Korean Lawmakers Complete First Rough Draft of Virtual Asset User Protection Bill
Korean lawmakers have completed the first rough draft of the virtual asset user protection bill at a National Policy Committee meeting held later last month.
Agreeing 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 bills
The 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 status
The 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 securities
Regarding 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.
