South Korean FIU rejects Hanbitco’s bid to become fiat-to-crypto exchange

Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act to Take Effect in July Next YearThe Virtual Asset User Protection Bill was passed during the South Korean National Assembly’s plenary session last Friday, according to a report by news agency Newsis. The legislation aims to safeguard customer assets, establish regulations against unfair trading practices, and enforce penalties. The act is scheduled to take effect one year after its passage.Photo by KS KYUNG on UnsplashDefinition of virtual assetsUnder the act, a virtual asset is defined as a digital representation of economic value that can be digitally traded or transferred. It’s important to note that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are not considered virtual assets. Virtual assets with characteristics of securities will initially fall under the jurisdiction of the Capital Market Act.Roles of Korea’s central bankThe act grants the Bank of Korea (BOK) the authority to request data and information from virtual asset service providers (VASPs). This provision is deemed necessary for the Korean central bank to formulate monetary and financial policies, despite virtual assets not being equivalent to traditional currencies.Responsibilities of VASPsMoreover, VASPs are obligated to segregate users’ virtual assets from their own holdings. VASPs are also required to reserve the same type and quantity of virtual assets entrusted by users and maintain a certain proportion of these assets in a cold wallet, which is an offline storage solution.Unfair trading practices will be regulated in a similar manner as outlined in the Capital Market Act. The act specifically prohibits the use of undisclosed information, price manipulation, fraudulent transactions, and trading of self-issued virtual assets. VASPs are barred from suspending deposits and withdrawals without legitimate reasons. They are also mandated to monitor suspicious transactions and take appropriate measures to safeguard users. Any suspected unfair trading practices must be promptly reported to financial authorities. Violators of these rules may face criminal penalties, liability for damages, and potential class action lawsuits.Powers of financial authoritiesThe act also clarifies the powers of financial authorities in supervising, inspecting, and taking action against virtual asset operators. Unfair trade practices can result in imprisonment for more than one year (up to 10 years for violations related to self-issued virtual assets) or fines ranging from three to five times the illicit gains. Assets acquired through unfair trade practices will be confiscated, or an equivalent value will be charged if confiscation is not feasible.Impact on crypto investigationsThe absence of legislation directly addressing unfair trading practices in the virtual asset market has posed challenges for prosecutors. They had to rely on existing statutes related to fraud, the capital market, and financial investments. Once the new act takes effect, prosecutors will no longer need to determine whether a virtual asset qualifies as a security or not.Regarding this development, a prosecutor told local legal news outlet Law Times that the implementation of the new act will escalate prosecutorial investigations into cryptocurrency incidents.Meanwhile, the individuals behind the crash of Terraform Labs’ stablecoin TerraUSD and its sister coin Luna will not be subject to this act due to the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, which prevents the retrospective enforcement of criminal laws. Do Kwon, co-founder of Terraform Labs, was recently sentenced to four months in prison by a Montenegrin court for passport forgery after being arrested in March. The other co-founder, Daniel Shin, has been indicted by prosecutors in Korea.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank and primary financial regulator, has set a deadline of June 30 for unlicensed digital token service providers (DTSPs) working out of Singapore to cease offering their services to clients in overseas markets.Photo by Hu Chen on UnsplashResponding to feedbackThe deadline emerged by way of a process MAS has followed as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSM Act). Last October, the regulator invited feedback from stakeholders related to the authority’s approach to the regulation of DTSPs. MAS published its response to that feedback on May 30.  It stated:”DTSPs which are subject to a licensing requirement under section 137 of the FSM Act must suspend or cease carrying on a business of providing DT services outside Singapore by 30 June 2025.” It added that it was not including any transitional arrangement for DTSPs despite MAS receiving such a suggestion from a number of feedback respondents. Instead, unlicensed DTSPs will need to abide by the June 30 deadline and have acquired a license by then or cease unlicensed activity.The regulator defines DTSPs as individuals, partnerships or Singapore corporations operating from a place of business in Singapore, including those formed or incorporated in Singapore who offer digital token services outside Singapore. Those found in breach of the regulation could face up to three years in prison and fines of up to S$250,000 ($195,000). Companies who have already obtained licensing or those exempted by way of the Securities and Futures Act, Payment