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

The South Korean financial authority will establish new policies and guidelines for token listing and provide admirable examples from past listing events for local exchanges to follow, according to local media outlet News1.  So far, fiat-to-crypto exchanges in Korea have been listing tokens on their platforms under a guideline issued by Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA) – a self-regulatory consultation group comprised of five major Korean crypto exchanges. The existing DAXA guideline outlines basic yet vague instructions, which have allowed exchanges to list tokens largely at their discretion.  However, the new guideline from the financial authority, expected to be released by this June, will mark the government’s first official manual on token listing. This is in line with the upcoming Virtual Asset User Protection Act, which will be effective in July. Photo by Hitesh Choudhary on UnsplashSetting clear guidelines for token listingsThe new guidelines are expected to include examples of past fraud detection and real-time monitoring cases which are deemed to have set precedents for the industry players. Moreover, the financial authority plans to distribute past exemplary cases of token listing as early as April, which is anticipated to set a model listing process and help local crypto exchanges adhere to the law and requirements.  This announcement comes after the local game company Wemade relisted its native token WEMIX on Korbit, one of DAXA's member exchanges, just a year after it was delisted on major exchanges due to its deviant practices in token issuance. The relisting of WEMIX has since raised concerns among crypto insiders about the lack of criteria regarding token listings. More refined token listing process As the crypto market's bullish trend continues, Bithumb and Coinone – the second and third-largest exchanges in Korea – are stepping up their efforts to speed up the listing of new coins. Industry experts expect these exchanges will double down on their efforts in screening and reviewing processes for tokens to align with the new guidelines in the future.  An official from the Korean Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said that while the anticipated listing process is not legally binding, it will definitely have a more profound impact on local crypto exchanges compared to the self-regulated DAXA guidelines.  

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.

During a National Policy Committee audit, South Korean lawmakers pressed financial regulators on their oversight of the domestic crypto market, focusing on Binance’s acquisition of local exchange Gopax, risks from order-book sharing with foreign platforms, and weaknesses in anti–money laundering (AML) controls.Photo by Kanchanara on UnsplashQuestions over Gopax compensationAccording to Kuki News, Democratic Party lawmaker Min Byeong-dug has urged regulators to reach out to Binance for details on its plan to compensate Gopax creditors following its acquisition of the local exchange. One of the nation’s five fiat-to-crypto exchanges, Gopax suspended withdrawals from its GoFi service, a yield-bearing product, in November 2022 after the collapse of the Bahamas-based FTX crypto exchange and the bankruptcy of Genesis, a U.S.-based crypto financial services firm. Citing investor losses estimated at 10 billion to 50 billion won (about $7 million–$35 million), Min said Binance had agreed to cover the shortfall as part of its cashless acquisition of Gopax, but full repayment to Korean users remains unresolved. He noted that the deal had faced delays due to concerns raised by the Financial Services Commission’s (FSC) Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) over Binance’s eligibility as a major shareholder, and urged the FSC and FIU to ensure a clear and timely resolution for affected investors. Concerns over order-book sharingPeople Power Party (PPP) lawmaker Lee Heon-seung raised additional concerns about order-book sharing tied to the Binance–Gopax deal, warning it could create regulatory blind spots. According to Dailian, he asked the FIU about risks such as possible gaps in AML oversight at foreign exchanges and the potential exposure of Korean user data. FIU head Park Gwang said inadequate AML systems at overseas platforms can hinder fund tracing. He noted that separate approval is required before a domestic exchange can share its order book with a foreign platform, adding that no such request was under discussion. Park said the FIU would closely examine the matter and ensure protection of personal data. Lee also questioned how effectively regulators can supervise the crypto market given its scale, pointing to the Bithumb exchange as an example, where he had raised similar concerns about order-book sharing. Bithumb serves about 3.8 million users and records roughly 605 trillion won (approximately $426 billion) in annual trading volume. He said order-book sharing with major global exchanges such as Binance could complicate AML compliance, data protection, and regulatory oversight, and called for stronger enforcement. In response, Park said that the agency would ensure proper supervision to address these risks. Allegations of AML loopholes and illicit useAnother PPP lawmaker, Kim Jae-sub, flagged a potential AML loophole involving Binance, saying the exchange had allegedly been used by Cambodia’s Prince Group, which is linked to fraudulent schemes to conceal illicit funds. Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil forfeiture complaint to seize roughly 127,271 Bitcoin linked to Prince Group’s operations, marking the largest seizure in its history. Kim also cited past allegations connecting Binance to illicit transactions involving Hamas and North Korea, and said the exchange’s founder faces related charges. He urged the FSC to conduct a thorough examination to determine the extent of any involvement if the claims prove accurate. As the parliamentary audit continues, lawmakers from both parties are pressing regulators to clarify standards, tighten oversight, and prioritize investor protection while maintaining fair and predictable rules for market participants.