Agefi Luxembourg - avril 2026

AGEFI Luxembourg 30 Avril 2026 Fonds &Marchés ByDr.SebastiaanHOOGHIEMSTRA(picture)& Gabriël STORM* T heCommissionde Surveillance duSecteur Financier (“CSSF”) adopted on February 2026 the FAQ “FAQCrypto-Assets –Undertakings for collective investment” (the “2026 FAQ”), replacing andupdating the CSSF FAQof 29November 2021 on “VirtualAssets –Undertakings for Collective Investment” (the “2021 FAQ”). The new2026 FAQcomple- ments theCSSF FAQ“VirtualAs- sets –Credit Institutions” (the “FAQ-CI”), which remains rele- vant, inparticular, for credit institutions ac- ting as depositaries. Together, these FAQs formthe core of theCSSF’s supervisory fra- mework governing the involvement of Luxembourg investment funds and their ser- vice providers in crypto-asset activities. Thiscontributionprovidesanoverviewofthekeyas- pects of the new rules, focusing on their implications for Luxembourg undertakings for collective invest- ment (“UCIs”), theirmanagers, depositaries, and the conditions under which UCIs may gain exposure to crypto-assets. Scope of the FAQ– TheConcept of “Crypto-Assets” With the adoptionof the 2026 FAQ, theCSSF funda- mentally revised the scope of its supervisory frame- workbymovingfromtheAML/CFT-drivenconcept of “virtual assets” under Luxembourg law to the MiCAR notion of “crypto-assets”. Under the 2021 FAQ,theCSSF’srequirementswereconfinedto“vir- tual assets” as defined in the Law of 12 November 2004, as amended, and explicitly excluded electronic moneyandfinancialinstruments,withtheresultthat exposuressuchassharesincrypto-relatedcompanies or fund units qualifying as financial instruments fell outsidetheframework.Byaligningitsapproachwith the MiCAR definition, the CSSF now clearly brings asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and utility tokenswithinscopewhilemaintaining the exclusion of crypto-assets qualifying as financial instruments underMiFID2.Thisshiftremovespriorqualification uncertaintyandestablishesaclearer,MiCAR-consis- tent supervisory perimeter for UCITS and AIF crypto-asset exposure. UCITS andCrypto-Asset Investments TheCSSFhas consistently taken theviewthat invest- mentsincrypto-assetsarenotsuitableforallcategories of investors or all investment objectives. This caution is expressly reaffirmed in the 2026 FAQ, which re- minds entities under CSSF prudential supervision to assesscarefullytheappropriatenessofcrypto-assetex- posure, considering volatility, liquidity constraints and technological risks.Against this background, the CSSF continues to draw a clear distinction between UCITS, designed for retail distribution and subject to strict product rules, andAIFs targeting professional investors. The integration of crypto-asset exposure withinaUCITSframeworkthereforerequiresheight- ened scrutiny fromboth a product governance anda riskmanagement perspective. While earlier CSSF guidance effectively excluded UCITS and other retail-facing vehicles from any ex- posure to virtual assets, the updatedFAQ introduces ameasured relaxation. UCITSmay nowobtain indi- rect exposure to crypto-assets, subject to a strict 10% limit of net asset value, while direct investments re- main prohibited. Permitted exposuremust therefore beachievedthroughUCITSD-complianttransferable securitiesthatdonotembedanyderivativesreferenc- ingcrypto-assetsasanunderlyingexposure.Thisap- proachmirrors developments at EU level and aligns with ESMA’s proposal of 26 June 2025 under the re- viewof the EligibleAssets Directive (“ EAD ”), which envisages allowing indirect UCITS exposure to crypto-assetswithin the existing 10%“trash ratio”. Indirect exposure is further constrained by strict eli- gibility criteria. Under the 2026 FAQ, such exposure is limited to transferable securities that at all times qualify as eligible assets under the UCITS frame- work, notablyArticle 1(34) of the Lawof 17Decem- ber 2010, theGrand-Ducal Regulation of 8 February 2008, and CSSF Circular 08/380. Crucially, these in- struments must not embed derivatives within the meaning of Article 10 of the Grand-Ducal Regula- tion.Where this condition