Swiss FinTech licence (BA Art. 1b): the banking licence light explained

What is the Swiss FinTech licence

The Swiss FinTech licence is a banking authorisation under Banking Act (BA) Article 1b, introduced on 1 January 2019 and implemented in detail through the Banking Ordinance (BO). It authorises a firm to accept public deposits on a professional basis up to a total of CHF 100 million, provided it neither pays interest on those deposits nor invests them. In practice it is the category sometimes called the "banking licence light" because it applies a proportionate, FINMA-supervised regime that sits below a full banking licence but above the AML-only self-regulation path.

The licence was designed as a deliberate regulatory answer to a practical problem. Before 2019 a Swiss firm that wanted to hold client funds in any material volume had no route short of a full banking licence, which is expensive, capital-intensive, and not calibrated to payment platforms, crowdfunding operators, or crypto businesses whose deposit-holding is incidental to their core service. The FinTech licence closed that gap. Its whole economic logic rests on the three cumulative restrictions in BA Article 1b: a deposit ceiling, no interest, no investment.

Who the FinTech licence is for

Three categories of business fit the FinTech licence. First, payment-service providers that hold customer balances on account – wallet operators, remittance platforms, closed-loop payment schemes. Second, platform-funding operators such as crowdfunding and crowdinvesting platforms that aggregate contributor funds before disbursement. Third, crypto-asset businesses whose operating model involves holding fiat deposits against crypto purchases, staking pools, or custody reconciliation. All of them share the same structural feature: they need to hold client money professionally, but they do not want to be a bank.

The regime is not suitable for businesses whose model depends on lending out client funds, earning net interest margin, or investing deposits in marketable securities. Those activities require a full banking licence under BA Article 1a.

The CHF 100 million deposit cap

BA Article 1b caps a FinTech-licensed firm's aggregate public deposits at CHF 100 million. Crossing that threshold is a licensing event – the firm must notify FINMA within 10 days and file an application for a full banking licence within 90 days (BA Article 1b(6)). The cap is a statutory ceiling, not a soft guideline: FINMA can keep a firm above it on the FinTech regime only in special cases where the deposits are neither invested nor interest-bearing and customer protection is secured by specific arrangements (BA Article 1b(5)). Where several Article 1b firms form a group, the threshold is calculated across the whole group (Banking Ordinance Article 24a).

The cap is calculated on the aggregate of deposits accepted by the licensed entity, not netted against any asset side. Client segregation and trust arrangements can change how deposits sit on the balance sheet, but they do not change whether the firm is accepting deposits for the purposes of the statute. Classification is a legal question decided on the economic substance of the client relationship, not the label.

The three cumulative restrictions: cap, no interest, no investment

BA Article 1b paragraph 1 states the three restrictions cumulatively. A FinTech-licensed firm must accept deposits only up to CHF 100 million; it must not pay any interest on those deposits; and it must not invest them. All three conditions hold together – breach of any one of them converts the firm's activity into ordinary banking business, which is reserved to BA Article 1a licensees.

"No interest" means the firm pays depositors no interest on their balances; a firm that pays interest on public deposits of any amount is a bank under BA Article 1a. The prohibition is what distinguishes deposit-holding from the classic banking intermediation business that Swiss law has reserved to full-licence institutions since the Banking Act of 1934.

"No investment" is spelled out in Banking Ordinance Article 14f. The firm must keep accepted deposits separate from its own funds, or record them so that they can be shown separately at any time, in which case it must undergo an ordinary audit under Article 727 of the Code of Obligations. The deposits may be held only as sight deposits with a bank or another Article 1b firm, or as category 1 high-quality liquid assets under Article 15a of the Liquidity Ordinance, in the currency in which clients can reclaim them. Collectively held crypto-assets must be kept in the form in which they were received and, unless FINMA grants an exception in a justified case, in Switzerland. In effect the licence authorises a deposit-custody business, not a banking business.

Capital requirements and going-concern obligations

A FinTech-licensed firm must hold minimum capital of 3% of the public deposits and collectively held crypto-assets it has accepted, and at least CHF 300,000, fully paid up and maintained at all times (Banking Ordinance Article 17a). FINMA may require higher capital in individual cases where the risks of the business call for it. In addition, the firm must demonstrate a viable going-concern basis – adequate organisation, fit-and-proper management, documented risk management, and an IT and security framework commensurate with the service model.

Unlike a full bank, a FinTech-licensee is not subject to the Basel III capital and liquidity toolkit: the Capital Adequacy Ordinance and the Liquidity Ordinance do not apply to it (Banking Ordinance Article 17a(3)). The regime is deliberately proportionate. That said, "proportionate" does not mean "light-touch" – FINMA applies the same authorisation standards of integrity, competence, and control to a FinTech-licence applicant as to any other supervised institution.

