Market Abuse / Surveillance in Netherlands

Key dates

2024-06-30

MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.

2024-12-30

Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.

2026-11-06

The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
• Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
• Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
• Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
• Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
• Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
• Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
• Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.

Key dates

2026-10-14

AFM publishes the policy on fines for deficiencies in MiFIR transaction reporting that firms fail to report voluntarily.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should compare their transaction-reporting incident procedures with the new AFM thresholds, while recognising that the AFM’s existing incident process can require notification before those thresholds are reached.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish documented escalation triggers for missing or late reports exceeding 100,000 transactions or 25% over at least two weeks, and for incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports exceeding 500,000 transactions or 50% over at least four weeks.
• Firms should consider treating the thresholds as minimum enforcement indicators rather than safe harbours, because the AFM separately expects firms to report significant incidents immediately and requires firms to decide reportability based on all available information.
• Transaction-reporting owners may wish to monitor rejected reports, failed resubmissions, invalid or missing LEIs, duplicate or unnecessary reports, and data-field errors, with evidence of detection dates, affected populations, root cause and remediation.
• Firms should consider retaining a defensible audit trail for incidents not reported to the AFM, including the issue scope, the reportability assessment, root-cause analysis, corrective controls and management approval.
• Where notification is required, firms should consider using the AFM incident form promptly rather than waiting for the investigation to finish, updating the AFM as facts develop and documenting any request for additional time.
• Senior management and compliance committees may wish to review recurring incidents and prior infringements because a second infringement within five years has a stated starting fine of €50,000, twice the first-infringement amount.
• Firms should consider validating their procedures against Article 26 of MiFIR, Article 15(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 and the Dutch Wft framework, including the requirement to report transactions completely, accurately and no later than the end of the following working day.

What changed

The AFM has formalised when an unreported transaction-reporting deficiency will be treated as involving a substantial quantity of transactions. For missing or late reports, the threshold is more than 100,000 affected transactions or more than 25% of reportable transactions over a period of at least two weeks. For incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports, the threshold is more than 500,000 affected transactions or more than 50% of reportable transactions over a period of at least four weeks.

Key dates

22 July 2026

– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP

TBD (MISP legislative timeline)

– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision

Suggested considerations

• Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
• Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
• Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
• Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
• Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.

What changed

• - ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
• Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
• The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
• AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
• Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...

Key dates

July 2020

– Start of the period in which Arrowstreet’s incorrect calculation methodology led to systematically incorrect net short position notifications to AFM and underdisclosures to the public

November 2024

– End of the period during which Arrowstreet violated short selling rules through inaccurate notifications and disclosures of its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos

20 April 2026

– AFM imposes an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for the systematic incorrect notifications and underdisclosures of net short positions

22 April 2026

– AFM publishes the enforcement notice stating that the case has been settled via a simplified procedure and is closed

Suggested considerations

• Review and document the firm’s methodology for calculating net short positions in EU‑listed shares, ensuring alignment with the EU Short Selling Regulation and AFM’s thresholds and definitions, including aggregation rules and treatment of derivatives.
• Perform a comprehensive back‑testing and reconciliation of historical and current net short position calculations against trade data, positions and corporate actions to identify any systemic discrepancies or underreporting risks.
• Implement or enhance controls that validate short position calculations prior to submission, including independent second‑line checks, exception reporting, and automated variance checks for large movements or threshold breaches.
• Map all AFM short selling notification and disclosure thresholds and timing requirements into the firm’s surveillance and reporting systems, ensuring automated alerts when positions reach, exceed or fall below relevant levels.
• Establish robust governance over short selling reporting, including clear ownership between trading, operations, risk and compliance, formal sign‑off procedures, and regular reporting to senior management on short‑selling compliance.

What changed

• - AFM has reaffirmed strict enforcement of notification and disclosure obligations for net short positions in shares admitted to trading on Euronext Amsterdam, including the expectation of accurate...
• The case confirms AFM’s interpretation that systematic underreporting (wrong figures in 101 notifications) and underdisclosure to the public (wrong figures in 85 cases) constitutes a material breach...
• AFM emphasises that net short positions must be notified promptly and accurately, and that disclosures above the public threshold are a key tool for market participants to understand negative...
• AFM demonstrates that self‑reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and remediation can result in a reduced fine and simplified settlement, signalling a clear incentive structure for firms to...
• The publication reinforces that AFM will use the short selling register and underlying notifications to monitor for market abuse, market distortion and systemic risks, increasing scrutiny on firms...