information on how compliance with the new AIFMD II requirements will be ensured. Affected AIFMs are also asked to submit their transition plans, which may include re-domiciliation to a non-listed jurisdiction or a planned exit from the Dutch market.The press release and the fourth update on the implementation of the AIFMD II are available here.  

On 16 April 2026, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten, the AFM) issued a press release including a supervision report assessing how well crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) comply with information disclosure requirements under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR). The AFM finds that many CASPs still fall short when it comes to providing correct, clear, and non-misleading information.The AFM examined crypto advertisements and publicly available cost information from MiCAR licensed CASPs. The AFM found deficiencies in advertising practices and in cost disclosure at most CASPs. The AFM notes that both Dutch and international CASPs need to make significant improvements to meet MiCAR standards.The main issues identified are: Misleading or unclear advertisements. For example, using terms like “safe trading” without explanation. Insufficient and unbalanced risk disclosures. Volatility and complex products require clear warnings, but these are often lacking or too generic. Cost information that is hard to find. This information is sometimes buried in general terms and conditions, FAQ pages, or only accessible through external search engines. Incomplete or unclear cost presentation. Common cost items such as deposit and withdrawal fees or ongoing costs are often not disclosed. Confusion about regulated vs. unregulated services. Services such as staking or lending are offered alongside MiCAR-regulated services without a clear distinction, leading consumers to assume the same level of protection applies. To help the sector improve, the AFM has outlined five specific recommendations: Avoid misleading statements and ensure information is well-substantiated. Terms such as “safe”, “highly-trusted”, or “saving in crypto” can quickly be considered misleading. Claims of “commission-free” or “free” trading must clearly disclose any implicit costs such as spreads, and promotions must include realistic conditions. Comparisons between CASPs must be fair, balanced, and based on current, accurate data. Disclose risks in a balanced manner. Risk warnings must go beyond generic statements like “investing in crypto involves risks” and should clearly specify what the risk entails. These requirements apply to all forms of communications. Risk warnings should use a fond size at least equal to the rest of the advertisement to ensure they are noticed. Make cost information easy to find. Cost information must be prominently displayed on the website and accessible within one click from the homepage (or two clicks via a drop-down menu). FAQ pages, knowledge academies, support centers, and general terms and conditions are not considered prominent locations. Cost information should not be scattered across multiple pages without clear cross-reference. Be clear and transparent about costs CASPs should provide actual insight into the specific fees, costs, and charges they apply. Vague statements like “costs apply” or “all costs included in the price” are considered unclear and/or misleading. The AFM encourages the use of cost calculators or representative examples that break down individual cost components, including implicit costs. Clearly distinguish between regulated and unregulated services CASPs must take measures to clearly separate MiCAR-regulated services from unregulated ones. The AFM is taking a proactive, risk-based supervisory approach. Dutch CASPs with deficiencies will receive a supervisory letter and must remedy their shortcomings. The AFM will inform relevant national supervisors about non-compliance by international CASPs. The AFM will mainly enforce when breaches persist or consumer risks are high. The press release and the full supervision report are available here.  

On 13 April 2026, the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, DNB) published a press release announcing changes to the reporting obligations for major ICT-related incidents under DORA. Starting in mid-April, reports submitted to DNB will be validated against the technical requirements applicable to the relevant (partial) reports.Institutions will receive feedback specifying which requirements have not been met. Where the deviations consist solely of warnings, institutions may update the relevant fields in their next report. There is no obligation to resubmit the report. Where a deviation constitutes an error, however, the report will not be processed, and institutions will be asked to resolve the errors and resubmit their report.The full press release with a reference to the validation requirements is available here (Dutch only).

On 7 April 2026, the Dutch Minister of Finance submitted a further report regarding the proposed amendment to the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht, AFS) implementing the amended Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR).The Dutch government failed to meet the implementation deadline for the review, which was 29 September 2025. In this update, the Minister addresses the consequences of the delay. The key impacts include: The MiFID II review strengthens rules on mechanisms to limit excessive volatility on financial markets, including a new power for market operators to temporarily halt or restrict trading in emergency situations. Until this is implemented, Dutch market operators lack this specific emergency halt power. The Minister does note that existing powers already allow market operators to halt trading in cases of significant short-term price movements, and that the AFM can already instruct trading platforms to suspend trading to protect investors or ensure orderly trading. In practice, emergency situations will often involve significant price movements, so most scenarios are already covered. The MiFID II review introduces an obligation for trading platforms dealing in emission allowances to apply position management controls. There is no legal requirement to do so until this is implemented. Nevertheless, according to the Minister, the only Dutch platform trading these derivatives in any significant volumes already applies such controls in practice. Relevant market participants cannot yet comply with MiFID II’s consolidated tape provisions, but this has no practical impact since no consolidated tape is currently operational in the EU. Certain light reporting obligations (e.g. periodic reports on client order execution) that MiFID II removes are still technically in force, but the associated compliance costs are considered limited. The delay also means the AFM cannot yet impose administrative fines or penalties for infringements of the new MiFIR provisions. The relevant legislative instruments will be amended to grant the AFM the necessary enforcement powers. The Minister also used the occasion to introduce a new obligation for investment firms operating an multi-lateral trading facility registered as an SME growth market to ensure continued compliance with the registration requirement and to grant the AFM enforcement powers for breaches of this new obligation.The full report is available here (Dutch only).

On 16 April 2026, the European Commission (Commission) adopted a draft Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) with regard to regulatory technical standards (RTS) specifying what constitutes an equivalent legal mechanism that ensures that a residential property under construction is completed within a reasonable time frame.The draft Commission Delegated Regulation is based on draft RTS submitted to the Commission by the European Banking Authority (EBA). On 26 February 2026, the EBA issued an opinion following the Commission’s amendments to the draft RTS.The draft RTS specify the prudential conditions under which a legal mechanism can be considered equivalent, for the purpose of Article 124(3)(a)(iii)(2) of the CRR, to ensure that the property under construction is completed within a reasonable timeframe.Next stepsThe Council of the EU and the European Parliament will now scrutinise the Delegated Regulation.If neither object, the Delegated Regulation will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication.

On 16 April 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a call for evidence on restricted subscription and private credit ratings against the background of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies (CRA Regulation).The use of restricted subscription and private credit ratings has been increasing in recent years and as such questions have been raised about the purposes and market needs these products are intended to serve; how they are produced, distributed and used in practice; and the potential benefits and risks associated with selective access to rating information.The call for evidence aims to collect views, data and analysis from stakeholders on: The characteristics and use cases of restricted subscription and private credit ratings, including their benefits compared with public credit ratings. The prevalence of restricted subscription and private credit ratings, respectively, within the product offerings of different credit rating agencies and across asset classes. The characteristics of the parties who are contracting for restricted subscription and private credit ratings and those to whom they are disclosed or distributed. Evidence on whether, and to what extent, the analytical processes, governance arrangements, and internal controls applied to restricted subscription and private credit ratings are comparable to those applied to publicly disclosed ratings. Evidence on how the more limited transparency and distribution of restricted subscription and private credit ratings may affect diligence and market discipline. The growing role of restricted subscription and private credit ratings in the financial landscape. Next stepsThe deadline for comments on the call for evidence is 31 May 2026.ESMA will review the responses received in Q2 2026 with a view to assessing whether specific regulatory adjustments or clarifications may be needed to enhance clarity on the application of the CRA Regulation.