Keywords: CIF, crypto-asset advice, MiCA, CASP, AMF DOC-2006-23
More and more clients are asking their adviser whether they should invest in crypto-assets. Until recently, a Financial Investment Adviser (Conseiller en investissements financiers – CIF) could, in certain cases, provide guidance in this area with relative flexibility. That is no longer the case.
On 27 July 2026, the French Financial Markets Authority (Autorité des marchés financiers – AMF) updated its position-recommendation DOC-2006-23 (the document setting out its answers to recurring questions on the CIF regime) to clarify the scope of crypto-asset advice.
This update comes as the MiCA Regulation, which harmonizes the regulation of crypto-assets at the European level, is now fully applicable, and as the transitional period available to former Digital Asset Service Providers (DASP) ended on 1 July 2026.
From now on, as soon as a CIF crosses the line into personalized crypto-asset advice, it must hold authorization as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP). The question of exactly where that line falls is precisely what the AMF’s new guidance addresses.
A CIF status that does not cover crypto-assets
CIF status, governed by Articles L. 541-1 et seq. of the French Monetary and Financial Code (Code monétaire et financier – CMF), authorizes its holder to provide an investment advisory service. This service consists of giving a client a personalized recommendation (that is, advice presented as suited to the client’s situation) concerning one or more transactions relating to financial instruments (Article D. 321-1, 5° of the same Code).
The concept of a financial instrument is decisive here: it covers, in particular, shares, bonds and units in collective investment undertakings (OPC), but not crypto-assets. The AMF expressly confirms this in its new question-and-answer 2.5 of DOC-2006-23: a CIF’s advisory service covers neither crypto-assets nor services relating to them.
In practice, however, this limit was more a matter of principle than of actual practice, since DASP status offered another route. The DASP regime (Digital Asset Service Provider, corresponding to the former French PSAN status) was the French framework that regulated these players before MiCA, at a time when the term used was “digital assets” rather than “crypto-assets.” In its 2022 guidance, the AMF distinguished between two situations:
• where the CIF was itself approved as a DASP for advising subscribers of digital assets, it carried out that activity under the rules specific to that service;
• otherwise, that advice fell under the “other wealth management advisory activities” that a CIF may carry out, and was then subject only to the organizational and conduct-of-business rules of the CIF regime.
In both cases, the CIF could, in practice, advise its clients on digital assets.
This arrangement, however, rested on a temporary regime. DASPs registered or authorized in France before 30 December 2024, or providing advisory services to subscribers of digital assets before that date, could continue their activity until a MiCA authorization was granted or refused, and at the latest until 1 July 2026.
That deadline having now passed, the benchmarks set in 2022 are obsolete.
Crypto-asset advice now falls solely under the CASP regime established by MiCA. In other words, what was permitted yesterday under DASP status or under wealth management activities is no longer permitted today on that basis alone.
A broader scope of advice under MiCA
The difficulty lies not only in the authorization requirement: it also lies in MiCA’s very definition of advice, which is broader than it first appears.
Under Article 3(1)(24) of the MiCA Regulation, the provision of crypto-asset advice means offering, giving, or agreeing to give personalized recommendations to a client, whether at the client’s request or on the CASP’s own initiative, concerning one or more transactions relating to crypto-assets or the use of crypto-asset services.
This definition goes beyond investment advice as defined under MiFID II, which is limited to transactions in financial instruments: it also covers advice on the use of crypto-asset services, such as custody or portfolio management. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) confirmed this in its question-and-answer of 18 June 2026 (ESMA_QA_2882): a mere introductory service that recommends a service or a CASP without targeting a specific transaction may already constitute advice, provided the recommendation is personalized, is not addressed exclusively to the public, and is directed at an investor or the investor’s representative. The only exception is a simple reference to a CASP that is accessible in the same way to all potential investors.
In this context, the AMF warns of a risk specific to CIFs that direct their clients toward a CASP. The very fact of being a CIF may lead the client to believe that this referral stems from a personalized recommendation based on a review of the client’s situation, particularly where the adviser has already gathered information about the client’s assets in connection with an investment advisory service. The risk is then one of reclassification as crypto-asset advice, an activity for which the CIF is not authorized.
Clarification the profession had been waiting for
The entry into application of MiCA and the obsolescence of the 2022 benchmarks left CIFs without up-to-date guidance, at a time when the scope of crypto-asset advice, broader than that of investment advice, creates a risk of reclassification in the event of poorly controlled communications.
By adding a new question-and-answer to DOC-2006-23, which relays ESMA’s position and illustrates it with non-exhaustive examples, the AMF addresses this need for legal certainty and identifies certain situations in which CASP authorization is, or is not, required.
What the AMF’s position actually changes
To draw this line, the AMF reasons on the basis of a simple distinction between two categories of communications.
General communications fall outside the scope of crypto-asset advice. This is the case for educational information, marketing communications addressed to an undifferentiated public, or directing a client to the AMF’s published whitelist of authorized CASPs. Their common feature is that they do not target any particular person.
Individual communications, addressed to a specific client, call for greater caution. They remain permitted, but subject to two conditions: no personalized recommendation may be made, and the CIF must inform the client that it is not authorized to recommend crypto-assets, while referring the client to the AMF’s whitelist. Subject to this reservation, the following are notably permitted:
• simply informing a prospect, whether for payment or free of charge, of the existence of a CASP, before any wealth review or collection of information on the prospect’s personal situation;
• simply informing a client, whether for payment or free of charge, of the existence of a CASP belonging to the same group as the CIF, provided the client is duly and clearly informed of the nature of that relationship;
• a diversified asset allocation that may include crypto-assets, without any recommendation concerning a specific crypto-asset or a specific service;
• recommendations relating directly to financial instruments, even where those instruments are backed by crypto-assets (AIFs exposed to crypto-assets, index-linked debt securities), which then fall under investment advice covered by CIF status.
The options available to CIFs
To go beyond these regulated communications and deliver an actual personalized recommendation on crypto-assets or crypto-asset services, only one option remains: obtaining a CASP authorization.
Unlike investment services providers (Prestataire de services d’investissement – PSI), CIFs cannot obtain this through simple notification; they must file an authorization application and would be well advised to approach the AMF beforehand.
The requirement is, however, calibrated: the AMF specifies that authorization limited to the advisory service alone carries proportionate requirements, substantially less extensive than those attached to an application also covering, for example, the custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients.
Conclusion
The AMF’s position does not change the applicable law: it clarifies its implementation, now that the transitional period has ended. The point requiring vigilance is clear: absent CASP authorization, only a general communication, or an individual communication accompanied by the required clarifications, protects the CIF from reclassification. The dividing line between permitted communication and advice subject to authorization nonetheless remains a fine one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
CIFs whose activity is moving toward recurring support on crypto-assets therefore have an interest in assessing, as of now, the merits of obtaining CASP authorization limited to the advisory service, the formalities for which remain proportionate.
