How to Open a Brokerage Account in Europe: A Step-by-Step Guide for EU Investors

To open a brokerage account in Europe, you are entering a system defined by EU-level investor protection, AML rules, and national supervisors — not just by fees and platforms.

Disclaimer:
The information provided on Finorum is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or tax advice.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of capital.
Always conduct your own research or consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.
Finorum does not promote or endorse any specific financial products or institutions.

---

Opening a Brokerage Account in Europe: What Really Matters First

To open a brokerage account in Europe today is not primarily a question of which app to download, but of how EU regulation shapes the entire process — from identity checks to investor protection. On the surface, onboarding looks faster and more digital than ever. Underneath, it is more structured, more documented, and far less flexible than many first-time investors expect. And that is intentional. The European framework is designed to standardise access to markets, limit abuse, and reduce asymmetric risk — not to optimise for speed or convenience. That trade-off matters, especially if you misunderstand what kind of account you are actually opening.

Short version?
Process first. Promises later.

---

Step 0: Make Sure the Broker Is Actually Regulated

This is the starting point.
Not the app. Not the price. Regulation.

Before you try to open a brokerage account in Europe, you need to understand one basic fact: there is no such thing as a “neutral” broker in the EU. Either a firm is a regulated investment intermediary — or it isn’t. Everything else is a gradient of risk. And those risks are not always obvious at first glance.

Within the European framework, brokerage services for shares and ETFs fall under MiFID II rules. That means the investment firm must hold a licence issued by a national regulator and comply with clearly defined obligations toward retail investors. Supervision at the EU level is coordinated by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), but licensing and day-to-day oversight remain national. This is where many investors get confused.

One short thought:
popular ≠ regulated.

If a broker holds a MiFID licence in one EEA country, it can provide services in other EEA states through passporting rules. That is standard practice — but only if the activity is properly notified to local regulators. If you cannot verify this publicly, it is not a minor detail.

Mini-scenario:
Luca (Italy) uses a platform registered in another EU country. The app works flawlessly, but complaints are handled only in the language of the home jurisdiction. That is not an issue when everything runs smoothly. It becomes one when it doesn’t.

And one more point worth stating clearly:
regulation does not mean you cannot lose money. It means you know who is responsible, where your assets are formally held, and which protection mechanisms apply if something goes wrong.

That is the difference between investment risk and operational chaos.

---

Step 1: Decide What You’re Opening — an Investment Account or a Trading App

This sounds obvious.
It isn’t.

Before you open a brokerage account in Europe, you need to be clear about what kind of account you are actually opening. Many platforms blur this line on purpose. The interface looks the same, the onboarding flow is similar, and pricing is often framed as “commission-free.” But the underlying product — and the risk profile — can be fundamentally different.

At a high level, there are two categories.

An investment account allows you to buy and hold real financial instruments: shares, bonds, and UCITS ETFs. The assets are held in custody, subject to MiFID II rules, and covered by the standard EU investor-protection framework. This is what most long-term investors believe they are opening when they click “Get started.”

A trading app, by contrast, often centres on CFDs, leverage, or synthetic exposure. You are not buying the underlying asset. You are entering into a contract with the provider. That difference matters — legally, economically, and psychologically.

One short question to ask yourself:
Do I own the asset, or do I just have exposure to its price?

This is where many first-time investors misread the fine print. Platforms frequently offer both models side by side. Stocks and ETFs on one tab. Leveraged products on another. The disclosures exist, but they are rarely where attention naturally goes.

Mini-scenario:
Emil (Denmark) wants to invest long term. He opens an account on a sleek platform, buys what he thinks is an index product, and only later realises he used a leveraged CFD by default. The outcome is not “bad luck.” It’s a product mismatch.

At this point, one regulatory distinction needs to be explicit. UCITS regulates the fund itself — its structure, diversification rules, and disclosures. MiFID II, on the other hand, governs the investment service: how the product is distributed, how client assets and client money are held, and what obligations the broker has toward the investor. In practice, this means that buying a UCITS ETF does not automatically guarantee the same level of protection across all platforms. The fund may be UCITS-compliant, while the way it is offered, held, or intermediated depends entirely on the MiFID-regulated service behind the account.

