Local crypto firms in talks with Hong Kong’s SFC on crypto staking

Chinese Court Recognizes Virtual Assets as Legal PropertyAccording to a recent report published by the People’s Courts of the People’s Republic of China, a Chinese court has recognized the legal status of virtual assets, having analyzed their attributes within the framework of Chinese criminal law.The court unequivocally stated that virtual assets are considered legal property under the current legal policy framework and are thus protected by law.The People’s Courts of the People’s Republic of China exercise judicial power independently, free from interference by administrative or public organizations. They have responsibility for adjudicating civil, criminal, and administrative cases.Photo by Christian Lue on UnsplashProperty classificationLocal news source Odaily News reported on the development on Friday, indicating that the report, titled “Identification of the Property Attributes of Virtual Currency and Disposal of Property Involved in the Case,” explicitly recognized the economic attributes of virtual assets, leading to their classification as property.This declaration is particularly significant in light of China’s sweeping ban on decentralized cryptocurrencies. Despite this ban, the report argues that virtual assets held by individuals should enjoy legal protection within the existing policy framework.Furthermore, the report proposed recommendations for addressing crimes involving virtual assets. It emphasized that in cases where money and property are involved, confiscation should be based on the integration of criminal and civil law. The approach taken aims to strike a balance between safeguarding personal property rights while also addressing broader social and public interests.Contentious approach to cryptoWhile China has been making every effort to promote its central bank digital currency (CBDC) and the development of blockchain and metaverse-related technology within the country, its stance on decentralized cryptocurrencies has been contentious at best.Its approach in that respect has been marked by a blanket ban on crypto-related activities such as mining and trading and the prohibition of foreign crypto exchanges from serving customers within mainland China. Nevertheless, Chinese courts have consistently taken a more nuanced view without necessarily contradicting the government’s approach.Differing interpretationsThe divergence between national policy and court rulings first emerged in 2019 when the Hangzhou Internet Court found that Bitcoin is a form of virtual property, and on that basis, it is safeguarded by the law from the point of view of property rights. In May 2022, a Shanghai court affirmed that Bitcoin qualifies as virtual property and, as such, falls under the purview of property rights.Global issueIt’s not just the Chinese courts that are grappling with the issue of clarifying property rights relative to virtual assets. In April of this year, a case in Hong Kong involving defunct crypto exchange Gatecoin resulted in the courts determining that cryptocurrency is property and that on that basis, it’s “capable of being held in trust.”In July a Singaporean court determined that cryptocurrency is capable of being held in trust and on that basis, it should be recognized as property. Earlier this year, the High Court of Justice in London recognized non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as property.The report from the People’s Court reaffirms the legal status of virtual assets as protected property under Chinese law. This development highlights the ongoing divergence between China’s regulatory policy and the judicial interpretation of virtual assets, signaling a potential evolution in the country’s approach to cryptocurrencies.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank and primary financial regulator, has set a deadline of June 30 for unlicensed digital token service providers (DTSPs) working out of Singapore to cease offering their services to clients in overseas markets.Photo by Hu Chen on UnsplashResponding to feedbackThe deadline emerged by way of a process MAS has followed as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSM Act). Last October, the regulator invited feedback from stakeholders related to the authority’s approach to the regulation of DTSPs. MAS published its response to that feedback on May 30.  It stated:”DTSPs which are subject to a licensing requirement under section 137 of the FSM Act must suspend or cease carrying on a business of providing DT services outside Singapore by 30 June 2025.” It added that it was not including any transitional arrangement for DTSPs despite MAS receiving such a suggestion from a number of feedback respondents. Instead, unlicensed DTSPs will need to abide by the June 30 deadline and have acquired a license by then or cease unlicensed activity.The regulator defines DTSPs as individuals, partnerships or Singapore corporations operating from a place of business in Singapore, including those formed or incorporated in Singapore who offer digital token services outside Singapore. Those found in breach of the regulation could face up to three years in prison and fines of up to S$250,000 ($195,000). Companies who have already obtained licensing or those exempted by way of the