UAE Issues New Guidance on Crypto AML Measures

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.

Hong Kong Moves to Enable Retail Crypto TradeHong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has moved to enable retail participation in crypto trading within the Chinese autonomous territory.The SFC has arrived at that determination, according to a report it published on Tuesday. The report, titled “Consultation Conclusions on the Proposed Regulatory Requirements for Virtual Asset Trading Platform Operators Licensed by the SFC (Note 1),” provides an overview of the nature of feedback the Commission received as part of its consultation process relative to virtual asset trading.Photo by Ben Cheung on PexelsRetail investor protectionIn the press release which accompanied the report, the Commission outlined that “a significant majority of respondents agreed to our proposal to allow licensed trading platform operators to serve retail investors.” On that basis, the SFC is moving forward in enabling retail trading of crypto assets through licensed virtual asset trading platforms effective June 1, and it’s setting out to do so while implementing a number of measures to protect retail investors.That will include ensuring that operators provide an appropriate on-boarding process. In the case of crypto asset projects, the SFC is determined to see to it that good governance is implemented, alongside enhanced token due diligence, admission criteria, and disclosures.In the statement, the SFC’s CEO Julia Leung, said that “providing clear regulatory expectations is the key to fostering responsible development.” She added that “Hong Kong’s comprehensive virtual assets regulatory framework follows the principle of ‘same business, same risks, same rules’ and aims to provide robust investor protection and manage key risks. This will enable the industry to develop sustainably and support innovation.”Specific conditionsOne item that the SFC’s new rule-book on virtual asset trading for retail investors outlines is a ban on crypto “gifts.” Effectively any promotions or incentives that lead with free gifts, and this will likely include token airdrops, will be prohibited.In terms of capital liquidity, virtual asset exchanges will be required to maintain a minimum of 5,000,000 Hong Kong dollars ($638,000) at all times as a minimum paid-up share capital. A Platform Operator must at all times maintain liquid capital which is not less than its required liquid capital,” the document outlines.Token due diligenceThe SFC acknowledged that it can be difficult for virtual asset exchanges to carry out due diligence on new tokens. With that in mind, it has incorporated a requirement for any new token to have a twelve-month track record before it can be considered to be listed to provide an indication of such things as supply, demand, maturity, and liquidity. In that way, exchanges have some data to work with in carrying out token due diligence.Smart contracts have been a point of weakness in recent years, with considerable sums lost through hacks that have exploited smart contract code vulnerabilities. To that end, the SFC insists that as part of token due diligence, new assets will have to undergo smart contract audits performed by independent assessors.Given that the spate of recent crypto platform failures implicated loss of customer deposits, the rule-book considers the need for segregation of client funds. Exchanges will need to segregate funds and can either hold them separately from the assets of the exchange itself or have them held in escrow.

A regulatory divide regarding the digital asset sector is emerging across Asia. While China is moving to strengthen its prohibition on cryptocurrency operations to ensure financial stability, Central Asian states such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are increasingly formalizing frameworks to integrate and regulate the industry.Photo by Road Ahead on UnsplashChina cites renewed crypto speculationAccording to Reuters, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has reaffirmed its prohibition on business activities involving digital assets, citing a renewed wave of speculation as a complication in managing financial risks. At a Nov. 28 meeting on crypto regulation, the central bank reiterated that commercial activity involving cryptocurrencies remains illegal. PBOC officials stated that enforcement against unlawful financial operations tied to cryptocurrencies would be intensified to safeguard economic stability. The central bank identified stablecoins as a primary concern, noting that they fail to meet customer identification standards and broader anti-money laundering (AML) requirements. Officials warned that these assets could create vulnerabilities to fraud, money laundering, and unregulated cross-border capital flows. Kazakhstan mulls $300M crypto moveIn contrast to Beijing’s elevated oversight, Kazakhstan is exploring the integration of digital assets into its financial reserves. According to BeInCrypto, National Bank Chairman Timur Suleimenov indicated on Nov. 28 that the monetary authority is considering an allocation of up to $300 million into crypto assets. However, he clarified that deploying the full amount is unlikely. Suleimenov explained that any potential investment would be drawn from the central bank’s gold and foreign-exchange reserves rather than the National Fund. He added that the National Bank of Kazakhstan intends to wait for market conditions to stabilize, citing recent volatility as a factor making the timing of such an investment uncertain. The latest development comes after Bloomberg Law reported last month that the country is preparing to launch a crypto reserve fund valued between $500 million and $1 billion as early as next year. This proposed fund is expected to target exchange-traded products and industry-related companies rather than direct crypto purchases, with capital potentially sourced from repatriated assets and mining proceeds. Simultaneously, the government is advancing physical infrastructure for the sector. In May, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev unveiled plans for a "CryptoCity" pilot zone in the Alatau development north of Almaty. Under this government-approved sandbox program, authorities are testing blockchain-based tools for taxation, investment, and decentralized identity systems, with the aim of positioning Kazakhstan as a regional hub for innovation. Turkmenistan to launch licensing rulesFurther deepening the regional trend toward adoption, Turkmenistan has moved to establish a formal legal infrastructure for the sector.  Another Reuters report said the country recently passed legislation to legalize and regulate digital assets, which President Serdar Berdymukhamedov has signed into law. Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, the legislation creates a licensing regime for crypto exchanges and mining operations. A government spokesperson said the law spells out the legal and economic status of virtual assets, covering their creation, storage, circulation, and other functions, and aims to boost digitalization and draw foreign investment. Despite their differing approaches, the three countries reflect a shared recognition of digital assets’ growing relevance in global finance. China continues to view cryptocurrencies as a source of systemic risk, while Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are testing whether regulation, licensing, and selective investment can deliver economic gains without compromising stability. Together, these diverging paths underscore a broader debate over whether engagement or exclusion offers a more resilient long-term model.