Kronos Research experiences significant cybersecurity breach

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

Chinese Official Gets Life Sentence on Crypto Mining-Related Corruption ChargesA former Chinese government official, Xiao Yi, has been handed a life sentence for engaging in illicit business activities connected to a $329 million Bitcoin mining venture, together with other unrelated acts of corruption, according to Cointelegraph.The Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City declared the verdict on Tuesday, finding Xiao Yi guilty of corruption and abuse of power.Yi, previously associated with the Jiangxi Provincial Political Consultative Conference Party Group and holding the position of Vice Chairman, faced charges stemming from a range of offenses. The corruption allegations dated back to 2008 and extended till 2021, involving instances of bribery.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashAdditional abuse of power chargesSimultaneously, the abuse of power accusations spanned from 2017 to 2021 and centered around providing financial and electricity incentives to Jiumu Group Genesis Technology, a company headquartered in Fuzhou that once managed over 160,000 Bitcoin mining machines.Prosecutors contended that Yi took deliberate steps to conceal the extent of the mining operation. He was said to have directed relevant departments to falsify statistical reports and manipulate electricity consumption classifications. During the period between 2017 and 2020, the energy consumption attributed to Jiumu amounted to 10% of Fuzhou’s overall electricity usage.Moreover, Xiao Yi’s involvement in facilitating crypto mining activities as a Party Secretary of Fuzhou city between 2017 and 2021 led to significant losses to public property, national interests, and people’s interests. This underscores the broader consequences associated with his actions and their impact on the community.The court ruling disclosed: “Yi pleaded guilty and repented, actively returned the stolen funds, and all the bribes and their profits have been seized.”Crypto mining and trading prohibitionIn the context of China’s current cryptocurrency regulatory stance, all forms of cryptocurrency transactions, exchange operations, and fiat-to-crypto onboarding, together with crypto mining, are prohibited. However, direct ownership of cryptocurrencies is not explicitly banned. In a recent development on August 3, a Chinese court declared a $10 million Bitcoin lending contract null and void based on the nation’s Bitcoin restrictions, without the possibility of legal debt recovery.Another incident on August 14 led to the sentencing of a Chinese national to nine months in prison for facilitating the acquisition of Tether (USDT) by an acquaintance, earning a profit from the transaction.Xiao Yi’s case reflects the Chinese government’s ongoing efforts to enforce its stringent stance on cryptocurrency-related activities, including Bitcoin mining, which has garnered increasing attention due to its energy consumption and potential economic implications.Bitcoin mining was outlawed in China in 2021. Many of its miners left the country, establishing operations in places like Kazakhstan and in North America. However, it’s understood that there is still a significant level of mining activity ongoing in China despite the ban.The life sentence serves as a stark warning against illegal Bitcoin mining and financial misconduct, aligning with the Chinese government’s intention to maintain control over its financial sector and prevent unauthorized financial activities. The detailed revelations about Yi’s role in facilitating crypto mining activities highlight the broader implications of his actions on the public and national interests.

Hong Kong Setting High Bar on Crypto RulesLucy Gazmararian, a Fintech Advisory Group member of Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and founder of crypto venture firm Token Bay Capital has said that the standards for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) in Hong Kong are incredibly high.©Pexels/Brayden LawThe Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has established these strict guidelines as they want the crypto industry to adhere to the same compliance standards as traditional financial firms.Gazmararian made the comments in discussion with Cointelegraph on the fringes of the Hong Kong WOW Summit. Although the bar is set high, Gazmararian maintains that it is not without good reason. The SFC’s approach is to ask VASPs to apply the same standards that existing financial institutions such as huge banks and asset managers must comply with.Short term challengesAccording to a consultation paper released by the SFC on February 20th, licensed VASPs may serve retail investors, but the standard of investor protection measures imposed needs to be considered. Additionally, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) policies were also discussed.While these high standards may benefit the industry in the long run, Gazmararian believes they may pose challenges for the crypto industry in Hong Kong over the short term. She explained that many crypto businesses are in the startup phase and have funding but not huge amounts. Therefore, complying with the framework may incur significant costs. Gazmararian mentioned the need for local VASPs to have insurance, independent assessment reports, and store crypto in cold storage. It is important to note that these costs may prevent some startups from entering the market, which may have consequences on the industry’s growth in Hong Kong.The Token Bay Capital founder believes that with a solid regulatory framework in place, more well-capitalized financial firms will be willing to help promising startups get off the ground. In her opinion, the companies that receive a license will be upholding the most stringent standards.Ambitions to be global crypto hubThe SFC has encouraged individuals, corporations, and crypto firms to review the 361-page consultation paper and provide feedback. The securities regulator wants these entities to share their views and point to things that may have been missed. According to Gazmararian, the SFC is “absolutely focused” on getting everything right, so they are seeking input from a wide range of sources.Submissions for feedback on the consultation paper closed on March 31. Hong Kong has made significant strides in recent months to establish itself as the world’s next crypto hub. According to a March 20 statement by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Christian Hui, more than 80 digital asset firms have expressed interest in establishing a presence in Hong Kong over the last few months. This interest is a testament to the growing importance of the crypto industry and the favorable environment that Hong Kong is creating for its growth.