When secondary trading starts without consent: what to do first
When a venue lists your token and secondary trading begins without your consent, the first task is not to stop the trading. It is to fix the record: capture the listing page, the first trade timestamp, and any exchange with the venue, before the trail moves or disappears. What you do in the first hours decides which forum will later look at the case, and on what evidence.
The legal basis
Two EU regulations frame the position. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) sets out who may operate a trading platform for crypto-assets and what conditions attach to admitting a crypto-asset to trading on such a platform. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) sets out the information that must accompany a transfer of crypto-assets between service providers.
Under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), an authorised platform runs its own admission process before it lists a crypto-asset. Whether issuer consent forms part of that process depends on the platform's published rules, not on a separate EU-wide register entry that names you. This is why "consent" is rarely a single document; it is usually scattered across the platform's onboarding form, its published policy, and whatever correspondence exists between the platform and whoever submitted the listing.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) becomes relevant once the trail runs through more than one service provider. It is the record that should travel with a transfer between providers, and its presence or absence tells you something about how far along the chain the token has already moved before you noticed.
What changes in your position
Two clocks start the moment trading opens, not when you notice it. One belongs to the venue's own complaint window, set out in its terms and rarely advertised anywhere else. The other belongs to any limitation period under the law that governs your relationship with the venue, or the absence of one, if no relationship was ever agreed between you and the operator.
Neither clock announces itself. Both keep running while you decide what to do, which is the practical reason to fix the record before drafting any letter. A notice sent without the underlying record attached invites a dispute about what actually happened, rather than a decision on the merits.
Steps to take now
- Capture the record yourself: the listing page, the first trade timestamp, and the venue's published terms, before anything is edited or removed by the operator.
- Send written notice disputing consent to the operator of the venue. A lawyer on our team usually drafts this notice, following the hiring and review process set out in How the team hires and its limits.
- Establish the operator's status: is it an authorised crypto-asset service provider under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), or does it operate without that authorisation.
- Trace the token across any further platforms it has reached, noting where transfer information under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) should have accompanied it.
- Choose the forum only once the operator's status is clear. Filing in the wrong forum wastes the clock rather than stopping it.
- Hold public statements. A public dispute over ownership, issued before the record is fixed, can be read later as evidence against your own position.
Who decides, and where
The forum depends on where the operator sits, not on where you sit. This is the single fact that decides most of what follows, and it is worth confirming before any notice leaves your hands.
| Operator's status | First forum | What it needs from you |
|---|---|---|
| Authorised crypto-asset service provider | Its own internal complaint procedure, then the authority that granted its authorisation | The fixed record: listing page, timestamp, terms |
| Operates without authorisation | The national authority responsible for enforcement in the jurisdiction where it is based | Proof of where it is based, not just where it is reachable online |
| Status unclear | A jurisdiction check before any complaint is filed | Confirmation of the operator's registered seat |
A complaint sent to the wrong body does not toll either clock. It simply sits there while the deadline that matters continues to run.
If your situation differs
If the venue is an authorised platform, the complaint runs through its own procedure first. Escalation to the authority that granted its authorisation follows only once that internal procedure closes or stalls without a result.
If the venue is unregistered or based outside the EU, no internal procedure exists. The first useful step is identifying which national authority has jurisdiction over it, not writing to the venue itself.
If the party who initiated the listing cannot be identified from the listing page alone, that identity is a fact question. It should be resolved before any notice is drafted, not while the notice is being written.
What this page does not solve
This page does not stop a platform from trading, compel a delisting, or establish who controls the wallet behind the listing. Those are separate fact-finding steps, each resolved through a different kind of enquiry.
Confirming who stands behind the counterparty is usually the first of them, resolved through a Counterparty report ireland.
Where the dispute turns on a specific contract or disclosure document, a Document report ireland establishes what that document can and cannot show on its own.
Where the operator's registered seat itself is in question, a Jurisdiction in Ireland: what can be established report sets out what is confirmed and what remains open.
None of these three reports decides the dispute. Each narrows one fact that the forum will ask about, so the notice you send is built on something other than assumption.
Related publications
A related question, on the issuer's side of the same relationship, is covered in When the issuer is asked about conflicts: what to do first.
Move on the record now. The part of the file that decides forum and deadline is the part you preserve first, not the part you argue about later.
Verified
Verified as of 4 June 2025, against Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), in force since 30 December 2024, and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), in force since 30 December 2024. Both texts are published on the official EU legislation portal, referenced here by name and not by paraphrase.
FAQ
What is the first step when secondary trading starts without consent?
Fix the record before contacting anyone: the listing page, the first trade timestamp, and the venue's published terms. Everything that follows, including which forum reviews the matter, depends on what this record shows.
Which deadline is already running?
No single EU-wide number governs this. Two clocks matter: the venue's own complaint window, and any limitation period under the law governing your relationship with it. Both start when trading opens, not when you notice it.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
An authorised operator's own procedure decides first, on the fixed record you preserved. An unauthorised operator has no such procedure; the national authority with jurisdiction over its seat decides instead, on that same record plus proof of where the operator is actually based.