The same distinction explains why asset segregation and investor-protection rules apply differently depending on the account type. In a standard investment account, client assets and client cash are typically segregated from the broker’s own balance sheet. With CFDs and similar derivatives, there is usually no ownership of the underlying instrument. The client holds a contractual claim, not custody. As a result, the practical experience of “protection” in a failure scenario can look very different from that of a pure custody account.

This is not a technicality.
It defines your legal position.

Regulators have been explicit about this risk. European Securities and Markets Authority has repeatedly warned that retail investors tend to underestimate the risks of complex and leveraged products, especially when they are presented in simplified, app-based formats. The level of protection you receive depends on what you actually open — not on what you intended to open.

One uncomfortable detail remains. Investor-protection schemes and segregation rules generally apply more robustly to investment accounts than to speculative trading products. That does not make trading apps illegal. It makes them different.

Different rules.
Different risks.

The practical takeaway is dull, but useful. Read how the platform defines the account type. Look for language around custody, ownership, and MiFID-regulated investment services — or, alternatively, contracts, margin, and leverage. If that distinction is hard to find, pause. That alone tells you something.

Next comes the structural choice — where that account actually sits, and who operates it.

---

Step 2: Choose the Model — Bank, Online Broker, or Neo-Broker

This choice shapes everything that follows.
Fees, protection, frictions.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, you are not just choosing a platform. You are choosing an operating model — and each comes with trade-offs that are rarely spelled out upfront.

At a practical level, most European investors end up in one of three setups.

Banks with brokerage services are the most conservative option. The infrastructure is familiar, reporting is usually clean, and client-asset segregation is tightly integrated with the banking balance sheet. The downside is predictable: higher fees, slower execution, and limited product choice in some markets. For long-term investors who value stability over flexibility, this model still has appeal.

Online brokers sit in the middle. They are regulated investment firms under MiFID II, often operating cross-border via passporting. Costs are typically lower, platforms more flexible, and access to ETFs and foreign markets broader. Custody is usually outsourced to a third-party custodian or central securities depository, which is standard — but something you should understand, not ignore.

Then there are neo-brokers. The user experience is excellent. Onboarding is fast. Pricing looks simple. But the structure behind the app is often layered: one entity handles the interface, another executes orders, a third holds assets. None of this is necessarily wrong. It just means you need to know who does what.

One short question helps here:
Who actually holds my assets?

This is where assumptions creep in. Many investors believe they are “with” a broker, when in reality they are customers of a chain of entities spread across jurisdictions. In normal conditions, this is invisible. In stressed conditions, it suddenly matters.

Mini-scenario:
Nora (Finland) opens an account with a neo-broker headquartered abroad. Trading works smoothly. When she later needs a formal tax statement, she discovers that reporting comes from a separate custody provider — with different timelines and formats than she expected.

Another detail worth flagging: customer support and complaint handling. Under EU rules, firms providing cross-border services must define languages and procedures for complaints. In practice, this often means that the legal “home” jurisdiction sets the rules. That is fine — as long as you know it in advance.

None of these models is inherently better. But they are not interchangeable either. Lower costs often come with more complexity. Simplicity often comes with higher fees. And speed almost always trades off against human support.

This is not about optimisation.
It’s about fit.

Once the model is clear, the next friction point is unavoidable — documentation, identity checks, and source-of-funds questions.

---

Step 3: Prepare Documents — KYC and AML Are Not Optional

This part feels intrusive.
It’s still mandatory.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, identity checks and source-of-funds questions are not a broker’s preference. They are a legal obligation under the EU’s AML and KYC framework. Every regulated investment firm must know who you are, where you live, and where the money comes from. There is very little discretion here.

In practice, most brokers will ask for a familiar set of documents:

• a valid ID (passport or national ID card)
• proof of address (utility bill, bank statement, or official residence certificate)
• tax residency information (often including a tax identification number)
• a declaration of the source of funds, especially for larger or irregular transfers

One short clarification:
this is not about trust. It’s about traceability.

The scope can expand depending on your profile. Cross-border clients, higher balances, or unusual transaction patterns often trigger enhanced checks. That does not mean something is “wrong.” It means the firm is following a risk-based approach required by EU rules.

Mini-scenario:
Theo (Greece) opens an account and uploads his ID without issue. When he later transfers a larger sum from a non-EU bank, the broker requests additional documentation on the origin of funds. Trading pauses until the review is complete. Annoying? Yes. Optional? No.

