Updated:
Yes and it is done with sufficient sophistication to defeat most investor verification attempts. Fraudulent operators use four distinct license misrepresentation methods: presenting a genuine license number that belongs to a completely different entity, cloning the branding and registration details of a legitimately authorized firm while operating as an entirely separate and unauthorized business, presenting an authorization that is genuine but does not cover the specific activity being offered, and presenting an authorization that was genuine but has since been withdrawn or suspended. A regulatory licensing check against the primary database of the stated regulator not a Google search, not a review of the entity’s own website, and not a comparison against a secondary aggregator is the only verification method that identifies all four misrepresentation types.
A regulatory licensing check is a direct verification of a financial operator’s claimed regulatory authorization against the primary licensing database maintained by the national competent authority responsible for that authorization.
Every EU member state maintains a financial regulator the FCA in the UK, BaFin in Germany, CySEC in Cyprus, AMF in France, AFM in the Netherlands, and equivalents across all 27 EU member states each of which maintains a primary register of the entities it has authorized to provide financial services in its jurisdiction. These registers are the authoritative source for authorization verification. Every authorization claim made by a financial operator is verifiable against that register and every discrepancy between the claim and the register record is a material finding.
For investors who have been approached by a European-licensed broker, investment platform, or financial advisor, the regulatory licensing check answers the most fundamental pre-investment question: is this entity actually authorized to do what it is offering to do? The answer to that question, from the primary database of the stated regulator, is the foundation on which every subsequent engagement decision rests.
Our team verifies every material element of a financial operator’s regulatory authorization claim:
Veritas Advisory Group s.r.o. conducts regulatory licensing checks against the primary databases of every major European financial regulatory authority applying the specific search methodology and disclosure framework of each regulator.
| Regulator | Jurisdiction | Primary Register |
| FCA Financial Conduct Authority | United Kingdom | Financial Services Register |
| BaFin Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht | Germany | BaFin Database |
| CySEC Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission | Cyprus | CySEC Register |
| AMF Autorité des marchés financiers | France | REGAFI / AMF Register |
| AFM Autoriteit Financiële Markten | Netherlands | AFM Register |
| CONSOB Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa | Italy | CONSOB Albo |
| CNMV Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores | Spain | CNMV Register |
| MFSA Malta Financial Services Authority | Malta | MFSA Register |
| Finantsinspektsioon | Estonia | Estonian Financial Register |
| CSSF Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier | Luxembourg | CSSF List |
| CBI Central Bank of Ireland | Ireland | Central Bank Register |
| FSMA Financial Services and Markets Authority | Belgium | FSMA Register |
| Finansinspektionen | Sweden | Finansinspektionen Register |
| Finanstilsynet | Denmark | Finanstilsynet Register |
| Finanstilsynet | Norway (EEA) | Norwegian Financial Register |
| FIN-FSA Finanssivalvonta | Finland | FIN-FSA Register |
| HCMC Hellenic Capital Market Commission | Greece | HCMC Register |
| KNF Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego | Poland | KNF Register |
| CNB Czech National Bank | Czech Republic | CNB Register |
| MNB Magyar Nemzeti Bank | Hungary | MNB Register |
| NBS Národná banka Slovenska | Slovakia | NBS Register |
| CMVM Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários | Portugal | CMVM Register |
| ASF Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară | Romania | ASF Register |
| HANFA | Croatia | HANFA Register |
| FSC Financial Supervision Commission | Bulgaria | FSC Register |
| ATVP Agencija za trg vrednostnih papirjev | Slovenia | ATVP Register |
| FMA Finanzmarktaufsicht | Austria | FMA Register |
| FMA Finanzmarktaufsicht | Liechtenstein (EEA) | FMA Liechtenstein Register |
Following the implementation of the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, MiCA authorization registers are maintained by the national competent authority of each EU member state. Where an operator claims MiCA authorization or national VASP registration, we verify against the applicable national register including the ESMA central register of MiCA-authorized entities as it develops across EU member states.
ESMA maintains EU-wide registers for specific categories of authorized entity including UCITS and AIFMD-registered funds, trade repositories, and credit rating agencies. Where an investment operator claims authorization in a category covered by ESMA’s central registers, verification is conducted against those registers directly.
The most sophisticated form of regulatory misrepresentation a fraudulent operator that copies the name, registration number, contact details, and branding of a legitimately authorized firm, creating a parallel fraudulent entity that appears to have the same regulatory credentials as the genuine firm. Clone firm fraud is specifically identified through entity identity matching confirming that the entity presenting the authorization (its company number, registered address, and contact details) matches the entity to which the authorization was actually granted. The FCA alone issues hundreds of clone firm warnings annually the majority of which target Asian investors.
A fraudulent operator that presents a genuine license number from the regulatory register but attributes it to a different entity than the one actually holding it. The license number may be genuine belonging to an unrelated authorized firm in the same jurisdiction but the entity presenting it is unauthorized. Authorization existence confirmation without entity identity matching does not identify this misrepresentation. Our verification confirms both that the license number exists and that it belongs to the entity presenting it.
A financial operator that holds a genuine regulatory authorization but for a narrower scope of activity than it is offering. For example, a firm authorized only to provide investment advice but offering discretionary portfolio management, or a firm authorized for institutional clients only that is soliciting retail investors. Authorization scope verification confirms what the authorization actually permits not what the entity claims it permits.
