Animoca Brands & Standard Chartered form Anchorpoint in Hong Kong

Crypto Influencer Arrested in Hong Kong Over JPEX AssociationHong Kong police have taken prominent social media influencer and former lawyer Joseph Lam into custody. Known as “Jolamchok” on Instagram, Lam has been arrested due to his connection with the troubled cryptocurrency exchange, JPEX.According to a report from the South China Morning Post (SCMP) on Monday, law enforcement officials conducted a search of his office, where they seized various items of potential evidence, including a plastic bag containing banknotes.Photo by niu niu on UnsplashCelebrity promotionThe Hong Kong regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), recently issued a warning squarely pointing fingers at JPEX for actively enlisting online celebrities like Joseph Lam and over-the-counter (OTC) money changers to promote the platform’s services and products to the Hong Kong public. Hong Kong police are understood to have searched the offices of local OTC exchange service Coingaroo. That action is suspected to be related to the issues that have befallen JPEX.An unverified report suggests that Lam, who is also known as Lin Zuo, may have presented questionable investment “schemes” to a cryptocurrency investment chat group. One of the reported victims was allegedly persuaded to invest 100,000 Hong Kong dollars (approximately $12,800) in cryptocurrencies.In one instance, Lam made claims within the group, stating that people were relentlessly pursuing him for payments and that the amount of money involved was five times higher than usual.“Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”On September 17, the day before his arrest, Lam shared a news article on his Instagram account, suggesting that he had not been negatively affected by the JPEX investigations. The caption read, “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”Following this development, Lam visited the police alongside his legal representatives to provide the necessary information regarding his involvement with JPEX. In a related development, another crypto influencer, Chen Yi, is understood to have been arrested. Yi is suspected of conspiracy to commit fraud.Liquidity crisisJPEX has publicly attributed its liquidity crisis to regulatory pressures and “third-party market makers.” In response, the exchange increased withdrawal fees and suspended certain operations. They have, however, promised to restore liquidity from third-party market makers promptly and gradually return withdrawal fees to normal levels, with details to follow after negotiations.JPEX maintains that it was being treated unfairly. The exchange also said that it would freeze new trades while existing trades would continue to be active until completion.This arrest and the ongoing issues surrounding JPEX come amid wider concerns in the cryptocurrency sector. A recent report from Bitfinex indicated that capital outflows from the crypto markets amounted to a staggering $55 billion in August alone. This substantial outflow has not only impacted Bitcoin but has also affected the liquidity of Ether and stablecoins, underlining the broader challenges faced by the crypto sector.As the investigation into Joseph Lam’s involvement with JPEX continues, it remains to be seen how this development will impact the ongoing troubles facing the cryptocurrency exchange and the broader crypto ecosystem in Hong Kong and beyond.

Bitget withdraws from Hong Kong crypto marketSeychelles-incorporated cryptocurrency derivatives platform Bitget has made a decision to permanently exit the Hong Kong market, discontinuing its efforts to obtain a virtual asset trading platform (VATP) license.Photo by SHUJA OFFICIAL on UnsplashBitgetX platform shutdownThe decision comes only months after it had introduced its BitgetX platform to comply with local regulations. The company, which bases its operations out of Singapore, is a well-known entity in the crypto space, renowned as the operator of the 12th-largest cryptocurrency exchange globally in terms of 24-hour trading volume. It made this revelation on Monday, citing what it referred to as “business and market-related considerations.”In a published statement, the company said:”With a heavy heart, we regret to inform you that due to business and market related considerations, we have decided not to pursue a Virtual Asset Trading Platform (VATP) license in Hong Kong. As a result of this decision, the BitgetX website (www.BitgetX.hk) will cease its operations effective December 13, 2023. At the same time, Bitgetx.hk will permanently exit the Hong Kong market.”While outlining that BitgetX will close its doors, the firm urged users to withdraw their assets beforehand. Bitget is among a handful of exchanges that had publicly expressed their intent to secure a license following Hong Kong’s proactive push over the course of the past year to embrace the virtual asset sector.Broader challengesThe decision to abandon the pursuit of a VATP license echoes the broader challenges faced by the cryptocurrency industry in Hong Kong. Despite the city’s recent enthusiastic regulatory embrace of the virtual asset sector, a number of stumbling blocks remain.High compliance costs and the lingering aftermath of the JPEX financial scandal have hindered Hong Kong’s aspirations to establish itself as a leading crypto hub. A report back in June identified the major cost implications of acquiring a license in Hong Kong. At the time, it was estimated that the required spend to obtain a VATP license could range from $2.55 million to $25.5 million.Banking crypto companies has also become a major bottleneck. In June, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) urged banks such as HSBC, Standard Chartered and the Bank of China to bank the crypto sector, having identified a reluctance amongst them to do so.Limited interestThe forthcoming closure of BitgetX adds to a growing trend of limited interest in Hong Kong’s new licensing scheme. Only five companies, all local, have submitted applications for virtual asset licenses to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). This list began publication in response to the JPEX scandal, which significantly damaged public trust in virtual assets.The challenges faced by the industry go beyond regulatory hurdles. The damaged public trust, coupled with the high-profile exit of JPEX, has contributed to the hesitancy of international crypto platforms in pursuing licenses in Hong Kong. The abrupt withdrawal of Bitget raises questions about the viability of Hong Kong as a central player in the cryptocurrency industry and underscores the complexities faced by exchanges navigating the evolving landscape of the digital asset sector.

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.