A claim that a company is regulated does not by itself answer whether it may market a particular product to a particular client. CySEC’s policy statement PS-03-2019 addresses binary options at the product level. The document, issued on 10 July 2019, explains the national permanent intervention adopted following ESMA’s temporary measures. CySEC PS-03-2019: National permanent measures for binary options
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
WFN analysis: imagine a hypothetical firm with an investment-services authorization and a separate screen advertising a short-duration binary contract. Evidence about the firm’s authorization identifies one part of the review. The product measure, client classification and contract characteristics identify another. A license number cannot substitute for the clauses governing the offered product. The same distinction applies to an exclusion claim. If a provider points to one characteristic, such as duration, the reader still needs evidence for every condition in the applicable exclusion. An invented 100-day term illustrates the issue: it can satisfy an assumed duration threshold without establishing anything about the prospectus, payout protection or provider-risk conditions. The statement’s in-or-from scope also matters for a directory review. A company’s incorporation location, operating entity and claimed client market are separate facts. A logo on a website may identify a brand rather than the entity entering the contract. Mapping those records is an evidence task; it does not justify declaring an unnamed offer lawful or unlawful without its terms.
WFN analysis: imagine a hypothetical firm with an investment-services authorization and a separate screen advertising a short-duration binary contract. Evidence about the firm’s authorization identifies one part of the review. The product measure, client classification and contract characteristics identify another. A license number cannot substitute for the clauses governing the offered product. The same distinction applies to an exclusion claim. If a provider points to one characteristic, such as duration, the reader still needs evidence for every condition in the applicable exclusion. An invented 100-day term illustrates the issue: it can satisfy an assumed duration threshold without establishing anything about the prospectus, payout protection or provider-risk conditions. The statement’s in-or-from scope also matters for a directory review. A company’s incorporation location, operating entity and claimed client market are separate facts. A logo on a website may identify a brand rather than the entity entering the contract. Mapping those records is an evidence task; it does not justify declaring an unnamed offer lawful or unlawful without its terms.
Retain the policy statement, issue date, relevant clauses, client classification and actual contract documentation. For a provider comparison, also retain the official register record and the entity named in the agreement. A page describing a rule should link the source rather than compress its exclusions into a slogan suggesting that all binary-labelled products receive identical treatment. This is a reading of the published 2019 national measure, reviewed on 7 October 2026. It reports no new October prohibition or enforcement action. Determining the position of an actual offer requires checking the current applicable text and the documented offer against its complete conditions. The article supplies a structured starting point while preserving the historical date and product-specific scope.
The published measure and its exclusions
Section 3.2 states that marketing, distribution and sale of binary options to retail clients are permanently prohibited in or from Cyprus, whether traded OTC or on a trading venue. The policy statement includes exclusions in section 3.3, so its product definition and exceptions need to be read together. CySEC PS-03-2019: National permanent measures for binary options
One exclusion concerns a lower fixed payment covering the client’s total payment, including charges. Another requires cumulative conditions: at least 90 calendar days to maturity, an approved public prospectus and specified limits on provider market risk and compensation. A maturity label alone does not establish that this second exclusion is satisfied. CySEC PS-03-2019: National permanent measures for binary options
Authorization and product scope require different evidence
WFN analysis: imagine a hypothetical firm with an investment-services authorization and a separate screen advertising a short-duration binary contract. Evidence about the firm’s authorization identifies one part of the review. The product measure, client classification and contract characteristics identify another. A license number cannot substitute for the clauses governing the offered product.
The same distinction applies to an exclusion claim. If a provider points to one characteristic, such as duration, the reader still needs evidence for every condition in the applicable exclusion. An invented 100-day term illustrates the issue: it can satisfy an assumed duration threshold without establishing anything about the prospectus, payout protection or provider-risk conditions.
The statement’s in-or-from scope also matters for a directory review. A company’s incorporation location, operating entity and claimed client market are separate facts. A logo on a website may identify a brand rather than the entity entering the contract. Mapping those records is an evidence task; it does not justify declaring an unnamed offer lawful or unlawful without its terms.
Keep the historical record separate from an offer assessment
Retain the policy statement, issue date, relevant clauses, client classification and actual contract documentation. For a provider comparison, also retain the official register record and the entity named in the agreement. A page describing a rule should link the source rather than compress its exclusions into a slogan suggesting that all binary-labelled products receive identical treatment.
This is a reading of the published 2019 national measure, reviewed on 7 October 2026. It reports no new October prohibition or enforcement action. Determining the position of an actual offer requires checking the current applicable text and the documented offer against its complete conditions. The article supplies a structured starting point while preserving the historical date and product-specific scope.