ismet, theCSSF confirms that no look-through to theunderlyingcrypto-assets is required; by contrast, instruments embedding derivativefeaturesfalloutsidethescopeofpermitted UCITS investments. The 2026 FAQ also clarifies the interaction with MiCAR. Crypto-assets qualifying as financial in- struments within the meaning of the Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector fall out- side the above regime. As a result, tradi- tional instruments such as shares in companies active in the crypto-asset ecosys- tem are not subject to the specific UCITS re- strictions discussed here. Given the specific risk characteristics of crypto-assets, the CSSF places particular emphasis on the inte- gration phase of such invest- ments into a UCITS investment policy.Managementcompanies are required toassess, ona case- by-casebasis, the impact of indi- rectcrypto-assetexposureonthe UCITS’overallriskprofileandto update their risk management framework accordingly. Internal control functions play a central role in this process and are expressly requiredtobeinvolvedintheapprovalofnewprod- uctsorinvestmentstrategiesinvolvingcrypto-assets. In parallel, UCITS must ensure transparent and timely investor disclosure, including appropriate updates to the prospectus and other fund docu- mentation reflecting the nature, risks and limits of any indirect crypto-asset exposure. UCITS intend- ing to invest indirectly in crypto-assets are also re- quired to inform the CSSF. Taken together, the updated FAQ establishes a cautious but clearer framework for indirect UCITS exposure to crypto- assets: permissive in principle, yet tightly circum- scribed by quantitative limits, strict asset eligibility requirements, enhanced risk governance and proactive supervisory oversight. AIFs and Crypto-asset Investments In contrast toUCITS,AIFsmay invest bothdirectly and indirectly in crypto-assets falling within the scope of MiCAR, provided such investments re- main compatible with applicable regulatory re- quirements, notably those relating to valuation, liquidity and riskmanagement underAIFMD. The CSSF does not distinguish between crypto-assets forming part of an AIF’s core strategy and more limited or ancillary exposure; any crypto-asset ex- posure must therefore be assessed against the full AIFMD regulatory framework. Theregulatorytreatmentofcrypto-assetinvestments byAIFsdependsprimarilyon the investor category. AIFsmarketed exclusively to professional investors mayinvestincrypto-assetswithoutquantitativelim- its. By contrast, where an AIF is open to retail in- vestors other than well-informed investors, crypto-asset exposure is subject to a 10%NAV limit, irrespectiveofwhether exposure isdirect or indirect. This reflects theCSSF’sprudent stanceon retail suit- ability andmirrors the approach applied toUCITS. As with UCITS, the CSSF emphasizes the impor- tance of the integration phase when incorporating crypto-assets into an AIF’s investment policy. AIFMs are required to assess the impact on the AIF’s riskprofile on a case-by-case basis, ensure ap- propriate involvement of internal control functions, and provide clear and timely investor disclosure, including updates to fund documentation. Where an AIF is managed by a Luxembourg-based au- thorizedAIFM, a crypto-asset investment strategy may require an extension of theAIFM’s authoriza- tion in line with CSSF supervisory expectations. Licensing&AuthorizationRequirements forAIFMs investing inCrypto-Assets LicenseExtension–“Other-Other Fund–Crypto-Assets” Due to the specific volatility, liquidity and techno- logical risks of crypto-assets, Luxembourg author- izedAIFMsmust obtainpriorCSSFauthorization to manage AIFs investing in crypto-assets under the “Other–Other Fund – crypto-assets” strategy. Prior approvalisrequiredwhereanAIFinvestsmorethan 10%of itsNAV in crypto-assets, whether directly or indirectly. Where indirect exposure through target funds exceeds 20% of NAV, an authorization for a fund-of-funds strategy is required. For a licence ex- tensiontocovercrypto-assets,theCSSFexpects,inter alia: a description of the project and service