Lawyer for crypto law: MiCAR, tokenisation, compliance

Crypto lawyer for companies, investors, traders and asset-relevant crypto conflicts

Quick start: what is your matter about?

Your contact: Timocin Can

Rechtsanwalt (lawyer) at ITMR, contact for crypto law.

Send crypto enquiry

What happens after your enquiry?

After your enquiry, we will get back to you within 24 hours on working days. The first contact is free of charge. You will receive an explicit notice before any costs arise.

1. A short description is enough. Describe the model or situation, the platforms involved and the timeline. Helpful are white papers, platform terms, transaction records and the state of communications.
2. Receipt and initial sorting. We assess the enquiry on the basis of the project described, the documents and the apparent goal. Deadlines and dates should be clearly recognisable.
3. Suitable starting point and cost range. We clarify whether an initial consultation, a service package or a specific mandate is the next step. As soon as the scope of the review is clear, we tell you the cost range – before work begins.

Typical cases from our practice

The following scenarios are abstracted and simplified. Which solution holds up always depends on the specific facts and the contractual situation.

What you will have at the end

Our crypto law advice for companies, investors and traders

Practice area · Crypto law

Typical acute mandate situations

• Your exchange does not pay out or blocks functions.
• You no longer have secure control over access to your wallet, seed phrase or recovery logic.
• You suspect a crypto- or banking-related fraud case.
• You hold significant crypto holdings and need a robust structure for access, documentation and emergency logic.
• Platform terms, communication or support channels are worsening your negotiating position.

Typical structuring and launch situations

• Your token or Web3 model is to go live.
• MiCAR, white paper, distribution or governance have not yet been properly classified.
• Wallet, brokerage, custody or platform structures are growing faster than their legal architecture.
• Smart contracts and contracts do not interlock cleanly.
• White-label, API or group models allocate responsibility vaguely.

Constellations in which crypto law immediately becomes commercially relevant

Particularly delicate are constellations in which product logic, asset protection, access, platform operation and external communication must hold up technically, regulatorily, contractually and practically.

Token model or crypto product is to go to market

It is unclear how token function, white paper, website, distribution, customer interface, service logic and operational structure fit together in terms of regulation and liability.

Platform, brokerage, wallet or custody model grows operationally

Outsourcing, white-label structures, APIs, group models, support, governance and responsibilities are known internally but not organised precisely enough externally and contractually.

Wallet, recovery data or treasury access are compromised

It is unclear whether only the device, seed, passphrase, API access or further clues are affected and how holdings, addresses and response steps must be reliably secured.

Exchange stops withdrawals or unilaterally changes functions

Holdings, open positions, reports, states of communication and platform terms must be organised immediately before scope for evidence and negotiation is lost.

Wealthy holders, traders or entrepreneurs de facto lose access

Private and business holdings, wallets, exchange accounts, recovery data, multi-device set-ups or third-party service providers no longer interlock in an orderly way.

A fraud-related crypto constellation or outflow of payments is at issue

It must be quickly clarified whether there is a wallet loss, platform problem, deception, payment redirection, banking interface or a mixed situation of several components.

Related deep dives

• IT law for platform and product contracts, project structure, software and service logic.

• Compliance for governance, approvals, documentation, control structures and internal responsibilities.

• Cybersecurity for security incidents, compromised access, incident logic and technical attack surfaces.

• Data law for data governance, platform data, rights of use and tokenised data models.

• Banking fraud when outflow of payments, fraud, account problems, bank interfaces or asset-threatening deception form the actual centre.

• Crypto lawyer for companies and founders

• Lawyer for crypto law in exchange and wallet problems

• MiCAR, token and Web3 models

• Traders, investors and wealthy holders

• Platforms, wallets and custody

• Fraud-related crypto and banking conflicts

The key use cases and conflict situations

Crypto law regularly becomes relevant when a model is to go to market, assets are de facto blocked or technical, contractual and regulatory reality no longer fit together. The name of the project matters less. What matters is the specific commercial function and the question of where pressure to decide or pressure from losses is currently arising.

Token and Web3 models before launch

Token function, white paper, website, terms, distribution, customer interface and governance must be reviewed. It becomes critical where product description, actual service and operational structure do not match.

Platform, wallet, brokerage and custody structures

Legally relevant are the tokens themselves and the services around access, custody, execution, technical control, support, white-label models, group structures and outsourcing.

