Malta’s pursuit of becoming a crypto hub under the EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) is under intense scrutiny. While MiCA promises standardized oversight, Malta’s history of lax enforcement and ties to high-profile financial crimes raise alarming questions about its commitment to genuine compliance. The case of StablR, a Malta-licensed stablecoin issuer, epitomizes these concerns, exposing systemic flaws in the nation’s regulatory framework.
StablR’s Opaque Legacy and MiCA’s Disclosure Failures
StablR, authorized by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) to issue EURR and USDR stablecoins, markets itself as a MiCA-compliant innovator. Yet its white paper conspicuously omits the checkered past of CEO Gijs op de Weegh, former COO of Payvision—a scandal-ridden Dutch payment processor convicted in 2020 for laundering billions for cybercriminal networks. Internal records show op de Weegh oversaw Payvision’s onboarding of clients like Uwe Lenhoff and Gal Barak, whose fraud schemes defrauded thousands of Europeans. Despite Payvision’s €330,000 fines for AML failures, StablR’s white paper sanitizes this history, violating MiCA’s transparency mandates.
Read more about the Payvision Case here.
This omission is not merely ethical—it’s regulatory negligence. MiCA’s Article 60 demands rigorous disclosure of governance risks, yet the MFSA greenlit StablR without addressing its leadership’s ties to historic financial crime.
Malta’s FATF Grey List History: A Pattern of Leniency
Malta’s regulatory credibility is already tarnished. From 2021–2022, it languished on the FATF’s grey list for AML failures, criticized for enabling tax evasion and opaque corporate structures. Though delisted in 2022, recent court rulings overturning AML fines—like the €390,000 penalty against a gaming platform in 2024—reveal a judiciary undermining enforcement. The MFSA’s 50% increase in inspections in 2023 appears performative when legal loopholes persist.
MiCA as a Trojan Horse for Crypto’s Risky Players?
The CoinTribune highlights fears that Malta’s rapid MiCA licensing—faster than other EU states—could create a “race to the bottom,” attracting firms seeking minimal oversight. StablR’s case suggests Malta’s strategy hinges on regulatory arbitrage: leveraging MiCA’s EU passporting rights while tolerating opaque disclosures. Critics argue this mirrors its “Blockchain Island” era, which saw crypto firms exploit lax controls.
Conclusion: A Test for EU-Wide Enforcement
Malta’s MiCA implementation risks becoming a cautionary tale. If the EU allows member states to dilute standards for competitive advantage, MiCA’s promise of harmonized oversight will fail. ESMA’s investigation into “lenient” licensing must confront Malta’s legacy of enabling financial crime—and StablR’s white paper is a glaring starting point.
The question remains: Is Malta reforming, or merely rebranding its regulatory apathy? For the EU’s sake, the answer must be the former.