providers, clarificationof direct or indirect exposure, updatedriskmanagementandvaluationpolicies,in- formationonportfoliomanager experience, custody arrangements, target investors and an AML/CFT analysis. Initiators are expected topresent their proj- ect to the CSSF at an early stage. Indirect Investments via Target Funds Where an AIF obtains crypto-asset exposure exclu- sively through one ormore target funds, no separate crypto-assetlicenceisrequired,unlessinvestmentsin such target funds exceed 20% of the AIF’s NAV for which an authorization for a fund-of-funds strategy isrequired.However,whereatargetfund’smainun- derlyingexposureconsistsofcrypto-assets,theAIFM mustperformdocumentedduediligenceonthetarget fundmanager’sabilitytoidentifyandmanagecrypto- asset relatedrisks andprovide the results to theCSSF upon request. AML/CFTConsiderations AML/CFTRisks Further, the CSSF requires that the Responsable du Contrôle (“ RC ”)andthe ResponsableduRespect (“ RR ”) of UCIs investing in crypto-assets possess and can demonstrate an adequate understanding of the money laundering, terrorist financing (together, “ ML/TF ”) and proliferation financing risks associ- ated with such investments, as well as of the meas- ures required to mitigate these risks. Investing in crypto-assets, whether directly or indirectly, in- creases the ML/TF and proliferation financing risks to which the supervised entity is exposed and, ac- cordingly,mitigationmeasuresmust be commensu- ratewith these increased risks. AML/CFTDueDiligence onCrypto-assets In accordancewithArticle 34 of CSSFRegulationNo 12-02, as amended, UCIs investing in crypto-assets mustcomputeanML/TFriskscoringoftheassetsand perform AML/CFT due diligence aligned with the levelofriskidentified.TheapplicableML/TFriskand the required level of due diligence depend, in partic- ular, on whether the investment is direct or indirect, the nature of the crypto-asset and the method of ac- quisition (e.g. via exchanges or tokenofferings). Theprimaryobjectiveof theduediligence is toassess theoriginanddestinationofthecrypto-assetsinorder tomitigateML/TFrisks.Inthiscontext,theCSSFrefers tothenationalverticalML/TFriskassessmentrelating to Virtual Asset Service Providers, published in De- cember 2020, as well as to the FATF Guidance for a Risk-BasedApproachtoVirtualAssetsandtheirServ- ice Providers. Although the vertical risk assessment refers to “virtual assets”, in line with the CSSF’s amendedFAQandtheentryintoforceofMiCAR,no distinctionshouldbemadebetweenvirtualassetsand crypto-assets forAML/CFTpurposes. The role of theAIFDepositary &Crypto-Asset Custodians Luxembourg depositaries may be appointed as de- positary for AIFs investing directly in crypto-assets, providedthattheregulatoryrequirementsapplicable to depositaries continue to be complied with. In this context, the FAQrequires depositaries toput inplace adequateorganizationalarrangementsandanappro- priateoperationalmodel,consideringthespecificrisks associatedwith the safekeeping of crypto-assets. De- positaries are further required to notify the CSSF in advancewheretheyintendtoactasdepositaryforan AIF investingdirectly in crypto-assets. Wherecrypto-assetsqualifyas“otherassets”,thede- positary’sliabilityislimitedtoownershipverification andrecord-keepingduties.Ifthedepositarydoesnot itself provide safekeepingor administrationservices and theAIFMorAIF directly appoints a specialized crypto-asset service provider (“ CASP ”) for custody and administration, the crypto-assets are not recog- nized off-balance-sheet of the depositary, as the ob- ligationofrestitutiondoesnotliewiththedepositary but with the CASP. In such cases, the AIF or AIFM must have a direct contractual relationshipwith the appointedCASP. By contrast, where a depositary provides adminis- trativeor custody-type services in relation to crypto- assets, including custodian wallet services, this triggers either anauthorizationas aCASPunderAr- ticle 62 MiCAR or a notification under Article 60 MiCAR, as applicable. Under this setup, the crypto- assets are recognized off-balance-sheet of the de- positary, and