Treasury, corporate holdings and larger private holdings

Anyone who holds significant crypto holdings needs robust access rights, recovery logic, documentation, provability and a working emergency path. Otherwise, assets quickly become an organisational problem.

Exchange crises, withdrawal stops and account blocks

In platform crises, documentation and sequence are decisive: account balances, versions of terms and conditions, support histories, wallet allocation, reports, API use and transaction histories must be secured immediately.

Traders, investors and holders with uncertain access

Mandates also arise where wallets, hardware set-ups, exchange accounts, recovery data and proof of assets can no longer be reliably controlled, coordinated or enforced.

Fraud-related crypto and banking situations

If social engineering, fake support, outflow of payments, account-side problems or hybrid scam structures are involved, it must be quickly clarified whether crypto law, a platform conflict, incident response or banking fraud primarily carries the case.

Particularly error-prone

• White paper, website and the actual product promise diverge.
• White-label, group or outsourcing structures allocate responsibility vaguely.
• Larger holdings are based on informal recovery or founder set-ups.
• Platform terms are only read once withdrawals are already blocked.
• Wallet or exchange crises are prematurely understood as purely technical or purely criminal law matters.

MiCAR, roles and market entry

For companies, the question is usually an operational one rather than an abstract regulatory question: can this model go live as it is? Decisive are token function, scope of services, external presentation, customer interface and the actual operating structure.

Clarify first

• What commercial function does the model actually have?
• Who appears externally as provider, operator or issuer?
• What technical and contractual service is specifically provided?
• Do white paper, terms, website and product logic fit together?
• Which parts of the model are delegated internally but still have to be answered for externally?

Typical gaps

• Marketing terms replace the functional review.
• White paper and website promise more than the set-up supports.
• Distribution, wallet access and platform function are not cleanly separated by role.
• White-label and group models remain unclear externally.
• Governance and approvals are only added shortly before launch.

Particularly relevant in practice

• Tokenisation and product architecture
• CASP-related services and platform operation
• White paper, claims and sales presentation
• Governance, documentation and responsibility
• Outsourcing, APIs and partner chains

Rule of thumb

Crypto models rarely fail because of the idea. They become problematic where product function, communication, allocation of roles and operations are not brought together early enough into a robust overall structure.

Smart contracts, platform terms and contract architecture

Contract architecture remains central in crypto law, too. Code can automate processes but as a rule does not replace the legal ordering of performance, liability, support, changes, evidence and unwinding.

What the set of contracts and the code must support together

Service description, triggers, limits of automation, upgrade logic, consequences of errors, emergency measures, support, escalation and state of documentation must be aligned so that technical and legal reality do not diverge.

Why platform terms are often commercially underestimated

With exchanges, custody set-ups, wallet services, trading platforms or access models, commercially essential questions often depend on terms, limits, account freezes, internal processes and communication channels that only become truly relevant in the event of a conflict.

Make contractually visible

• who owes which service
• how changes, forks, upgrades and disruptions are handled
• which support and escalation channels apply
• which evidence is reliable in the event of a dispute
• how unwinding, failure or exit are regulated

Where projects often fail

• Smart contract and terms describe different realities.
• Support and incident processes are missing or remain too technical.
• Outsourcing and white-label functions are not properly classified in terms of liability.
• Platform terms and conditions and one's own contract logic do not interlock.
• Questions of evidence and documentation are only taken seriously in the event of a dispute.

Further reading:

• IT law
• Compliance
• Cybersecurity
• Data law

Asset protection, trader situations and private access crises

Crypto law does not only concern products and regulation. For entrepreneurs, high-net-worth individuals, family offices, traders and long-term holders, it becomes particularly relevant when wallet access, exchange accounts, self-custody set-ups, recovery data, evidence and platform relationships jeopardise the commercial availability of the holdings.

Typical asset-related situations

• Seed phrase, passphrase or hardware wallet can no longer be reliably controlled.
• Exchange account is frozen or withdrawals are stopped.
• Wallet holdings exist, but evidence and histories are incomplete.
• Several devices, apps, browser wallets and platforms interlock in a disorderly way.
• Private and business-related holdings are not cleanly separated organisationally.

What often worsens the situation

• premature disclosure of sensitive recovery information
• late or incomplete documentation of holdings and transactions
• incorrect classification as a purely IT or purely criminal problem
• communication with platforms without an orderly evidence strategy
• lack of separation between asset protection, incident response and fraud review

When /banking-betrug is more appropriate

• in the case of social engineering and fake support
• in the case of payment redirection and account outflows
• in the case of alleged recovery services
• in the case of refusals by banks or anomalies following a scam context
• when the deception carries the case

Practical classification

If the case revolves mainly around asset protection, access, platform communication, evidence and securing digital holdings, crypto law regularly remains the right entry point. If deception, outflow of payments or bank-side follow-on problems form the actual centre, banking fraud often leads more directly to the appropriate measure.