This is where expectations matter. Many investors assume onboarding ends once the account is approved. In reality, KYC is ongoing. Brokers are required to monitor transactions and update client information over time. Address changes, tax residency shifts, or unusually large inflows can all reopen the process.

One common mistake is treating this as a one-off hurdle.
It isn’t.

Another is assuming all brokers apply the same thresholds and timelines. They don’t. The legal framework is harmonised, but implementation remains national. What clears instantly in one jurisdiction may take days in another.

The uncomfortable truth is simple: if a platform asks for less than this, not more, that is usually the bigger red flag.

---

Step 4: Complete the Suitability and Appropriateness Questionnaire

This part looks harmless.
It isn’t.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, you will almost always be asked to complete a questionnaire about your knowledge, experience, and investment objectives. This is not a formality and it is not there to “unlock features.” It exists because MiFID II requires investment firms to assess whether certain products and services are appropriate for you.

There are two related concepts at work.

Appropriateness checks whether you understand the risks of a specific product — typically relevant for complex instruments like derivatives.
Suitability goes further. It assesses whether a product or service fits your objectives, financial situation, and risk tolerance — usually when advice or portfolio management is involved.

One short warning:
these answers have consequences.

Many investors treat the questionnaire as a hurdle to clear as quickly as possible. Some exaggerate their experience. Others click through without reading. That choice can quietly reduce the level of protection you receive. Warnings may become less prominent. Certain safeguards may no longer apply in the same way.

Mini-scenario:
Petra (Czech Republic) marks herself as experienced to access advanced products. Months later, she realises that the platform assumes a higher level of understanding and provides fewer risk prompts. Nothing illegal happened. She simply opted out of part of the protection.

Regulators have been clear on this point. European Securities and Markets Authority has repeatedly stressed that suitability and appropriateness assessments are a core element of retail investor protection, not an administrative box-ticking exercise.

There is also a structural limit worth understanding. These questionnaires do not protect you from losses. They are designed to ensure that products are not actively mis-sold. If you knowingly state that you understand a risk, the responsibility shifts.

Honesty here is not moral advice.
It is a legal position.

The practical approach is simple. Answer accurately. If you lack experience with a product, say so. Restrictions are not punishments. They are signals that the platform is doing what EU rules require.

Next comes the operational detail most investors underestimate — currency, conversions, and hidden friction costs.

---

Step 5: Select Account Currency — and Understand FX Costs

This looks like a preference.
It isn’t.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, the account currency you choose affects far more than how numbers look on the screen. It determines conversion costs, cash handling, and, over time, a material part of your total return. Most investors underestimate this — sometimes for years.

At a basic level, the logic seems simple.
Euro-based investors pick EUR. UK investors pick GBP. Problem solved.

Not quite.

If your account is denominated in EUR but you regularly buy US-listed assets, every purchase and sale involves a foreign-exchange conversion. Sometimes it is explicit, shown as a fee. More often it is embedded in the FX spread. Either way, it is a cost — and unlike commissions, it compounds quietly.

One short reality check:
FX costs are not “small” if they repeat.

Some brokers offer multi-currency accounts, allowing you to hold balances in USD, EUR, and other currencies side by side. Others force conversion on every trade. Neither approach is inherently better. It depends on how you invest.

Mini-scenario:
Carlos (Spain) invests monthly into US equities through a EUR-only account. Each transaction carries a small FX spread. Individually, it looks negligible. Over several years, it becomes one of his largest implicit costs.

This is where structure matters more than marketing. “Commission-free” trading often shifts costs elsewhere — FX being a common candidate. The absence of a line item does not mean the absence of a charge.

Regulators have flagged this repeatedly. European Securities and Markets Authority has emphasised that firms must disclose all material costs and charges, including currency conversion costs, in a way that allows investors to understand their real impact. In practice, those disclosures are often technically compliant but easy to overlook.

Another practical point: currency choice does not change market risk. Holding a US asset in EUR does not eliminate USD exposure. It only changes when and how the conversion happens — at the trade level, the cash level, or not at all until you exit.

So the question is not “Which currency is safest?”
It’s “Where do I want to pay for conversion?”

If the answer is unclear, slow down. FX friction is one of the few costs you can anticipate before you start.