Services Act and the Financial Advisers Act are free to continue trading. Challenging licensing requirementsThose who wish to become compliant will have to satisfy some challenging requirements. For those granted a license, an annual license fee of S$10,000 ($7,780) applies. Small-scale DTSPs need to satisfy a $150,000 ($116,670) ongoing capital requirement, while larger, well-established DTSPs must comply with a S$250,000 ($195,000) capital requirement. Additionally, MAS has put in place competency requirements related to a DTSP's CEO, directors, partners and managers. Hagen Rooke, a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, outlined on LinkedIn that while it's possible for unlicensed operators to obtain licensing, it will be very difficult to get a license. In its feedback response document, the regulator stated: “MAS will approach the licensing of DTSPs in a prudent and cautious manner and there will be extremely limited circumstances under which MAS will consider granting an applicant a licence under section 138 of the FSM Act.” Rooke advised crypto companies that may be affected to act swiftly in order to derisk through an operational restructuring or removing the businesses' Singapore touchpoints. He suggested that firms need to consider if it has customers outside of Singapore or front-office functions located outside of the city-state to determine if they could be affected by this regulatory measure. A number of Asian countries have moved to take action against unlicensed foreign firms that have engaged with local investors, with Thailand becoming the latest country to do so recently. However, the Singaporean authorities have approached the issue from the opposite perspective, citing the potential reputational risk that unlicensed DTSPs pose for Singapore.

Conflict Identified as Crypto.com Trading on its Own PlatformTrading practices at Crypto.com, the Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange, have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest within the digital assets industry.Citing a number of unnamed sources, the Financial Times (FT) made the claim in a report published on Monday.Photo by Pixabay on PexelsConflict of interestIn traditional financial markets, exchanges typically match buyers with sellers at competitive transparent prices, while market making and proprietary trading are conducted by separate private companies. However, US regulators have recently cracked down on similar activities at digital asset exchanges. Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, faced 13 charges from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including allegations of manipulative trading to inflate trading volume.The presence of internal traders at Crypto.com has not been widely known since the company’s launch in 2016. The FT’s sources claim that Crypto.com executives provided sworn statements to external trading houses denying the company’s involvement in trading activities.Employees were allegedly instructed to deny the existence of an internal market-making operation. In response to inquiries, Crypto.com denied that employees were asked to lie, stating that their internal market maker functioned similarly to third-party market makers, ensuring tight spreads and efficient markets on their platform.The majority of Crypto.com’s revenue reportedly comes from its app for retail traders, where the company acts as the counterparty for transactions and operates as a broker model. The company’s trading team hedges these positions on various venues, including their own exchange, to maintain risk neutrality. Crypto.com emphasized that their exchange provides a level playing field for institutional traders.According to insiders, Crypto.com’s proprietary trading desk engages in trading activities on the company’s exchange and other platforms, solely focused on generating profits rather than facilitating an exchange. The market making desk, on the other hand, aims to enhance liquidity on the platform.Not a revenue sourceCrypto.com defended its practices by stating that comparing trading volumes to competitors is common in the industry. It said that the company’s priority is to continuously improve order book liquidity and reduce spreads, benefiting all participants. The firm told Decrypt that trading is not a source of revenue: “While we do have some market making activity, for example, we have internal market makers for our CFTC-regulated product Up/Downs in the United States.”As a private company, Crypto.com publishes accounts in different countries, but revenue breakdown by business line is not disclosed.Closure of institutional tradingFollowing the SEC’s enforcement actions, earlier this month Crypto.com announced the closure of its exchange for institutional US traders due to limited demand in the current market landscape, effective from June 21.In any marketplace transparency and fairness are crucial. It’s fair to say that there has been some level of sharp practice among some actors in the marketplace while regulators have been lacking in getting up to speed with the emergent sector, and moving to protect consumers. With the major crypto platform failures of 2022 has come renewed interest in resolving these issues. That may make for some short-term difficulty, but in the longer term, it should mean greater protections for market participants so long as a common sense approach is pursued.