Elena Sadovskaya reflects on how experience and shifting crypto regulation shape Inteliumlaw’s hands-on, long-term legal approach.

Navigating international business structuring in today’s regulatory climate is rarely straightforward, especially for companies operating across borders and emerging sectors like crypto. To better understand how legal professionals approach this complexity in practice, we spoke to Inteliumlaw’s Elena Sadovskaya about how her early experience studying law and later working at Ernst & Young shaped her thinking. Here’s what she had to say.

Hi Elena! Can you share with us how your experience practicing law during the 2nd year of university and later working at a firm like Ernst & Young influenced the way you approach complex international business structuring today?

Elena: Spending almost 4 years at a Big 4 company, Ernst & Young (E&Y), has truly felt like the equivalent of a whole 10 years at most other consulting firms. During this period, I frequently managed multiple tax and transaction structuring projects in parallel for major international clients across a range of industries. Every time it was working with significant deals, large transactions, and high-profile cases, which all allowed me to develop a strong grasp of how large businesses work and what their legal needs are. Most importantly, however, it all sharpened my understanding of how lawyers can guide them through different situations – be it shifting laws at home base, international scaling, heightened regulator attention, or other complex challenges – with tailored solutions.

Now, for Inteliumlaw, neither “impossible” nor “unresolved” cases are part of our vocabulary. With hands-on experience as lawyers for major firms and high-profile cases, we have the necessary know-how to provide robust support for enterprises and also help small businesses eventually grow into larger organizations.

At Inteliumlaw, we uphold the highest standards of work in everything we do, based on our experience with large, sophisticated businesses and a clear understanding of the level of quality they expect and shall get from legal advisers. A core part of these standards is a genuinely responsive attitude to projects we work with, where my overtime experience at E&Y showed how far a law firm must go so that the project gets the desired quality. Today, this enables us to effectively advise on complex international business structuring and other critical legal matters.

In a recent big interview, you shared that Inteliumlaw grew from a small circle of experts to a full-fledged law firm specializing in crypto licensing and other blockchain legal services. What new services or solutions did you introduce in 2025? Which ones have become “bestsellers” among your clients in crypto?

Elena: Last year was extremely fast-paced for all of us at Inteliumlaw. As regulations continued to evolve, we expanded and diversified our legal solutions to meet the demands of modern businesses.

For the crypto sector, we introduced an opportunity to obtain a CASP license in a select few jurisdictions like Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Cyprus, and beyond. These countries’ licensing conditions went through our rigorous internal analysis and were deemed the most favorable and relevant after MiCA entered into force and replaced the legacy VASP license. In parallel, our scope has expanded to include DAO structuring in the Marshall Islands and RAK, a foundation in Panama, alongside securing a crypto license in UAE (Dubai, VARA), El Salvador, and other markets where a VASP license currently presents a meaningful opportunity. Our website is being gradually updated to reflect the complete range of services we can support you with.

When it comes to “best sellers,” it is hard to highlight something in particular as the answer largely lies in regulatory development, including newly emerged regimes, shifts in current rules, and the scale of adaptation expected from businesses. This year, it was all centered around Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, and our main focus was assisting firms to adapt to this new reality. Now, Inteliumlaw advises firms on getting a CASP license and delivers end-to-end MiCA-relevant support for token issuance, exchange listings, DeFi project launch, and the preparation of MiCA-compliant white papers and the notification submission process.

Therefore, I could say that our 2025 best-seller request was securing a CASP license and listing a token in Europe with MICA-compliant white papers, where we provide end-to-end, hands-on support through every stage of the process.

Your firm positions itself as a long-term strategic partner rather than a traditional legal service provider. How do you maintain that level of involvement with clients?

Elena: What we do is not just some careless execution of the client order made on autopilot. Rather, every Inteliumlaw client receives a customized approach designed to serve their interests in the most effective way. Our goal is to build long-term relationships with our clients, not driven by “capitalist motives,” but because this is the only way we can always stay on top of their current needs and help them grow a business that will sustain in the long term. When our clients grow, so do we.

As part of our customised approach, we ensure every client has a dedicated manager for their project from day one. In this case, they always have a point of contact who coordinates the project and maintains a 24/7 insight into the client’s status and needs, allowing us to offer the right legal solution.