Next comes the first real operational test — putting money in, and getting it back out.

---

Step 6: Fund the Account — and Test a Withdrawal Early

This is where theory meets reality.
And where trust is tested.

Funding a brokerage account in Europe is usually straightforward. SEPA transfers, sometimes cards, occasionally local payment methods. The real question is not how easily you can put money in — it’s how smoothly you can get it back out.

Most EU brokers rely on bank transfers as the primary funding and withdrawal method. That is deliberate. Transfers are traceable, reversible only under strict conditions, and compatible with AML requirements. Faster methods may exist, but they often come with limits, higher fees, or additional checks.

One short rule of thumb:
inflows are easy. Outflows reveal the system.

Mini-scenario:
Emil (Denmark) funds his account via SEPA without issues and starts trading. Months later, he requests his first withdrawal. The broker asks for an additional verification step and delays processing by several days. Nothing is wrong — but this is the first time Emil experiences the operational side of the relationship.

This is normal. EU rules require brokers to ensure that withdrawals go back to verified accounts in the client’s name. Anti-fraud and AML controls apply just as much on exit as on entry. Still, timelines and friction vary widely between firms.

That’s why testing a small withdrawal early is useful. Not because you expect problems, but because you want to understand:

• processing times
• fees or minimum amounts
• additional verification triggers
• communication quality when something is delayed

Another detail many investors miss: client money handling. Funds held as cash with a broker are subject to segregation rules, but they are not bank deposits. Deposit guarantee schemes do not apply in the same way. This matters if you keep large idle balances for extended periods.

One uncomfortable truth:
brokers are not payment apps.

Speed is not the priority. Control is.

If a platform makes withdrawals opaque, unpredictable, or conditional on unnecessary steps, that’s a signal worth paying attention to — long before you need the money urgently.

Once funding and withdrawals are clear, the next layer is defensive rather than financial: security.

---

Step 7: Set Up Security and Core Account Settings

This part feels optional.
It isn’t.

Once the account is live, most investors rush straight to trading. Security settings are left for “later.” That is a mistake — and one that rarely shows consequences immediately.

At a minimum, every brokerage account in Europe should be protected with two-factor authentication (2FA). App-based authenticators are preferable to SMS, which remains vulnerable to SIM-swap attacks. This is not about paranoia. It’s about reducing single points of failure.

One short reminder:
your broker is digital infrastructure.

Beyond login security, there are a few settings that quietly matter:

• trusted devices and session limits
• withdrawal confirmations and cooling-off periods
• notification alerts for logins, trades, and cash movements
• trading limits, where available

None of these improves performance. All of them reduce damage when something goes wrong.

Mini-scenario:
Nora (Finland) notices a login alert from an unfamiliar device. Because alerts are enabled, she locks the account immediately and contacts support. No loss occurs. Without alerts, she might have noticed days later.

Security is not only about hacking. It is also about operational errors. Accidental trades, mis-clicks, or unauthorised access by someone with physical access to your phone or laptop happen more often than people admit.

Regulators increasingly treat this as part of investor protection. ESMA and other EU authorities have emphasised strong cybersecurity standards, internal controls, and resilience requirements as retail investing becomes more app-based — a focus reinforced by the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) now fully in effect.

One more practical step that feels boring but pays off: download and store your account agreements, disclosures, and transaction confirmations. Not because you expect a dispute — but because documentation is leverage if one ever arises.

Security is not a feature.
It’s a baseline.

With that in place, the next question is more structural than technical: where your assets are actually held.

---

Step 8: Understand Where Your Assets Are Held — Custody and Segregation

This is rarely explained upfront.
It should be.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, your assets are usually not held by the broker itself. They are held in custody — often by a separate legal entity such as a custodian bank or a central securities depository (CSD). That structure is normal. What matters is whether you understand it.

Under MiFID II, investment firms must safeguard client assets and keep them segregated from the firm’s own balance sheet. In plain terms, your shares and ETFs should not be mixed with the broker’s assets. If the broker fails, client assets are meant to remain identifiable and transferable.

One short clarification:
segregation reduces risk. It does not eliminate it.

In practice, there are a few common custody models:

• Direct custody via a custodian bank on behalf of clients
• Omnibus accounts, where multiple clients’ assets are pooled but recorded individually in the broker’s internal ledger
• CSD-level holding, especially for domestic securities

All three can be compliant. The difference lies in transparency, operational complexity, and how quickly assets can be transferred in a stress scenario.

