Regulationjul 24, 2026

Kraken’s UK Footprint Runs on 3 Separate FCA Registrations, Not One License

Payward Limited, Payward Services and Crypto Facilities each hold distinct FCA permissions — showing UK crypto rules remain a patchwork, not a single approval.

Marcus Hale

Markets Editor. Marcus covers macro, ETFs and the

2 min read

Kraken’s UK Footprint Runs on 3 Separate FCA Registrations, Not One License

Kraken does not operate in the United Kingdom under one blanket crypto license. Instead, its business runs through three separate legal entities, each carrying a distinct permission from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) — a structure that illustrates how far UK crypto oversight still is from a single, unified regulatory approval.

Three entities, three different permissions

Payward Limited is registered with the FCA as a cryptoasset business, a status granted for anti-money laundering (AML) supervision purposes rather than a full trading license. Payward Services Limited holds an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license, which governs how the firm issues and safeguards electronic money used to fund customer accounts. Crypto Facilities Limited is separately FCA-authorized as an investment firm, a permission tied specifically to its derivatives business.

Each registration covers a narrow slice of Kraken’s overall operations in the UK. The AML registration confirms compliance monitoring; the EMI license governs fiat on-ramps and custody of client money; the investment-firm authorization applies only to derivatives trading through Crypto Facilities. None of the three functions as a general-purpose “crypto license” that automatically extends to every product Kraken offers.

Why the distinction matters for traders

For Kraken’s UK customers and for the wider market, the practical takeaway is that regulatory coverage in the UK is activity-specific rather than entity-wide. A firm can be AML-registered without holding a license that authorizes spot trading, custody, or derivatives outright — and a derivatives permission does not automatically imply the same standard of consumer protection applies to spot cryptoasset holdings.

This layered setup matters because it shapes what recourse UK users actually have if something goes wrong. Funds held via the EMI-licensed entity fall under safeguarding rules distinct from those applying to cryptoasset holdings under the AML-registered entity, while derivatives activity through the FCA-authorized investment firm sits under yet another regulatory regime, including its own capital and conduct requirements.

A preview of the UK’s incoming crypto regime

The UK has been moving toward a broader cryptoasset regulatory framework, and Kraken’s current multi-entity structure offers a working example of the complexity that framework will need to resolve. Rather than a single license test, firms operating across custody, payments, and derivatives may continue to need multiple, activity-specific FCA permissions even as new comprehensive crypto rules come into force.

For investors, the lesson is straightforward: an exchange’s regulatory status in any jurisdiction should be read entity by entity and service by service, not assumed from a single headline claim of being “FCA regulated.” Kraken’s UK setup is a case study in exactly why that level of precision matters.