AML obligations under the FinTech licence

A FinTech-licensed firm is a financial intermediary within the meaning of Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) Article 2(2)(a). It is therefore subject to AMLA identification, record-keeping, monitoring, and reporting obligations regardless of licence category. FinTech-licensees are supervised for AML purposes directly by FINMA under AMLA Article 12 and the AMLO-FINMA (FINMA Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance). Suspicious-activity reporting goes to the Money Laundering Reporting Office (MROS).

Because AML supervision is vested in FINMA directly, a FinTech-licensee does not need and does not typically maintain Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) membership. The two tracks are alternatives, not cumulative – an SRO-only firm does AMLA under SRO supervision, a FINMA-licensee does AMLA under FINMA direct supervision. The scope of the obligations is the same; the supervisor differs. We examine this distinction in detail in SRO membership vs FINMA prudential licence.

FinTech licence vs full banking licence

The table below sets the FinTech-licence regime against a full banking licence on the operational variables that drive the choice in practice. Figures cite the Banking Act and Banking Ordinance; economic restrictions follow the statutory text of BA Article 1b read with BA Article 1a.

The CHF 10,000,000 minimum for a full banking licence is set by the Banking Ordinance Article 15, and the Capital Adequacy Ordinance requires own funds above that floor, scaled to the bank's risk-weighted positions. The operational gap between the two regimes is therefore wider than the headline capital numbers suggest.

FinTech licence vs SRO-only path: when each applies

Not every Swiss financial business needs a FINMA licence at all. A firm that acts as a financial intermediary under AMLA Article 2(3) but does not accept deposits in the statutory sense can comply with its AML duties purely through SRO membership, with no FINMA licence. Independent portfolio managers before the FinIA entered into force on 1 January 2020, some fiduciary-payment operators, and many crypto-exchange intermediaries have historically operated this way.

The FinTech licence becomes necessary when deposit-holding on own account crosses the statutory threshold of "accepting deposits from the public on a professional basis". Banking Ordinance Article 6 defines that threshold: a firm acts on a professional basis if it permanently accepts more than 20 public deposits or publicly advertises for them. Up to CHF 1 million in total, such a firm stays outside the licence requirement if it runs no interest-margin business and informs depositors in advance, in writing or another text form, that it is not supervised by FINMA and that the deposits are not covered by deposit protection. For firms within the CHF 100 million cap, the FinTech licence is the structurally correct answer.

Application process and documentation

A FinTech-licence application is filed with FINMA and reviewed against the statutory criteria in BA Article 1b and the organisational requirements of the Banking Ordinance. The dossier typically comprises: a business plan with three-year financial projections; governance documentation including articles of association, board and executive composition, and fit-and-proper evidence for responsible persons; an AML framework including risk analysis, policies, and dedicated compliance officer; IT and security documentation; outsourcing inventory; and audit arrangements with an audit firm licensed by the Federal Audit Oversight Authority.

Practitioners budget a realistic timeline of 9–18 months from initial contact to licence grant, of which 3–6 months is typically pre-filing preparation and 6–12 months is active FINMA review including multiple rounds of questions. The minimum capital must be fully paid up (Banking Ordinance Article 17a).

Why the FinTech licence fits payment and crypto models

The licence remains a narrow category: as at October 2026, FINMA's register lists six firms licensed under BA Article 1b. Payment platforms and crypto businesses share the structural fit: large aggregate client-balance volumes, transactional rather than investment relationships, margins earned on flow and service fees rather than on net interest. For these models, the three restrictions of BA Article 1b are not binding – the business is not trying to pay interest or invest deposits in the first place. The CHF 100 million cap is the operational limit to watch, not the no-interest rule.

Firms whose model depends economically on depositor remuneration or on treasury yield do not fit the FinTech category. They either restructure to be non-deposit-accepting (which may mean trust arrangements, regulated fund structures, or strict segregation), or they pursue a full banking licence. Attempting to operate an interest-bearing model under a FinTech licence is not viable – paying interest on public deposits makes the business a bank under BA Article 1a and requires a full banking licence.

Limitations and exit strategies

Two limitations matter in long-range planning. First, the CHF 100 million cap will eventually be reached by any successful payment or crypto business with growing client balances. Second, the no-interest rule excludes competitive pressure on deposit yield as a customer-acquisition tool.

Exit strategies typically take one of three forms. The first is escalation to a full banking licence: the application is due within 90 days of crossing the cap, and the firm raises its capital to the required level and builds out full-bank governance. The second is restructuring the business so that client balances no longer sit as deposits on the firm's balance sheet – using segregated trust accounts or partner-bank arrangements. The third is geographic diversification, with the Swiss entity remaining within the cap and volume growth routed through foreign licensed affiliates.

For most practitioners building a licensing roadmap, the FinTech licence is best understood as a phase – sufficient for the first CHF 100 million of balance growth and a decisive advantage on capital efficiency against a full licence during that phase. Beyond it, the strategic choice returns to first principles. The regime itself is under review: on 22 October 2025 the Federal Council opened a consultation on replacing the FinTech licence with a new payment instrument institution licence under the Financial Institutions Act; until that reform enters into force, BA Article 1b remains the operative regime.

Frequently asked questions