Mini-scenario:
Luca (Italy) assumes his ETF units sit “inside” the app he uses. Only later does he discover that custody is handled by a third-party bank in another jurisdiction, with assets pooled in an omnibus account. Nothing is wrong — but his mental model was incomplete.

This is also where confusion with trading apps resurfaces. With standard investment accounts, custody and segregation rules apply to client assets and cash. With CFDs and similar derivatives, there is typically no underlying asset held in custody at all. The client has a contractual claim against the provider. That difference becomes critical if the firm defaults.

One uncomfortable truth:
“segregated” does not always mean “individually ring-fenced.”

It usually means legally separated from the broker’s own assets, but operationally pooled. That is acceptable under EU rules — as long as records are accurate and controls are strong.

Regulators have focused on this area repeatedly, especially in cross-border setups. European Securities and Markets Authority has issued guidance on safeguarding client assets, outsourcing of custody, and the risks associated with complex holding chains.

The practical takeaway is not to fear omnibus custody, but to know what you are using. Read the custody disclosure. Identify the custodian. Check the jurisdiction. If that information is hard to find, that alone is useful information.

Next comes the safety net most investors assume exists — and often misunderstand.

---

Step 9: Know Your Investor Protection Scheme — and Its Limits

This is the safety net everyone assumes exists.
It does — but not in the way most people think.

When you open a brokerage account in Europe, you are usually covered by an investor compensation scheme linked to the broker’s home jurisdiction. These schemes are mandated under EU law, but they are nationally administered. That distinction matters.

At a high level, investor compensation schemes are designed to protect clients if an investment firm fails and cannot return client assets or money. They do not protect you from market losses. They do not reverse bad trades. And they do not guarantee full recovery in every scenario.

One short clarification:
this is not deposit insurance.

Investor compensation is different from bank deposit guarantees. Cash held in a brokerage account is typically protected only up to a capped amount — and only if the failure meets specific legal conditions. Securities held in custody are usually meant to be returned to you directly, outside the compensation scheme, provided segregation worked as intended.

Mini-scenario:
Carlos (Spain) assumes that all his assets are “insured” because his broker is regulated. When a foreign broker collapses years later, he learns that only unreturned cash up to the local scheme limit is eligible for compensation — and only after a lengthy claims process.

This is where expectations often diverge from reality. Compensation limits vary by country. Procedures differ. Timelines can stretch into months. Cross-border cases add another layer of complexity, especially when custody chains span multiple jurisdictions.

Regulators are explicit about this. European Securities and Markets Authority consistently distinguishes between asset safeguarding (segregation and custody) and investor compensation, warning retail investors not to confuse the two. One is preventive. The other is remedial — and limited.

Another uncomfortable truth:
compensation schemes activate rarely, and slowly.

They are a last resort, not a feature to rely on. Their real value lies in discipline — forcing firms to segregate assets properly and maintain records — not in making investors whole overnight.

The practical takeaway is simple. Check which investor compensation scheme applies to your broker. Note the coverage limit. Understand what is — and is not — covered. If you cannot find this information easily, pause.

Assumptions are expensive here.

With that clarified, only one thing remains: common mistakes people make when opening a brokerage account in Europe — and how to avoid them.

---

Common Mistakes When Opening a Brokerage Account in Europe

These mistakes are common.
And mostly avoidable.

They rarely come from bad intentions. More often, they come from assumptions — about regulation, protection, or how platforms actually work.

Confusing a regulated product with a regulated setup

Buying a UCITS ETF does not automatically mean your account structure is optimal or low-risk. UCITS regulates the fund. MiFID II regulates the service. Custody, execution, FX handling, and investor protection depend on the broker’s setup, not on the label of the product.

This is one of the most frequent misunderstandings in Europe.

Treating “commission-free” as “cost-free”

Zero trading fees are easy to market. FX spreads, custody costs, and execution quality are not. Many investors focus on visible commissions and ignore recurring friction costs that quietly compound over time.

If you cannot explain how a broker makes money, pause.
That’s not cynicism. It’s basic due diligence.

