Thailand Pushes Back Against Facebook-Enabled Crypto Scams

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.

South Korean insurance companies, DB Insurance (DB) and DB Life Insurance (DB Life), are hosting the 2024 InsurTech Startup Incubation Program (ISIP) in collaboration with Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA), local media Daily Korea reported.  Insurtech is a compound word of insurance and technology. This year, the ISIP focuses on recruiting blockchain-based insurtech startups with high potential that can contribute to the insurance business value chain, including activities such as product launch, marketing and customer service. The program is open to any insurtech startup with innovative technologies and services. Photo by Tierra Mallorca on UnsplashLaunched in 2020, the ISIP has been supporting insurtech startups with innovative ideas to expand their business in the insurance industry, aiming to create a robust and collaborative insurtech ecosystem. Over the past four years, the program has served as a mentor for 21 startups, supporting their product release, new technology verification and business pivoting.  Business growth opportunity for insurtch startups Startups selected for the ISIP are provided with the opportunity to receive mentorship – including mentoring services from insurance experts, business strategy advice and IR pitching coaching sessions – that will help facilitate their business growth.  In addition, selected startups will be eligible to apply for surety credit to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund on favorable terms and gain opportunities to raise funds from venture capitalists. Those deemed profitable enough for commercialization will be able to have a chance to collaborate with DB and DB Life.  Application forms are available on the KISA’s website and can be submitted via e-mail between Feb.27 to March 27. Applicants should undergo document screening and a presentation test to join the ISIP.  

South Korean lawmakers are moving to seize control of the nation’s stalled second phase of digital asset legislation, aiming to bypass months of interagency gridlock and introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework by January. The legislative acceleration comes as Seoul races to align with global standards following the implementation of the U.S. GENIUS Act in July, a shift that has intensified pressure on local regulators to formalize oversight of the crypto sector. According to a report from the Maeil Business Newspaper, the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) plans to introduce the Digital Asset Basic Act as a lawmaker-sponsored bill rather than wait for a government submission. The procedural move is intended to ensure that formal deliberations can begin during the February provisional session. Lawmaker Kang Jun-hyeon, a DPK member of the National Policy Committee, told reporters on Dec. 11 that relying on the government’s timeline would jeopardize passage of the bill in the first half of next year. Kang cited points of disagreement among the parliament, the government, and industry stakeholders. Among the authorities, in particular, a standoff between the Bank of Korea (BOK) and the Financial Services Commission (FSC) over monetary policy and issuance authority has been a key source of delay.Photo by Lauren Seo on UnsplashDraft sets ‘major’ stablecoin requirementsAt the heart of the legislation is a new classification system for stablecoins. The government delivered its draft for the Digital Asset Basic Act to DPK’s Digital Asset Task Force, outlining its intention to classify won-denominated stablecoins exceeding a certain issuance threshold as “major digital payment tokens.” According to Blockmedia, citing sources familiar with the closed-door briefing to the task force, these assets would fall under a rigorous oversight framework developed in consultation with the central bank. Under the draft rules, issuers would be required to maintain 100% reserves, prohibited from making interest payments to holders, and obliged to submit detailed issuance plans to the FSC. Foreign-issued stablecoins would only be permitted to circulate domestically if the issuer establishes a local branch. Although the government ultimately submitted its draft to the DPK, the delivery was delayed by two days, missing the Dec. 10 deadline set by the party. Officials attributed the postponement to unresolved interagency disagreements. The central bank had argued that any issuance should require unanimous approval from all relevant agencies, including itself, but the government agreed to involve the bank only when a token is designated as “major.” The Bank of Korea continues to advocate for a bank-led consortium issuance model, highlighting the coordination challenges that have complicated the bill’s preparation. Supply thresholds emerge as fault lineCritics warn that the proposed regulations could inadvertently tilt the market against domestic innovation. Analysts argue that if the threshold for the "major" designation is set too low, new won-based issuers may face compliance costs that could undermine their business viability before they reach meaningful scale. They added that setting the bar for entrenched dollar-backed issuers such as USDT and USDC is also complex, given that their combined global issuance already exceeds $250 billion. Market participants said concerns about triggering the “major” designation could prompt Korean issuers to cap supply to avoid heightened scrutiny, effectively stifling growth from the outset. Despite these concerns, political will to close the policy vacuum is hardening. The DPK intends to move the legislation forward on its own timetable, incorporating the government’s input but steering the process through parliament. Lawmaker Kang emphasized that while numerous issues remain, the task force aims to narrow the debate to a few essential questions before the bill’s planned introduction in January. Industry representatives have largely welcomed the clearer timeline, viewing the move as a necessary step to reduce uncertainty as the global crypto sector comes under more formal regulatory oversight.