Carlo Pöschke analyzes the private law liability regime for crypto-asset whitepapers under MiCAR in all its aspects, establishes the necessary connections to national law as well as to private international and international civil procedure law, and, building on this analysis, develops his own reform proposals for a future MiCAR update.

In Articles 15, 26, and 52 of the MiCAR, the European legislator has established genuine Union law-based causes of action. The fundamental approach of introducing a liability regime for whitepapers directly anchored in EU law is persuasive; however, its concrete implementation reveals significant weaknesses in many respects. The wording of the provisions exposes an unbalanced system: on the one hand, the scope of liability is excessively broad, as the circle of potentially liable parties - including members of the supervisory body - is extensive and an explicit requirement of fault is missing; on the other hand, in practice, the enforcement of whitepaper liability claims will frequently fail due to the transaction causality, the proof of which is expressly placed on the claimant. Another shortcoming lies in the fact that, despite MiCAR's character as a regulation, key issues remain unresolved, making it necessary to resort to national law. This applies in particular to the scope of liability, contributory negligence, and limitation periods. However, such recourse to domestic law contradicts MiCAR's objective of harmonization and raises complex questions of private international law that must be clarified in advance. Nevertheless, certain instruments consistent with EU law are available to legal practitioners that can mitigate some of the problems described de lege lata . There are strong arguments that whitepaper liability claims require fault as an unwritten element and that, where a German court has jurisdiction, claimants may benefit from an easing of the burden of proof (though not a reversal) through the doctrine of hypothetical proper conduct ( aufklärungsrichtiges Verhalten ).

Autorentext
Born 1998; studied law at the Universities of Bonn and Oxford; First State Examination in Law in 2023; Research Associate at the Institute for Law and Finance at Goethe University Frankfurt; PhD 2025; legal traineeship (Referendariat) at the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main.

Inhalt

Einleitung
A. Einführung in die Thematik
B. Ziel der Untersuchung
Kapitel 1: Grundlagen
A. Entstehungsgeschichte und Regelungsgegenstände der MiCAR im Überblick
B. Was sind Kryptowerte?
C. Warum bedarf es einer Whitepaperpflicht und -haftung für Kryptowerte?
Kapitel 2: Ein Blick zurück: Prospektpflicht und -haftung für Kryptowerte-Whitepaper nach deutschem Recht vor Inkrafttreten der MiCAR
A. Prospektpflicht nach Art. 3 Abs. 1 Prospekt-VO und Prospekthaftung nach §§ 9 ff. WpPG
B. Prospektpflicht nach §§ 164 ff. KAGB bzw. §§ 268 f. KAGB und Prospekthaftung nach § 306 KAGB
C. Prospektpflicht nach §§ 6 ff. VermAnlG und Prospekthaftung nach §§ 20 ff. VermAnlG
D. Bürgerlich-rechtliche Prospekthaftung
E. Ergebnis
Kapitel 3: Die Whitepaperhaftung nach der MiCAR
A. Anwendungsbereich der MiCAR, Art. 2 MiCAR
B. Systematik der Whitepaperhaftungsansprüche
C. Anwendungsbereich der Whitepaperhaftungstatbestände
D. Detailbetrachtung der Whitepaperhaftungansprüche
Ertrag der Untersuchung
A. Rechtspolitischer Ertrag der Untersuchung: Gesetzgebungsvorschlag
B. Rechtsdogmatischer Ertrag der Untersuchung: thesenartige Zusammenfassung der wesentlichen Erkenntnisse