When maintaining continuous involvement with the client and their needs, for instance, our lawyers continuously analyze the regulations in their home base and in their target expansion markets, helping identify what they might be exposed to early, help them adapt, and advise on the alternatives if needed. Most importantly, we do not walk away when the stakes rise and never leave clients in complex cases, but are actively engaged in finding the best possible solution for them. It makes our life a little bit more complicated compared to other law firms, but it is a principle we do not compromise on.

Many crypto entrepreneurs feel that regulation kills innovation. From your perspective, is this a fair statement? What is your opinion?

Elena: In many cases, yes, though it highly depends on the jurisdiction and its regulation, where the “killing innovation” narrative often stems from authorities imposing unrealistic expectations that far outpace current realities. In some cases, regulators could have opted for a less strict approach to some aspects, which would ultimately lead to minimized conflict and a slower pace of innovation and new projects’ development.

On the other side, without regulation as it is, projects cannot exist. Yet, reacting promptly to different changes can keep the project stable and demonstrate credibility to the market. In practice, the strongest players on the market today are those who are able to adapt to the regulatory expectations; this is what defines the long-term sustainability and how a project gains trust from customers.

An unregulated industry certainly equals much more space for projects that are not reliable. So the ultimate question here is to strike a balance, a “golden mean,” which, in most cases, simply doesn’t exist, making businesses’ lives more complicated.

When a new crypto business approaches you with a request, what are the first questions you ask before even talking about jurisdictions, licenses, or other legal support?

Elena: The very first thing we discuss before everything is each project’s operational model and details of how they function, ensuring we understand the business almost as if we are the one and only founder. This is the foundation of everything: from jurisdiction-based classification of their project and the subsequent regulations applicable to which legal solution(s) we can deliver to best fit the project’s needs.

Luxury ateliers never proceed to manufacturing a tailored suit without taking precise measurements. Our approach is no different. Based on the client’s near- and long-term goals, vision, and the detailed specifics of their work, we advise on the solutions that best match their needs. 

Without clear, detailed answers upfront, any discussion of how we can assist would be irrelevant. A minor oversight of a tiny detail can make a tailored suit feel suffocating. Likewise, a small nuance can completely change the course and redefine what the right solution looks like.

How do you evaluate which crypto license is optimal for a client’s business model? Especially, how does this process go for choosing an EU jurisdiction for getting a CASP license?

Elena: Long before the client reaches out, a preliminary analysis has typically been made internally. Every jurisdiction is carefully reviewed for the requirements and the regulator’s approach to issuing licenses, so we understand the level of complexity involved and identify which businesses are most likely to pass through the process.

When the client approaches us, we carry out an in-depth analysis of their setup and objectives. We explore token issuance plans, targeted markets for expansion, where the team is located, and a lot more to shape a compliant strategy. Only after assessing licensing complexity, the client’s objectives, and the budget allocated to ongoing compliance can we recommend the most suitable alternative.

MiCA has completely reshaped how crypto businesses must operate in Europe. What is the biggest misconception companies still have about this regulation?

Elena: Working with crypto firms worldwide – including those already serving EU clients or planning to enter the market – I see one misconception more than any other: many still misunderstand the difference between a VASP and a CASP, assuming they can still onboard EU customers without securing the new authorization. This is especially the case with firms registered in offshore regimes with little oversight. In fact, they can’t.

This misconception is similarly prevalent among companies previously having VASP in Poland and other EU countries. Where firms were not prepared to meet higher requirements beyond their “light-touch” setup, it is becoming hard to adapt to substance requirements, organize client workflows, and develop comprehensive documentation. For businesses already operating in tightly regulated regimes, the transition is typically smoother.

So, I would say the biggest myth now is that a business can still operate as before, targeting Europe while being registered in an unregulated jurisdiction or one known for little oversight. These times are now officially over. Even more concerning is that, in 2026, some still believe crypto is unregulated; it is regulated.

In a recent interview, you called the UAE “one of the most promising global hubs for crypto and Web.” What specific regulatory or economic features give the UAE an edge over Europe or the US?

Elena: What makes them different is their vast resources, readiness, and willingness to invest substantially in the crypto sector, all with the focus on innovation. The UAE is home to lots of corporations with a significant appetite to invest and lead in crypto, which is why there is a consistent effort to shape a regulatory environment that accelerates growth.