the depositary is subject to an obligation of restitution in the event of loss or theft of the crypto-assets, pursuant to the Luxembourg Civil Code andArticle 75 MiCAR. Depositaries in- tending to directly safeguard crypto-assets are re- quired to inform the CSSF in a timely manner, independently of any CASP authorization or noti- fication. For credit institutions actingas funddeposi- taries, the FAQ-CI remains relevant, as it sets out equivalent supervisory expectations applicable to virtual or crypto-asset related activities. Outlook: TheCSSF’s Post-MiCARSupervisory Position Following the entry into force of MiCAR, the CSSF appears to have largely aligned its supervisory ap- proach to crypto-assets with the newEU regulatory framework, while maintaining a cautious, investor- protection-driven stance consistentwith its historical positioning. In particular, the updated 2026 FAQ re- flect an early and pragmatic convergence with emerging supervisory thinking at ESMA level, in- cludingESMA’s evolvingviews in the context of the review of the EAD. At the same time, it should be noted that ESMA’s suggestions to accommodate crypto-asset exposure within the EAD framework have not yet been confirmed through a formal leg- islative proposal, and their ultimate implementation remains subject to political agreement at EU level. The CSSF continues to draw a clear distinction be- tweenUCITS andAIFs. UCITS remain restricted to indirect exposure to crypto-assets only, andsuchex- posuremust be obtainedexclusively through trans- ferable securities that do not embed derivatives, thereby preserving the integrity of the UCITS risk and liquidity framework. This restrictive approach confirms that, notwithstandingMiCAR, UCITS are not expected tobecomedirect participants incrypto- assetmarkets.Moreover, pending further legislative clarification at EU level, it cannot be excluded that certain Member States may adopt a cautious or re- strictive stance and, notwithstanding the UCITS marketingpassport,may raiseobjections to themar- keting of UCITSwith crypto-asset exposure in their domesticmarkets on investor-protection or regula- tory-uncertainty grounds. ForAIFs and their managers, the post-MiCAR land- scape results in a dual supervisory lens, combining, where applicable, fund-level authorization and risk managementrequirementsunderAIFMDwithactiv- ity-based regulation under MiCAR where crypto- asset services are performed. Going forward, the CSSF’s supervisory focus is expected to remain on governance,riskmanagement,custodyarrangements and AML/CFT controls, while further supervisory convergence at EU level is likely to continue refining, thoughnotwithoutjurisdictionalfriction,thepractical boundaries of crypto-asset investments within the Luxembourg fund framework. (*)Dr.SebastiaanHooghiemstra isaseniorassociate inthe investment management practice of Loyens &Loeff in Luxembourg. (**)GabriëlStormisanassociateintheinvestmentmanagementpractice of Loyens &Loeff in the Netherlands. New CSSFRequirements for (Luxembourg) Investment Funds investing in Crypto-Assets L e 16mars 2026, laTré- sorerie de l'État a placé avec succès une émis- sionobligataire de 2,5mil- liards d'euros, pour renforcer son coussinde liquidités. L'emprunt a une maturité de 10 ans et un coupon de 3,125 %. La dette publique s'élèvera, après cet emprunt, à environ 26,6 milliards d'euros, soit 28,4%duPIB. Le livre de souscription, ouvert à 9h30, a pu être fermé à 11h45. Les marchés ont réagi positivement, avec une demande supérieure à l'offre (oversubscription). Ce fort intérêt des investisseurs souligne l'attractivité du Luxembourg en tant qu'émetteur souverain béné- ficiant de la notationAAA. Barclays, BGLBNP Paribas, CITI, SociétéGénéraleetSpuerkeessont agi en tant que chefs de file (joint lead managers). L'emprunt sera coté à la Bourse de Luxembourg. Les investisseurs sont principale- ment des acteurs institutionnels européens (banques, gestion- nairesd'actifs, assurances, institu- tions européennes). Source : ministère des Finances Le Luxembourg lève 2,5 milliards d’euros sur les marchés ©AdobeStock