Kazakhstan Launches NPC With CBDC Implementation by 2025

Korean government to seize crypto for unpaid child supportStarting next year, the South Korean government is set to begin seizing virtual assets such as bitcoin from parents who are obligated to pay child support but fail to do so.Photo by Bonnie Kittle on UnsplashKorea Credit Bureau to assist in crypto seizuresAccording to a report by local news outlet Dailian, the Child Support Agency (CSA) of the Korean Institute for Healthy Family (KIHF), which operates under the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, announced on Wednesday (local time) a partnership with the Korea Credit Bureau (KCB). This collaboration will empower the agency to confiscate virtual assets from parents who are delinquent in paying child support.Since 2015, the CSA has been offering emergency child support for approximately a year to low-income single parents who have not received payments from non-custodial parents. In this process, the agency initially pays the child support on behalf of the non-custodial parents and subsequently pursues reimbursement from them. This system ensures that the immediate needs of the children are met while still holding non-custodial parents accountable for their financial responsibilities.Before July 2022, the CSA was required to initiate lawsuits against non-compliant parents to recover child support payments. However, since then, the agency has been authorized to directly pursue reimbursements by following the compulsory national tax collection process.Challenges in enforcing child support paymentsDespite these improved measures, the government still encountered challenges in enforcing child support payments. Some non-compliant parents have resorted to earning income under other people’s names or deliberately concealing their properties, including virtual assets, to evade their child support obligations.Against this backdrop, the recent partnership between the CSA and the KCB is a strategic move to enhance the enforcement of child support payments. This collaboration will grant the CSA access to KCB’s virtual asset management system. With this access, the CSA will be able to efficiently search for and seize the cryptocurrency holdings of non-compliant parents.Jeon Joo-won, the head of the CSA, underlined the significance of the agency’s collaboration with the KCB. She pointed out that utilizing KCB’s financial transaction data will improve the CSA’s enforcement of child support payments. Jeon also emphasized that the mutual support between the two agencies will serve as a foundation for promoting social values, highlighting the broader societal impact of their combined efforts to ensure responsible child support compliance.

South Korean Prosecutors Fail to Recover Do Kwon’s AssetsSouth Korean prosecutors have disclosed that they have been unable to find the millions of dollars that Do Kwon, CEO and Founder of Terraform Labs, made from the crypto business.©Pexels/GratisographyOverseas assetsThe latest development in the case suggests that Kwon may have tried to hide his assets overseas, making it more challenging for authorities to recover those funds.Prosecutors claim that Do Kwon transferred funds from his personal accounts to overseas bank accounts under his mother’s name. Additionally, he allegedly used cryptocurrency to purchase real estate and other assets in the United States, which he then registered under his mother’s name. This tactic is commonly used by those seeking to evade detection and protect their assets from seizure.Binance halt requestSouth Korean authorities are understood to have reached out to global cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, requesting it to halt any withdrawal request associated with Kwon. Binance confirmed to CoinTelegraph that it is cooperating with the request, stating: “We provided Korean law enforcement authorities with the requested assistance. Since we cannot comment on ongoing law enforcement investigations, for any further comment please reach out to the prosecutors.”Blockchain forensicsThe situation surrounding Do Kwon’s case is not uncommon in crypto. Although there are blockchain forensic analysis specialists who collaborate with government authorities in tracing digital assets, the task is not without its difficulties. By analyzing the blockchain, investigators can trace the flow of funds and identify the individuals involved in illicit activities. This technology has already been used in a number of high-profile cases, including the 2014 Mt. Gox hack and the 2020 Twitter hack.Nevertheless, the anonymous nature of blockchain transactions makes it much easier for individuals who engage in fraudulent or illegal activities. However, as cryptocurrency becomes more mainstream, governments around the world are cracking down on those who attempt to take advantage of the system.Tightening regulationIn South Korea, authorities have been working to regulate the cryptocurrency industry and protect consumers from fraud. The government has implemented a number of measures, including requiring cryptocurrency exchanges to register with the Financial Services Commission and banning anonymous transactions. Despite these efforts, however, incidents of fraud and embezzlement continue to occur.The fight against cryptocurrency-related crime is far from over. As the industry continues to grow and evolve, criminals will continue to find new ways to exploit the system. It is up to regulators and law enforcement officials to remain vigilant and adapt to these changes in order to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of the financial system.In the case of Do Kwon, the investigation is ongoing, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be. Prosecutors estimate total proceeds of Do Kwon’s alleged crimes to amount to 91.4 billion won ($71 million) while 414.5 billion won ($316 million) has been identified relative to Terraform Labs more broadly.

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.