The UAE’s approach is truly something unique now. Where Europe tries to follow US standards with an even more stringent rule, the UAE chooses a more liberal option and approaches it more like an opportunity to strengthen the economy. The EU treats crypto much like early societies treated fire: extremely dangerous without control. That’s why the regulation is made to avoid fraud, protect customers, and reduce the room for unreliable projects.

The UAE, on the other hand, is not afraid to introduce something new. It is therefore unsurprising that they have higher adoption rates, new solutions appear faster, and central bank digital coins are being adopted much sooner than anywhere else in the world.

Imagine you can design a new “ideal” crypto jurisdiction by combining elements of 3 already-existing regimes, which would you select and why?

Elena: There is no real need to merge 3 regimes when we can choose one framework as the core and make small adjustments.

In essence, the ideal crypto jurisdiction would match the UAE innovation-first model while offering a less complex procedure to roll out in the region(s). The process of issuing authorization permits (licenses) and understanding projects’ specifics is way too overwhelming now in the UAE. Even so, however, the select few who successfully make it through the process – often after months of waiting for the regulator’s feedback, sometimes only for minor clarifications – ultimately gain access to everything the jurisdiction has to offer.

Subsequently, rationalizing this process to the extent possible would materially strengthen the jurisdiction’s reputation as a crypto-friendly hub, making it the #1 or very close to this status.

In your experience, what are the most underestimated risks when crypto businesses operate “non-compliant but profitable,” beyond fines and license revocation?

Elena: It all comes down to the severity of non-compliance. On the administrative level, there are fines of different sizes and, in the worst cases, license revocations. Yet this is not the greatest fear of most businesses.

The most horrifying skeleton in the closet is when a case turns to criminal law, and the impact goes beyond the project finances to human lives. There are numerous high-profile cases where exchange executives are arrested and prosecuted for money laundering, and this is precisely what everyone wants to avoid.

We’ve learned that you’ve designed over 50 tax-efficient and future-proof structures while also supporting multimillion-dollar deals. Which projects are you the most proud of and why?

Elena: It’s honestly difficult to single out just one project, because every structure we design at Inteliumlaw is built around a very specific business and risk profile. Each of them is its own story, and behind every “successful structure” there are months of very detailed, customized legal, tax, and regulatory work.

That said, I’m especially proud of the projects where we supported businesses from a very early stage and further during their growth into well-known brands. There’s something very rewarding about knowing you didn’t just advise on a structure but helped build the strong legal foundation that allowed the company to scale safely.

In the crypto and web3 space specifically, we’ve worked on a wide range of complex matters: from tokenization of real-world assets (including immovable property) and structuring decentralized exchange and trading infrastructure projects to token issuance and token classification, governance models, and cross-border tax and corporate setups for founders and groups. We’ve also supported projects building trading terminals, platforms, and hybrid web2/web3 models.

What I’m most proud of is not just the number of structures we’ve built, but the fact that many of them were designed to be “future-proof.”

And lastly, what regulatory developments in crypto do you anticipate in 2026? Most importantly, do you think the primary regulatory risk for crypto firms will come from new laws or from aggressive reinterpretation of rules that already exist today?

Elena: 2026 will be a very important year for regulatory consolidation in crypto, especially in Europe. First of all, we expect the expiration of the MiCA grandfathering period around mid-2026, which will force many existing VASP-style structures to either become fully licensed CASPs or exit the market. In practice, this will mean a major clean-up of the industry, with higher compliance costs but also a much clearer regulatory perimeter for serious players.

At the same time, we expect increasing global pressure on so-called “regulatory gap” jurisdictions. Many offshore and semi-offshore hubs that historically served crypto businesses precisely because of lighter regulation will likely introduce more formal crypto frameworks, licensing regimes, and substance requirements. We’re already seeing the early stages of this trend.

On the structural side, I think we’ll see more legally recognized DAOs and on-chain governance models entering the mainstream. But in parallel, decentralized and hybrid web3 projects will continue to move under closer regulatory scrutiny, especially where there is any element of custody, intermediation, token distribution, or profit expectation. 

As for regulatory risk, it will likely come from both sides: new laws and aggressive reinterpretation of existing rules. In practice, enforcement and re-qualification under existing financial, securities, AML, and consumer protection regimes may be just as disruptive as brand-new legislation. The industry is maturing, but companies should plan for a tougher, more enforcement-driven environment in the near term.