Survey Reveals Over Half of Korean Financial Firms Eyeing Both Issuance and Distribution of…

Korean Lawmakers Complete First Rough Draft of Virtual Asset User Protection BillKorean lawmakers have completed the first rough draft of the virtual asset user protection bill at a National Policy Committee meeting held later last month.©Pexels/Matthias ZomerAgreeing on term usage ‘virtual assets’So far, 18 bills have been proposed to regulate cryptocurrencies, and the lawmakers and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) agreed to use the term “virtual assets” to encompass similar terms such as digital assets and crypto assets.Phased enactment of billsThe bills are likely to be reviewed under the title “Virtual Asset User Protection Act.” The bipartisan group agreed to enact the bills in phases, introducing the user protection bill in the first phase and the virtual asset listing and issuance bill in the second phase.Meanwhile, there were mixed opinions on the content of the bills. In particular, there was debate over whether the bills should stipulate that the central bank digital currency (CBDC) is excluded from virtual assets, and whether the bills should include a standard for determining if a virtual asset is a security.Debate over stipulating CBDC’s statusThe stipulation of excluding CBDC from virtual assets was the most divisive topic since it would lead to defining the conditions for other assets such as non-fungible tokens. Moreover, the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, which currently regulates virtual asset service providers (VASPs), does not contain any stipulation on CBDC. Some raised concerns that such discrepancies could later cause confusion. In the end, assembly members decided to discuss the matter again in April after consulting with the Bank of Korea and the Ministry of Government Legislation.Criteria for classifying virtual assets as securitiesRegarding whether to include criteria for classifying virtual assets as securities, the lawmakers and financial regulators took different sides.Lee Yong-woo, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, underlined that a clear statement of the relationship between the issuer and the recipient of virtual assets in a whitepaper can determine their security status. He added that such provisions should be included in the bills.Park Min-woo, an FSC official, on the other hand, commented on a cautious note that in case virtual assets fall under the category of securities, they may not be applicable to the virtual asset act. He explained that VASPs might deal with both securities and virtual assets, and in such cases, there could be a misunderstanding that VASPs are not subject to the virtual asset act simply because they trade securities.

The South Korean National Tax Service (NTS) is reportedly in the process of setting up virtual asset accounts for its district offices. This initiative is aimed at confiscating and liquidating the digital assets of individuals who fail to pay their taxes. This move comes after the creation of similar accounts by public prosecutors' offices, leading to speculation in the crypto industry that virtual asset accounts will soon be allowed for corporate entities as well.Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich on PexelsDirect confiscation of virtual assetsA report by the local news outlet Etoday today has revealed that each district office of the NTS is working towards establishing a virtual asset account. This development will empower the tax agency to directly sell virtual assets confiscated from tax delinquents. Previously, the NTS would freeze the accounts of overdue taxpayers at Korean cryptocurrency exchanges, compelling them to convert their assets into Korean won. These funds were then confiscated by the NTS. The new initiative is set to streamline the process, enabling the tax authority to directly confiscate virtual assets without the intermediary step of conversion to Korean won. Speaking about this development, an NTS officer said that as each district office director holds the authority to collect taxes from taxpayers with overdue payments, it's necessary for each office to have its own account. Prosecutors’ Offices’ Upbit and Bithumb accountsThe crypto industry views this development as a potential step towards allowing the creation of virtual asset accounts for corporate entities, starting with government agencies. In December, the prosecutors' offices established their entity accounts at major cryptocurrency exchanges Upbit and Bithumb. Since then, the prosecution has utilized these accounts to sell confiscated virtual assets, aiming to recover funds that had not been collected.  An official from a cryptocurrency exchange indicated that the South Korean government is currently focusing on allowing entities that serve the public good to own virtual asset accounts. This approach is seen as the starting point, with expectations that the trend will gain momentum in the future. The official added that it's rare for the government to provide blanket permissions from the outset, suggesting a gradual and cautious approach to the integration of virtual asset accounts.Money laundering concernsMeanwhile, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Financial Services Commission (FSC), along with other financial regulators, has remained silent on the matter of virtual asset accounts for corporate entities. This reticence stems from concerns with the financial authority that the introduction of corporate crypto accounts could potentially lead to money laundering and the creation of slush funds. An official from the National Assembly’s National Policy Committee said that they have not received any comments from the financial authority in response to inquiries about plans to allow such accounts for corporate entities. The current law doesn’t prohibit corporate entities from trading virtual assets. However, under the auspices of the financial authority, banks have refrained from offering real-name accounts to corporate entities. This policy has been a point of contention within the crypto industry. Advocates argue that allowing corporate accounts could mitigate issues of market manipulation and challenge the dominance of Upbit in the Korean cryptocurrency market.  The official from the cryptocurrency exchange pointed out that the financial authority does not have a clear legal basis for prohibiting the creation of corporate crypto accounts. They suggested that the regulator should develop clearer guidelines and enforce these rules for corporate entities. More serious discussions in AprilMore serious discussions about the introduction of corporate crypto accounts are anticipated to take place in April, following the conclusion of the general election. Last month, the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Korea, made election promises to open the crypto market to institutional investors. Meanwhile, the ruling People Power Party has been quietly deliberating on virtual asset policy. Despite these political movements, earlier reports indicate a disconnect between the political parties' efforts to relax crypto regulations and the financial regulator's stance. Meanwhile, Hwang Seok-jin, a professor at Dongguk University’s Graduate School of International Affairs and Information Security, expects to see a conclusion on the permission of corporate crypto trading by the end of this year. He said that there has been ongoing discussion about the approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and that allowing the trading of such funds requires the ownership of virtual assets by institutions. 