Access crisis, wallet loss and withdrawal stop

Crises in the crypto sector are rarely purely technical incidents. As soon as access, recovery data, platform accounts, withdrawals or proof of holdings are affected, the quality of the initial structuring decides on the further ability to act.

Wallet or recovery crisis

• check whether only the device or also the seed, passphrase, PIN, API access or further clues are compromised
• immediately document holdings, addresses, wallet types and recovery paths in a structured way
• prioritise time-critical measures according to the security and access situation
• immediately fix internal responsibilities and communication channels

Exchange, custody or withdrawal stop

• secure account balances, reports, e-mails, support tickets, versions of terms and conditions and open positions
• cleanly allocate wallet and platform holdings
• reliably document transaction histories, deposit and withdrawal channels and API use
• check which contractual and organisational levers realistically exist

Consider the scam or banking interface

• check whether deception, outflow of payments or externally controlled transfers are involved
• do not view banks, payment services and crypto platforms in isolation
• build communication and evidence so that a transition to banking fraud remains possible
• separate asset protection and fraud investigation early, but think about them in a coordinated way

What counts in the first hours

More important than the fastest public reaction is the clearest picture of the situation. What is affected, which access still exists and which data or devices could be compromised? Which holdings and addresses need to be secured, which platforms and contractual partners are involved and is a fraud- or banking-related escalation also under way?

Further reading:

• Cybersecurity
• Banking fraud
• Compliance
• Contact

The key distinctions and interfaces

Crypto law independently covers questions relating to MiCAR-related models, token and platform logic, wallet and access topics, smart contract structures, asset-relevant questions about holdings and crypto crisis situations. Depending on the focus, neighbouring specialist areas come into play in depth.

IT law, contract architecture and product operation

If the project contract, platform terms, service profile, outsourcing, APIs or technical operating logic are in the foreground, the deep dive via IT law leads further.

Compliance, governance and internal approval logic

If documentation, control system, approvals, management responsibility or ongoing organisational duties become formative, the focus regularly lies with compliance.

Security incidents, compromised access and incident response

If devices, seeds, API access, infrastructure or technical attack surfaces are affected, crypto law must be closely interlinked with cybersecurity.

Deception, outflow of payments and bank-side follow-on problems

If social engineering, fake support, payment diversion, account problems or fraud mechanics primarily carry the case, banking fraud often leads more quickly to the decisive measure.

Practically relevant delimitation

This page focuses on companies, platforms, treasury structures, smart-contract-related models, trader and holder situations as well as commercially relevant access crises. Special questions of tax law or pure inheritance law may follow in individual cases, but do not carry the main page.

React acutely or set up a crypto structure robustly as a precaution

Acute situation with pressure to act

You need to classify a token or platform model at short notice, or sort out a withdrawal stop, compromised access, contradictions between white paper and website, an asset-relevant access crisis or a fraud-related crypto situation under time pressure.

Further reading:

• Submit a crypto case now
• Check proximity to banking fraud
• IT law
• Cybersecurity
• Banking fraud

Prevention, launch and ongoing structure

You want to set up token models, wallet and custody structures, platform operation, treasury access, smart contracts, white papers, sets of contracts and governance so that later regulatory, asset and crisis situations do not only become visible during roll-out.

Further reading:

• Request a strategic initial consultation
• Set up ongoing support
• Compliance
• Data law
• AI law

Key terms

MiCAR

EU Regulation on markets in crypto-assets.

Wallet

Software or device for managing cryptographic keys.

Seed phrase

Sequence of words for restoring a wallet.

Custody

Safekeeping of crypto-assets on behalf of third parties.

White paper

Information document on a crypto-asset.

Smart contract

Program code that executes agreements automatically.

These terms explain the language used on this page. What matters is always the specific individual case.

Provisions and reliable sources

The following statutory provisions and regulations are cited on this page.

Frequently asked questions

The following answers from our practice as crypto lawyers provide reliable initial guidance for companies, founders, platforms, traders, wealthy holders and commercially relevant crypto structures. What always remains decisive is the specific product, role, asset and access situation.

React acutely or set up a structure as a precaution