A financial operator that presents credentials from a regulatory authorization that was genuine at one point but has since been withdrawn or surrendered either following regulatory enforcement action or after the firm ceased regulated activity. Authorization status assessment confirms the current status of every authorization specifically identifying those that have been suspended, conditioned, or withdrawn since the entity obtained them.
A financial operator that claims to provide services across multiple EU member states under MiFID II passporting rights without having filed the required passport notification with the host state regulator. Passporting status verification confirms whether the passport notification exists and has been accepted identifying entities that claim EU-wide authorization they do not hold.
Our regulatory licensing check methodology is built around direct primary database verification applying the specific search protocol of each national regulator’s register to every element of the authorization claim.
We identify every regulatory authorization claim made by the entity the stated regulator, the authorization type, the license or registration number presented, and the scope of services claimed to be authorized.
We conduct direct verification against the primary register of the stated regulator confirming authorization existence, scope, status, and the identity of the authorized entity. Where the entity claims authorization from multiple regulators, each is verified simultaneously against the applicable primary register.
We confirm that the entity presenting the authorization its registered corporate name, company number, jurisdiction, and contact details matches the entity to which the authorization was granted. This step specifically identifies clone firm misrepresentations and license number substitution fraud.
We assess the full scope of the authorization the specific investment services, financial instruments, client categories, and geographic coverage permitted and confirm the current status of the authorization, including any conditions, restrictions, limitations, or enforcement actions that affect its validity.
Where the entity claims to provide cross-border services under EU passporting rights, we verify the passport notification status with the host state regulators confirming that the required notifications have been filed and accepted.
We check the entity and its principals against the regulator’s published warning lists, unauthorized firm registers, and consumer alert publications and review the regulator’s enforcement history for any published actions against the entity.
All findings are compiled into a regulatory licensing check report covering the authorization verification outcome, scope and status assessment, entity identity matching result, passporting confirmation, and warning list findings with a clear statement of the entity’s verified regulatory status and a risk assessment.
The single most common pre-investment check performed by Asian investors engaging with European financial operators is looking up the stated license number on the regulator’s website. That check confirming that a license number exists in the register passes for clone firm fraud, license number substitution, and scope misrepresentation. It does not confirm that the license belongs to the entity presenting it, that the authorization covers the specific services being offered, or that the authorization is currently unrestricted.
Veritas Advisory Group s.r.o. conducts the complete verification entity identity matching, scope confirmation, status assessment, passporting verification, and enforcement review that closes the gaps that surface-level license number lookup consistently misses.
If you are considering investing with a European-licensed broker, investment platform, fund manager, or financial advisor or if you have concerns about the regulatory status of an entity you are already engaged with a regulatory licensing check against the primary database of the applicable regulator is the most direct verification available.
Veritas Advisory Group s.r.o. conducts that check across every relevant regulator simultaneously and delivers a clear, primary-source-verified assessment of the entity’s actual regulatory status.
Our team will review your submission and respond with a licensing check scope and timeline within 3–5 business days.
You can look up a license number but that check confirms only that a license with that number exists somewhere in the register. It does not confirm that the license belongs to the entity presenting it, that the authorization covers the specific services being offered, that the authorization is currently unrestricted, or that the entity is not a clone of the genuine licensee. Each of these additional verification steps requires a more systematic check than a basic register lookup provides and each represents a misrepresentation method that clone firm and license fraud operators specifically rely on investors not performing.
A standard regulatory licensing check covering authorization existence, scope, status, entity identity matching, and enforcement review for a single entity with a single claimed authorization is completed within 1–2 business days. Multi-regulator checks covering multiple claimed authorizations across several jurisdictions typically take 3–5 business days.
Absence from the register of the stated regulator is the most direct fraud indicator a licensing check can produce it means the entity is operating without authorization in the jurisdiction it claims. This finding is immediately actionable: it provides the factual basis for a regulatory complaint to the national competent authority for unauthorized financial services activity, and it is a primary indicator of fraud in any civil or criminal proceedings that follow. We advise on the immediate regulatory and legal response as part of the report delivery in every case where unauthorized status is confirmed.
Exempt firm and appointed representative status are themselves verifiable against the primary register of the applicable regulator the FCA's register, for example, includes both directly authorized firms and appointed representatives of authorized firms. We verify the specific registration category claimed, confirm its existence and current status, and assess whether the claimed exemption or representative status is consistent with the services being offered. Misrepresentation of exempt or appointed representative status is a specific and growing fraud typology that licensing checks directly address.
Yes. The licensing check report is based on primary source verification against the authoritative regulatory register which is the same source that regulators and courts rely on for authorization status determinations. Where the licensing check identifies unauthorized status, scope misrepresentation, or entity identity mismatch, the report and its underlying primary source references are directly usable as evidence in regulatory complaints, civil fraud proceedings, and criminal referrals. We structure every report with this evidentiary use in mind.
Authorization does not immunize a licensed entity against civil liability or regulatory enforcement for fraudulent or manipulative conduct. A licensed broker that committed withdrawal obstruction, account manipulation, or mis-selling remains fully liable for that conduct under MiFID II and applicable civil law and the licensing check, by confirming the authorization, identifies the specific regulator to which enforcement complaints should be directed and the specific regulatory framework under which civil claims are available. Where losses have already occurred with a licensed operator, the regulatory licensing check is the first step in identifying the applicable recovery pathway.
Veritas Advisory Group s.r.o. provides legal and advisory services to fraud victims across Asia-Pacific. We operate in European jurisdictions and work exclusively on cross-border financial fraud cases.