Securities and Futures Act, Payment Services Act and the Financial Advisers Act are free to continue trading. Challenging licensing requirementsThose who wish to become compliant will have to satisfy some challenging requirements. For those granted a license, an annual license fee of S$10,000 ($7,780) applies. Small-scale DTSPs need to satisfy a $150,000 ($116,670) ongoing capital requirement, while larger, well-established DTSPs must comply with a S$250,000 ($195,000) capital requirement. Additionally, MAS has put in place competency requirements related to a DTSP's CEO, directors, partners and managers. Hagen Rooke, a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, outlined on LinkedIn that while it's possible for unlicensed operators to obtain licensing, it will be very difficult to get a license. In its feedback response document, the regulator stated: “MAS will approach the licensing of DTSPs in a prudent and cautious manner and there will be extremely limited circumstances under which MAS will consider granting an applicant a licence under section 138 of the FSM Act.” Rooke advised crypto companies that may be affected to act swiftly in order to derisk through an operational restructuring or removing the businesses' Singapore touchpoints. He suggested that firms need to consider if it has customers outside of Singapore or front-office functions located outside of the city-state to determine if they could be affected by this regulatory measure. A number of Asian countries have moved to take action against unlicensed foreign firms that have engaged with local investors, with Thailand becoming the latest country to do so recently. However, the Singaporean authorities have approached the issue from the opposite perspective, citing the potential reputational risk that unlicensed DTSPs pose for Singapore.

An industry advocacy body for crypto and Web3 in India had urged the Indian government to take action against nine offshore exchanges, prompting the government to issue show cause notices and block URLs recently. Native industry pushbackAccording to CoinDesk, the publication has seen a copy of a letter that was sent in mid-December by the Bharat Web3 Association (BWA), addressed to the Indian Finance Ministry’s Department of Revenue Secretary, Sanjay Malhotra. The letter was penned by BWA Chairman Dilip Chenoy. Chenoy has been in the role since March of last year having a number of years of leadership experience within Indian industry bodies under his belt, with time spent previously as Secretary General of the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and as Chairman of the board of Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology. According to its LinkedIn profile, the BWA seeks to “advocate for the collaboration between the regulatory bodies and the Industry for creating awareness about the new age technology and the emerging [Web3/crypto] asset class.” ‘Show cause’ noticesIt emerged last week that India’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) had issued “compliance show-cause” notices to a number of overseas crypto platforms who have otherwise been active within the Indian market. The FIU is a national body tasked with liaising with and providing information to enforcement agencies where suspected illicit transactions are concerned. The offshore exchanges, including Binance, KuCoin, Huobi, Kraken, Gate.io, Bittrex, Bitstamp, MEXC Global and Bitfinex, have been given a two-week deadline to respond to the show cause notice. This notice questions why regulatory actions should not be taken against them, aiming to ensure compliance with the country's financial regulations. It’s understood that the BWA's letter requested a one-month grace period for offshore exchanges to register with the FIU. It remains unclear whether the government's actions were solely prompted by the BWA's letter or if it would have taken place independently. Notably, the BWA's letter aligns with the government's earlier mandate in March, requiring crypto businesses to register with the FIU and adhere to anti-money laundering processes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Since then, 31 domestic entities have registered with the FIU. Photo by Peter Glaser on UnsplashEnsuring a fair gameThe BWA's letter also proposes that offshore exchanges establish an Indian subsidiary, deposit the applicable tax deducted at source (TDS) from July 1, 2022 and face restrictions, including potential access blocks on mobile app stores and IP addresses, for non-compliance. While it's unclear if all these requests feature in the show cause notices, the BWA emphasizes the need for fair competition. Rajagopal Menon, Vice President of leading Indian crypto exchange WazirX, stressed that “all we are asking for is a level playing field." The BWA's letter also urges the government to grant Indian retailers a 30-day window to withdraw assets before implementing any restrictions. The fledgling BWA industry body recently celebrated its first anniversary with its founding member, CoinSwitch founder Ashish Singhal, stating that he got involved with the BWA “to help build an effective regulatory framework for Web3 and digital assets in India.” Singhal added that the BWA’s mission is “to help India realize its vision to be the leading digital economy.”