Update to the guidelines applicable to Financial Investment Advisors (“CIF”) regarding advisory services, issued by the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF)

On July 27, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (“AMF”) published an update to its Position Statement DOC-2006-23 regarding the regulations applicable to Financial Investment Advisors (“CIFs”), in order to clarify the situations in which providing advice on crypto-assets or crypto-asset services requires authorization as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (PSCA).

ADAN welcomes this publication, which provides the clarifications that professionals have been awaiting regarding the conditions under which a CIF may continue to assist its clients with crypto-assets without providing a crypto-asset advisory service subject to the Market in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”). The Association thanks the AMF for the discussions held on this subject and for listening to the practical difficulties raised by market participants. This development is notably the result of an ongoing dialogue with market participants, to which Adan has actively contributed alongsideANACOFI.  

To provide some context, this publication comes at a particularly important time for advisory professionals. Indeed, since the MiCA Regulation took effect and the transitional period ended on July 1, 2026, the provision of crypto-asset advisory services has been subject to specific authorization under the European regulation. Since CIFs are not eligible for the notification procedure provided for certain financial entities, they must obtain authorization as a PSCA if they wish to provide this service.

In May 2026, ADAN submitted a response to the AMF’s consultation regarding the update to Recommendation DOC-2006-23 concerning CIFs and PSCA firms. This submission was based on feedback from CIFs, PSCA firms (both those already authorized and those in the process of obtaining authorization), wealth management advisors, and law firms. In particular, Adan encouraged the AMF to avoid an overly restrictive interpretation of the new regime, which could undermine the role of CIFs in supporting investors and guiding them toward regulated service providers.

ADAN had formulated nine recommendations centered on a key objective: to clearly distinguish crypto-asset advisory services subject to MiCA from information, wealth management, and guidance activities that may continue to fall under the CIF status. The submission therefore emphasized the role of the personalization of the recommendation as a determining factor in the classification of the advice, as well as the need to specify the situations excluded from the scope of crypto-asset advisory services.

Several of the clarifications now provided by the AMF reflect the recommendations made by Adan.

Discussions on this topic are not new, and preparatory work has also been carried out as part of a working group formed withANACOFI earlier this year to compare analyses with the operational realities faced by wealth management professionals.

ADAN thanks ANACOFI for these discussions and for the quality of the work carried out jointly. This collaborative effort has helped inform the discussion on the relationship between the CIF framework and the MiCA framework, particularly regarding situations in which a CIF’s involvement may remain within the scope of its advisory activities without constituting a crypto-asset advisory service as defined by MiCA.

This approach illustrates the importance of dialogue between government authorities and industry organizations in establishing a regulatory framework that both protects investors and is sufficiently practical for professionals.

The update to Position-Recommendation DOC-2006-23 follows a significant change in the applicable regulatory framework. Prior to MiCA, advice to investors in digital assets could, under certain conditions, be provided by a CIF as part of its “other wealth management advisory activities,” while CIFs that had obtained a PSAN license for this service were subject to the corresponding regulatory regime.

MiCA has fundamentally changed this framework by making crypto-asset advisory services subject to mandatory authorization. The AMF now clarifies that this service consists of “offering, providing, or agreeing to provide personalized recommendations to a client” regarding one or more transactions involving crypto-assets or the use of crypto-asset services.

The updated doctrine thus clarifies the distinction between this regulated service and the various activities that a CIF may continue to perform within the scope of its status.

When does a CIF provide advice on crypto-assets?

The AMF first confirms that certain activities do indeed constitute crypto-asset advisory services and therefore require PSCA authorization.

These include, in particular:

In these situations, the CIF provides a service that falls within the scope of MiCA and must therefore hold the appropriate authorization.

The AMF also draws on the Q&A published by ESMA this summer regarding the relationship between crypto-asset advice under MiCA and investment advice under MiFID II. The AMF thus reiterates that the scope of crypto-asset advice must be considered broader than that of investment advice under MiFID II, insofar as MiCA covers not only recommendations regarding transactions in crypto-assets but also recommendations regarding the use of crypto-asset services. 

General information and non-personalized communications remain outside the scope. One of the key contributions of the new doctrine concerns situations in which a financial advisor provides advice without offering personalized recommendations.

The AMF thus confirms that the following do not, in principle, constitute crypto-asset advisory services:

This clarification directly addresses a concern raised by ADAN in its submission in May. The Association had argued that the mere mention of the name of an approved PSCA in a general communication should not, on its own, be sufficient to classify that communication as crypto-asset advisory services.

The AMF also distinguishes between general communications and individual communications. Simply informing a prospective client of the existence of a PSCA, prior to any wealth assessment or collection of information about the client’s personal circumstances, is not considered to be advice. Similarly, mentioning a PSCA that belongs to the same group as the CIF may fall outside the scope of advice, provided, in particular, that the client is clearly informed of the nature of the relationship with the PSCA and that the CIF specifies that he or she is not authorized to provide personalized recommendations on crypto-assets or crypto-asset services.

The doctrine also provides an important clarification for wealth management professionals in that the overall asset allocation may include exposure to crypto-assets. 

The AMF clarifies that a recommendation that does not pertain to specific crypto-assets may still fall within the scope of CIF status. In particular, it cites the case in which, as part of its “other wealth management advisory activities,” a CIF conducts a comprehensive wealth assessment and determines a diversified asset allocation that may include exposure to crypto-assets, for example in the form of a range of crypto-asset exposure within the client’s portfolio.

This situation falls outside the scope of crypto-asset advisory services as long as the recommendation does not pertain to one or more specific crypto-assets or to specific crypto-asset services.

This clarification was also among the requests made by ADAN. In its submission, the Association had asked for explicit assurance regarding the possibility of a comprehensive asset allocation that includes a “crypto allocation,” without recommending any particular type of crypto-asset or specific service.

Financial products with crypto-based underlying assets remain within the scope of investment advice. The AMF also confirms that when a recommendation does not directly concern crypto-assets, it may constitute investment advice provided under the CIF status. This guidance specifically applies to personalized recommendations concerning financial instruments whose underlying assets consist of one or more crypto-assets, such as certain alternative investment funds (AIFs) exposed to crypto-assets or debt securities indexed to crypto-assets. 

This distinction is important because the fact that a financial instrument involves exposure to crypto-assets does not automatically mean that advice regarding that instrument constitutes advice on crypto-assets within the meaning of MiCA. ADAN had specifically requested that this exclusion not be limited to a few products but rather cover regulated investment portfolios more broadly when the recommendation pertains to the portfolio itself rather than the underlying crypto-assets.

The publication of this guidance marks an important step toward ensuring a smooth transition between the CIF status and the MiCA regime. ADAN will continue to work with authorities and industry professionals to support the implementation of the European framework and to identify any potential need for clarification that may arise in practice.