Overstating experience in suitability questionnaires

Marking yourself as “experienced” can unlock features — and remove safeguards. This is especially relevant for derivatives and leveraged products. The short-term convenience often comes at the cost of reduced warnings and weaker suitability checks.

Regulators have flagged this repeatedly, including European Securities and Markets Authority, which has warned against the gamification of risk disclosures in retail investing.

Ignoring custody details because “it’s all digital anyway”

Where assets are held, under which legal structure, and in which jurisdiction matters — even if everything happens inside one app. Omnibus custody is not a problem. Not understanding it is.

If custody disclosures are vague or hard to find, that is not a design choice. It’s information asymmetry.

Assuming investor protection equals loss protection

Investor compensation schemes do not protect you from market losses. They do not guarantee instant access to cash. And they do not cover every failure scenario. Confusing protection mechanisms with insurance leads to false confidence — and poor risk decisions.

One short reality check:
regulation manages failure. It does not prevent it.

Never testing withdrawals

Many investors only discover operational friction when they actually need liquidity. Testing a small withdrawal early is not paranoia. It’s verification.

The most reliable systems are boring.
And predictable.

---

Final Reality Check Before You Start Investing

There is no “perfect” setup.
Only informed trade-offs.

Opening a brokerage account in Europe is not difficult — but it is more structured than many investors expect. Regulation standardises the process, not the outcome. MiFID II sets rules for how services are provided. AML and KYC define how you are onboarded. Custody and segregation determine where assets sit. Investor compensation schemes exist, but only as a last line of defence.

Two uncomfortable truths are worth stating clearly.

First, regulation reduces operational risk, not investment risk. A regulated broker can still facilitate losing trades. Investor protection frameworks are designed to manage failure scenarios — not to shield you from bad decisions or volatile markets.

Second, simplicity at the interface level often hides complexity underneath. Apps are clean. Structures are not. Custodians, passporting, FX handling, client-money rules — none of this disappears because the user experience is smooth.

If you take one practical habit from this guide, make it this:
read disclosures once, properly, before you fund the account.

Not because you expect trouble.
But because clarity upfront is cheaper than surprise later.

And one last reminder, because it matters: investing always involves risk. Markets move. Instruments behave differently under stress. No regulatory framework, no matter how robust, changes that basic fact.

What Europe does offer is a relatively consistent system of rules and responsibilities. If you understand how it works, you start from a position of awareness — not optimism.

That, in practice, is the real advantage.

---

Conclusion

Opening a brokerage account in Europe is less about choosing a platform and more about understanding a system. The rules are there — MiFID II, AML requirements, custody standards, and investor compensation schemes — but they do not remove risk. They organise it.

The uncomfortable reality is that most problems investors face are not caused by markets, but by misunderstandings: what they actually opened, where assets are held, how costs accumulate, and what protection really means. Smooth onboarding and clean design make those gaps easy to ignore.

Europe offers a relatively consistent regulatory framework. What it does not offer is simplification by default. That part is on the investor.

Clarity upfront is not optional.
It is the cost of access.

---

Key Takeaways

• Regulation defines the process, not the outcome. A regulated broker can still facilitate losses; protection mechanisms are procedural, not performance-based.
• Investment accounts and trading apps are not the same. Ownership, custody, and legal protection differ — sometimes dramatically.
• UCITS regulates funds; MiFID II regulates services. Confusing the two leads to false assumptions about safety.
• FX costs and operational friction compound quietly. “Commission-free” rarely means cost-free.
• Custody and segregation matter more than the interface. Know who holds your assets and under which legal structure.
• Investor compensation is limited and conditional. It is a backstop, not insurance.
• Security and documentation are part of investing. Not optional settings.

That is the reality.
Everything else is marketing.

---

FAQ — Opening a Brokerage Account in Europe

Sources & References

EU regulations & taxation

• European Commission / Taxation & Customs — AML and KYC
• AML requirements
• asset segregation and investor-protection rules apply differently
• CFDs
• complaint handling
• CSD-level holding
• custody models
• Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)
• ESMA and other EU authorities
• EU regulation
• identity checks
• internal controls
• investor protection
• MiFID II
• MiFID II rules
• nationally administered
• Omnibus accounts
• passporting rules
• SEPA transfers
• suitability and appropriateness
• tax residency information (often including a tax identification number)
• two-factor authentication (2FA)
• UCITS