BOCI Partners with UBS in Hong Kong on First Tokenized Notes

The Philippines' financial regulator announced that it is implementing what amounts to a ban on Binance in the Southeast Asian nation by blocking local access to the leading global cryptocurrency exchange. This decision, publicized via a press release on March 25, comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) raised concerns last November over Binance's operations in the country, citing a lack of necessary licenses for certain investment products. According to the press release, the SEC revealed that it sought assistance from the National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) to enforce the ban, expressing worries about the security of Filipino investors' funds on the platform. In a letter addressed to the NTC, SEC Chairman Emilio Aquino stated:"The SEC has identified the aforementioned platform and concluded that the public's continued access to these websites/apps poses a threat to the security of the funds of investing Filipinos.”Photo by Krisia on PexelsA similar move was taken last December by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in India, as it acted to block access to what it deemed to be non-compliant global crypto exchanges. Unlicensed servicesThe SEC alleges that Binance offers services like leveraged trading and crypto savings accounts without the required licenses, violating the country's Securities Regulation Code. Consequently, the ban is set to be implemented within three months, allowing investors time to exit their positions held through Binance. Furthermore, the SEC has requested Google and Meta to restrict Binance-related advertisements targeted at Filipino users on their platforms, extending the regulatory measures to online advertising as well. A similar stance was taken by authorities in Thailand last August with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) engaging in talks with Facebook in an effort to curb questionable crypto-related advertising on the platform. Regulatory setbackThis move by the Philippines' financial watchdog marks another regulatory setback for Binance, which has faced increasing scrutiny globally. In December 2023, a U.S. court ordered Binance to pay significant fines to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for evading federal law and operating an illegal derivatives exchange. As part of the settlement, Binance's former CEO, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), agreed to step down from his position, with Zhao also facing civil and criminal charges related to anti-money laundering laws. The SEC's cautionary stance against Binance dates back to November 2023, shortly after Zhao's legal troubles in the U.S. emerged. At that time, the SEC expressed its intention to ban Binance in the Philippines, though the execution was postponed due to changes in the leadership of the regulatory body. Notably, Kenneth Stern, who headed up Binance's operations in the Philippines, exited the company in July 2023, amidst mounting regulatory pressures and legal challenges. Binance had seen many leading executives part ways with it in the lead-up to the company’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) last year. With regulatory actions tightening around Binance globally, the future of the exchange in various jurisdictions remains uncertain. The ban in the Philippines adds to the ongoing regulatory challenges faced by the company and underscores the growing importance of compliance within the cryptocurrency industry.

Singapore Judge Says Crypto Not MoneyIn recent years, legal processes in various jurisdictions worldwide have seen judges comment on whether cryptocurrency is actually money. The latest such determination has been made by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy who outlined in a Singapore court that while being a component of financial transactions, cryptocurrencies are not money.The consideration emerged in a recent court hearing at Singapore’s High Court in a case involving the Algorand Foundation and failed Singapore-based hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC). Justice Coomaraswamy’s comments arose due to a discussion in the midst of the court proceedings involving the Judge and counsel representing the Algorand Foundation.©Pexels/EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVASeashells as moneyIn setting out his rationale for the need for 3AC to be wound up, Daniel Chan, a lawyer for the WongPartnership law firm that was representing the Algorand Foundation in the proceedings, told the judge that despite foreign currencies not being recognized as legal tender in Singapore, or used broadly as a medium of exchange within the city state, those foreign currencies are recognized by Singapore law as money. Using that analogy Chan suggested that by implication, the same scenario should be considered where cryptocurrencies are concerned.The judge provided a counterpoint: “What if you had a [community] in the world that used seashells as its internal medium of exchange? Would the Singapore courts have to recognize that as money.” Chan claimed that the judge had used an extreme example although Coomaraswamy remained steadfast in his view, pointing out that seashells had indeed been used as a form of money in the distant past.Coomaraswamy proceeded to dismiss the Algorand Foundation’s winding up application. He acknowledged that the Foundation did have standing in bringing the application. However, as he determined that cryptocurrency couldn’t be classed as money, on that basis he dismissed the application. In conveying his decision, he stated: “The word indebtedness, in my view, must require a debt which is in fiat currency. Determining whether or not a particular intangible, such as cryptocurrency, is money would require a detailed examination of evidence which is not appropriate in the context of insolvency.”Legal tenderThus far, bitcoin has been recognized as legal tender in two countries — El Salvador and the Central African Republic. In 2020, a French court referred to the leading cryptocurrency as money, agreeing that Bitcoin loans can be recognized as customer loans in the same way as loans denominated in fiat currencies. Earlier that year, an Australian court recognized bitcoin as a legally legitimate form of investment. In the United States, a Federal court recognized bitcoin as “money” or “funds” in a prosecution taken against Silk Road website operator Ross Ulbricht.There have been many similar instances in courts globally where judges have had to grapple with the consideration of whether bitcoin and crypto more generally can be regarded as money. Similar to the difficulty authorities are having in regulating cryptocurrency, it’s an issue that in most cases lacks complete clarity and in which we can expect further discussions on, similar to this most recent consideration in the Singaporean high court.

Hacking Attempts on Upbit Reach 160,000 in First Half of the YearThere have been approximately 160,000 hacking attempts on Upbit, Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, in the first half of this year alone, according to a report submitted by Upbit’s operator Dunamu to lawmaker Park Sung-joong of the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee.“Cryptocurrency hacking incidents are increasing both domestically and internationally, and hacking attacks on exchanges such as Upbit, which have daily trading volumes exceeding KRW 2 trillion, are a serious issue,” Park said.Photo by Clint Patterson on UnsplashAn uptick in hacking attemptsThe data revealed that the number of cyber breach attempts in the first half of the year totaled 159,061–2.17 times higher than the number of attempts in the first half of last year, which stood at 73,249.Hacking attempts on Upbit have been steadily increasing in recent years, from 8,356 in the second half of 2020 to 34,687 and 63,912 in the first and second half of 2021, respectively. In the first half of last year, there were 73,249, and 87,242 in the second half. Notably, the exchange suffered losses of approximately KRW 58 billion (approximately $43 million) from a hacking attack in 2019.Ramping up securitySubsequently, Dunamu has taken action to enhance security by managing over 70% of its assets in cold wallets and operating hot wallets in a distributed structure instead of a singular one. Hot wallets refer to online crypto wallets, whereas cold wallets are crypto wallets that are offline and disconnected from the internet. Hot wallets offer the advantage of direct deposits and withdrawals, but they have weaker security levels — most known exchange hacks have thus occurred through this medium. On the other hand, cold wallets store private keys on offline sources like external hard drives and portable storage devices, making real-time trading difficult but providing better security and stability.“We have taken various preventive measures since the hacking incident in 2019, such as operating hot wallets in a distributed manner. There have not been any successful cyber breaches to date,” Upbit said.Regarding the role of the Ministry of Science and ICT in managing and overseeing crypto hacking incidents, Park pointed out that this still remains ambiguous. “The Ministry should conduct large-scale white-hat hacking tests and security assessments for crypto exchanges that are frequently faced with hacking attempts, as well as for hospitals and subway systems that manage large amounts of personal information,” he said.