Unauthorised crypto platforms: how the AMF gets a website blocked in France

The AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, the French financial markets regulator) does not block an unauthorised crypto website itself. It sends the operator a formal notice, orders hosting providers to cut off access, then applies to the President of the Paris Judicial Court (tribunal judiciaire), who orders the blocking. The whole procedure is set out in Article L. 621-13-5 of the French Monetary and Financial Code (CMF), as in force since 1 July 2026.

Since the end of the transitional regime, providing crypto-asset services in France requires authorisation under Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA). An operator that serves the French public without that authorisation faces criminal prosecution, and the closure of access to its website. This guide covers who is targeted, the steps and time limits, the special case of domain names, and how to defend yourself.

Who is targeted?

Article L. 621-13-5 targets seven categories of operators and those who promote them online. Three concern crypto-assets directly:

• operators that fall within the scope of Article 59 of MiCA without being authorised under it (point 4): an exchange, a custodian or a reception and transmission service that serves France without authorisation;
• crypto-asset service providers that spread inaccurate or misleading information, or suggest, through their name, advertising or any other means, that they are authorised under MiCA (point 5);
• persons who offer to the public crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, or seek their admission to trading, while spreading inaccurate or misleading information (point 6).

Point 8 extends the procedure to natural or legal persons who promote these offers online: influencers, affiliates, comparison websites. The text also covers investment services, offers of financial instruments, alternative investments (biens divers) and investment advice provided without the required status (points 1 to 3 and 7).

The blocking route

Each step gives the operator or the hosting providers five days; only the court orders the blocking, and it can extend it to mirror sites on a simple request.

Steps, time limits and parties

The procedure combines two injunctions and an application to the court; the operator and the hosting providers each have five days to respond.

The AMF can also go to court if the offer remains accessible after the hosting providers have complied with the injunction, without issuing a new one.

A precedent: in six decisions of 20 December 2023, under the former PSAN regime, the President of the Paris Judicial Court, at the AMF’s request, ordered the main internet access providers to block websites that offered digital asset services to the French public without registration. He found the measure proportionate to its aim.

Domain names: a direct but limited injunction

The Chair of the AMF may directly order registry operators and registrars to delete a domain name or transfer it to the competent authority (CMF, Article L. 621-13-5(IV)). The Chair may also apply to the President of the Paris Judicial Court for such an order.

This power applies in two cases only: an operator that suggests it is authorised under MiCA (point 5), and an issuer that spreads misleading information (point 6). A mere lack of authorisation (point 4) does not allow this injunction: there, only the court can order the blocking.

Nothing in the current text allows the AMF to block a website without going to court. Blocking remains a judicial measure.

How to defend yourself

The five days after the formal notice are decisive. The operator can use them to show that it falls outside the scope of the text: a service outside MiCA, no targeting of the French public, or an authorisation obtained in another Member State and notified for France. It can also announce the steps taken to stop serving France: blocking French IP addresses, refusing new French-resident clients, withdrawing advertising.

Before the President of the Judicial Court, the operator argues the same points, with evidence. The court rules under expedited proceedings on the merits: the hearing is adversarial, but fast.

Blocking does not settle everything. The operator remains exposed to the criminal penalties recalled in the formal notice, and to inclusion on the AMF blacklist (the AMF’s list of unauthorised websites). To get off the AMF blacklist, as to regularise its position through an authorisation or MiCA passporting, the first step is to approach the AMF.

An AMF decision that later targets an operator that has become a CASP is challenged under different rules, set out in our guide to appealing an AMF or ACPR decision.

Why ORWL?

• Unique specialisation: the firm focuses on crypto-asset, payment services and fintech law, from authorisation to litigation.
• Regulatory and litigation teams that work together: the team that knows the rules for accessing the French market prepares the defence with the team that argues it in court.
• Knowledge of the sector and its business models: we can show the court how the operator serves, or does not serve, the French public.