EMI · PI · CASP licensing
From licence to keeping the regulatory setup aligned.
Bizando works alongside fintech, payments and crypto-asset companies in Italy and the EU through the moments that matter: securing an EMI, PI or CASP licence, scaling the operating structure, keeping the regulatory setup aligned.
Twenty minutes, no commitment.
Who Bizando works with
Bizando works with regulated firms, or firms on their way there, almost always at one of four moments. Early-stage fintechs building a licence application, who have to settle scope and jurisdiction before a single line of the dossier is written. EMIs and PIs already authorised and now scaling — volumes, markets, product lines — finding that the setup built to obtain the licence does not carry the phase that follows. CASPs structuring their MiCA arrangements against deadlines that do not move. Payments operators with cross-border exposure in the EU, where the same activity changes character depending on which authority is looking at it.
What they have in common is not size. It is that the next regulatory decision has immediate operational consequences, and that in-house — for now — the seniority to take it without hesitating is missing. It is not a problem of available hours: it is a problem of judgement. My job is to make that judgement available on a predictable cadence, and to produce the documents that put it in writing.
Three engagement models
One domain, three ways of working in it.
Bizando does one thing — regulated fintech — in three forms. Which one fits depends on how continuous the need is, not on how large the company is.
Retainer
Ongoing advisory, on a cadence that is not renegotiated every month.
Three scope-based tiers, a three-month minimum term, then rolling with 30 days' notice. It is the right model when regulatory decisions recur and dossiers evolve over time.
Fixed-scope packs
Defined scope, defined price, a delivery date.
A self-contained regulatory deliverable, for when the need is specific and has a deadline: an AML manual, an EMI gap analysis, a MiCA whitepaper.
Document & automation engineering
The documentation toolchain that carries the regulatory work.
Infrastructure and automation for teams producing regulatory documentation at volume: structured templates, consistency checks, versioning, assisted drafting.
Fixed scope
Fixed-scope packs: when the need has a date.
A pack is a self-contained regulatory deliverable: scope defined before the work starts, price defined before the work starts, a delivery date. It is not a retainer in miniature — it is the right model when the need is specific, typically because there is an application to file or an authority request to answer within a deadline.
The scope goes into the proposal before signature: what is in, what is out, how many rounds of revision are included. If the work turns up something else, Bizando says so and quotes it separately. It does not absorb it by widening the scope quietly: that is the fastest route to delivering late and badly.
- AML manual and CFT procedures A full framework, or a review of an existing one, aligned to the EU AML package.
- EMI or PI gap analysis The distance between the current setup and the authorisation requirements of the chosen jurisdiction.
- MiCA whitepaper Drafting and cross-document consistency for crypto-asset service providers.
Document & automation engineering
The infrastructure underneath the documents.
It is the least visible part of the work and the real differentiator. An authorisation dossier is not a document: it is dozens of interconnected documents that start contradicting one another the moment someone changes a line in one of them. Much of the documentation risk originates there, not in the reading of the rule.
What I build — for myself and, where it helps, inside the client's team — is the toolchain that turns that consistency into a control rather than a hope: structured templates for recurring sections, consistency checks across documents, versioning tracked from first draft to delivery, Python automation for the repetitive part of production and checking.
Bizando does not sell software. It sells the fact that the dossier still holds together at the twelfth iteration, and that the reasoning behind every documentation choice can be reconstructed months later, in front of an auditor or an authority.
- Documentation toolchain Templates, repository structure and versioning conventions for a team producing regulatory material.
- Consistency checks Systematic verification across sections and across parallel dossiers, instead of operational memory.
- Python automation The repetitive part of production and checking, taken out of manual work.
The CAI methodology, in short
CAI stands for Collective Artificial Intelligence: the name I give to the way I produce what the client receives. My senior judgement — on strategy, on reading the rules, on the wording addressed to an authority — is amplified by AI systems specialised in fast regulatory research, first drafts, comparison across versions, and the synthesis of extensive bodies of regulation. The human part stays where it counts: the critical decisions, the validation of every section, the regulatory positioning choices.
The gain is not that I write faster. It is that more iterations fit into the same interval, and that consistency across documents becomes a systematic control instead of an act of memory. What reaches the client is always and only finished output: reviewed, validated, signed off by my judgement. CAI shortens production time; it does not move responsibility.
Declared scope
What you won't find on this site
An advisory site usually puts its own limits at the bottom of the page, in twelve-point type. I would rather state them here. What follows is not a list of things I lack: it is a choice, and it is worth explaining.
-
No client names, no logos.
Regulatory work is covered by confidentiality before it is covered by an NDA. A logo on the homepage would be worth a few points of conversion and would cost the trust of the people who hand me a dossier headed for an authority.
-
No performance metrics.
I do not publish efficiency percentages or dossier counts. A reader has no way to verify them, and the only verifiable ones would come from client material.
-
No packaged case studies, not even labelled as examples.
In a discovery call I bring anonymised, circumstantial examples, because there I can answer the questions that follow. In writing, on a public page, a case specific enough to be useful is also specific enough to reveal who it is about.
-
No promise on the authorisation outcome.
The assessment of fitness belongs to the competent authority. I can make a dossier defensible and well built; I cannot decide in place of the people assessing it, and anyone promising you otherwise is selling something they do not have.
A first conversation, twenty minutes.
If one of the situations above resembles yours, the quickest way to find out whether it makes sense to work together is to talk. Twenty minutes, no commitment: where you are, where you want to get to, which of the three models fits — or whether none of them does. If it is not the case, I will tell you on the call.
Opens the Cal.com calendar: you pick the date and time.
Prefer to start by email? info@bizando.com — I reply within one working day.