Cases

Selected legal structures, licensing routes and tokenization models.

This page highlights how WCR Legal works in practice: which models we help to structure, which jurisdictions and licenses are involved, and what kind of documentation and frameworks we build around projects.

Many cases are anonymised or partially described due to confidentiality. If you share your model and geography, we can provide relevant examples privately.

What our cases usually show

How a specific model fits into a licensing or regulatory framework.
Which jurisdictions and entities were chosen – and why.
What documentation and compliance elements were implemented.
How we balanced regulatory, banking and business constraints.

The point is not “we did something somewhere”, but the logic behind the structure – which you can reuse or adapt for your own project.

Scope

What kind of work typically appears in our cases

Even if you do not see an exact match to your project, most models fall into one or more of the categories below: licensing, tokenization, corporate structuring, IP / IT and compliance.

Licensing & regulatory positioning

CASP, VASP, DASP, MiCA-aligned models and other routes where a regulator needs a clear picture of your project.

Crypto exchanges OTC desks Brokerage

Tokenization & RWA structures

Real estate, funds, private equity, revenue-sharing and hybrid models built around legal SPVs and clear investor documentation.

Real estate Funds RWA

Corporate & holding structures

Group structures with operating companies, holding entities and SPVs across several hubs.

UAE AIFC Offshore

Website & platform legal stack

Documentation for platforms and apps interacting with users, data, payments and digital assets.

Terms Privacy Disclaimers

IP & software consolidation

Bringing code, brands and content from individuals and scattered entities into a coherent ownership structure.

IP transfer Licensing Trademarks

Compliance & risk frameworks

AML / KYC policies, onboarding procedures, risk management and business continuity for regulated and quasi-regulated models.

AML KYC Risk

Examples

Selected case examples

These are indicative examples of how different elements come together – jurisdiction, license or structure, documentation and compliance. Details are simplified for public viewing.

🇦🇪

Tokenization

Real estate

Tokenized real estate SPV with international investors

Jurisdictions: UAE + SPV • Stage: Pre-launch → live

A client wanted to attract non-retail investors into a tokenized pool of real estate assets while keeping a clear separation between on-chain logic and off-chain legal rights.

Designed the legal wrapper and SPV structure around underlying assets.
Defined legal nature of tokens and investor rights in classical legal terms.
Prepared offering documentation and risk disclosures.
Aligned website terms and platform flows with the structure.

AIFC CASP: B2B crypto OTC platform

Jurisdiction: AIFC • Route: Sandbox → license

A corporate-only OTC desk needed a clear regulatory footing without opening retail services to the public.

Mapped the model to the CASP framework and sandbox rules.
Prepared licensing roadmap and regulator communication strategy.
Drafted AML / KYC policies and operational procedures.
Assisted during Q&A with the regulator.

Website Legal Pack for SaaS / Web3 platform

Users: EU + global • Data & payments involved

A SaaS / Web3 platform needed a consistent set of user-facing documents before launch and integrations with partners.

Prepared Terms of Use and Privacy Policy aligned with actual flows.
Implemented Cookies Notice and consent mechanics where needed.
Drafted disclaimers for Web3 functionality and digital asset elements.
Coordinated with the product team on UX wording and onboarding.

El Salvador: Digital Asset Service Provider

Jurisdiction: El Salvador • Focus: LATAM

A project with a strong Bitcoin narrative planned to use El Salvador as a regulatory and marketing anchor.

Assessed the fit between the model and DASP framework.
Outlined the company and licensing structure.
Prepared core policies and internal documentation.
Aligned investor and user documentation with local rules.

IP transfer: consolidating software rights

Assets: software + brand • Trigger: investment round

Founders and external developers held fragmented IP rights across several entities and jurisdictions.

Mapped who actually owned which IP and code elements.
Prepared transfer and assignment agreements into a chosen entity.
Drafted intra-group licenses where full transfer was not appropriate.
Designed a trademark strategy linked to the new structure.

Reorganising a cross-border holding structure

Jurisdictions: UAE + Armenia + offshore • Goal: clarity for investors

A technology group needed to move from an ad hoc set of entities to a clear, investor-ready structure.

Analysed existing entities, contracts and flows of funds.
Proposed a new holding structure and reallocation of roles.
Prepared corporate documentation and simple internal policies.
Aligned website, contracts and communications with the new setup.

View case outline →

How to use this page

What you can take from these cases

You do not need an identical case to benefit from our experience. The value is in recognising patterns: which routes worked for similar risk profiles, budgets and timelines.

What you can infer

Which jurisdictions tend to work for similar models and client geographies.
How licensing, tokenization and corporate work interact in real projects.
What kind of documentation regulators, banks and investors expect to see.
Where a sandbox / transitional route was used and where full licensing was needed from day one.

If you briefly describe your own model, we can point out which of these cases or combinations are closest in logic to what you want to build.

Typical questions clients ask us

“Has anyone done something like this?”

We map your idea to existing cases and show which parts are standard and which are more experimental.

“Which route is realistic for our budget and timeline?”

Cases help you see what is typically possible in 3–6 months versus 12–18 months.

“What documentation do we actually need?”

We show which sets of documents were sufficient in similar situations and where extra layers were required.

“Can we start lighter and upgrade later?”

Many cases illustrate phased approaches: lighter structures first, more complex licensing later.

Want to see cases close to your project?

Send a short description of what you do, where your users or investors are and what you plan to launch in the next 6–12 months. We will respond with which jurisdiction and structure paths from our experience are closest to your situation.

You do not need to share confidential details in the first message – a high-level description is enough to understand which paths may work.

Especially useful if you:

Are choosing between several hubs or licensing regimes.
Want to understand what is realistic for your budget and runway.
Need to prepare for investor or regulator conversations.
Plan to launch a tokenization, exchange or Web3 platform in the next year.

Many of the most interesting projects are never described on websites. A private, context-based discussion is often the best way to see relevant examples.