Japan’s Cryptoasset Group Proposes Self-Regulatory Reforms for IEO SystemThe Japan Cryptoasset Business Association (JCBA) has revealed a preliminary draft advocating for reforms in self-regulation to bolster the soundness of the initial exchange offering (IEO) system. This draft has been submitted to the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).IEOs serve as a mechanism enabling various enterprises to accrue funds and broaden their user base by orchestrating token sales on cryptocurrency exchanges for Web3 projects. This fundraising method holds the potential to enhance trust as crypto exchanges, supervised by the Japanese Financial Services Agency, undertake evaluations of project feasibility and maintain ongoing oversight.Photo by Takashi Miyazaki on UnsplashPositive regulatory developmentsThe ameliorating regulatory landscape is also a positive development, highlighted by this year’s tax law amendment, which grants exemptions to enterprises’ self-issued tokens from year-end corporate taxation. In Japan, four IEOs have been conducted so far, with the inaugural IEO amassing over 900 million yen (approximately $6 million). The cumulative amount from the four IEOs has surpassed 4.4 billion yen. However, given that the IEO is a relatively nascent fundraising method, improvements in token price stability and operational modalities are required to ensure that businesses and users can engage with it confidently.Enhanced user protectionAgainst this backdrop, JCBA, an organization comprised of various enterprises involving virtual assets and Web3, has been discussing the direction of the IEO system from a corporate viewpoint since May of this year. Establishing price stabilization measures and selling restrictions within the Japanese IEO system will contribute to user protection by allowing investors to manage their assets under domestic regulations. JCBA stated that users will find domestic exchanges more secure in comparison to foreign ones.As this proposal represents an initial draft, deliberated and formulated only within the JCBA, the group intends to consult and assess the feasibility of the self-regulatory rules with each pertinent organization as necessary.Four key pointsThe document submitted by JCBA to JVCEA presented four key points concerning the IEO. Pertaining to pricing, it suggested the diversification of calculation methods customized to each project and the specification of price-related disclaimers. On liquidity, it posited that liquidity objectives should be established at the time of listing, and an environment conducive to securing liquidity should be developed. JCBA also pointed out the necessity of establishing rules for price stabilization measures at the time of listing. Finally, regarding selling restrictions, it was noted that both token issuers and exchanges should adhere to a minimum three-month lock-up period for tokens.