New Financial Order: How 5 Countries Addressed Cryptocurrency in 2018
The year 2018 has been a big one for the regulation of virtual currencies. Here's a look at how countries such as Malta, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Australia and South Korea are approaching their cryptocurrency markets.
December 17, 2018 at 09:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
It's been a pretty busy year for countries looking to wrap their heads around virtual currency. While some are still in the process of weighing their pros and cons, others have put new regulations in place to help build consumer confidence and facilitate cryptocurrency exchanges. Here's a look at some of the different approaches that governments around the world have taken to building frameworks for the future.
Malaysia: Malaysia is the most recent player to toss its hat into the cryptocurrency regulation game. Lim Guang Eng, Malaysia's finance minister, announced that the country would be instituting regulations for cryptocurrency exchanges and initial coin offerings during his keynote speech at the 2018 SCxSC FinTech Conference. Like other countries that have launched similar efforts across the globe, Malaysia is attempting to use regulation to build confidence among investors and create new fundraising paths. The new rules are expected to be in place by the first quarter of 2019. Specifics are still unclear, but investors will be working under a framework established by the Bank Negara Malyasia and the Securities Commission.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong rolled out policies for its nascent cryptocurrency market in early November. Rather than constructing a new regulatory framework from scratch, Hong Kong's approach attempts to fold firms that are already under the purview of its Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) into the existing order. Groups that invest more than 10 percent of their assets in virtual currencies to be licensed by the SFC and trading platforms may eventually enter a regulatory sandbox.The regulations were tailored to suit the country's ambitions towards becoming a global cryptocurrency hub and allay the SFC's growing concerns over consumer protection risks.
South Korea: While perhaps not quite as far along as Malaysia or Hong Kong, South Korea seems to be on the cusp of exploring some form of cryptocurrency regulation. The country is reportedly preparing to introduce regulations on initial coin offerings, which are presently banned outright. In November, the Korean Bar Association issued a press release asking the government to provide some clarity on cryptocurrency, citing consumer protection concerns related to threats such as hacking or money laundering. One of their suggestions was to invoke preexisting frameworks like the country's Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act in looking at initial coin offering tokens.
Australia: In April, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) instated new regulations for service providers of cryptocurrencies. All digital currency exchange providers now have to register with AUSTRAC and meet a series of government compliance and reporting obligations. Nicole Rose, AUSTRAC's CEO, said in a press release that the new regulations would strengthen the agency's compliance and intelligence capabilities and mitigate the risk of cybercrime, money laundering or terrorist financing.
Malta: Malta established regulations surrounding the issuance of initial coin offerings and other virtual currency earlier this year under its Virtual Financial Assets Act. Among other things, the framework sets parameters for an issuer's offering of a virtual financial asset to the public and the application process for trading on a distributed ledger technology exchange. On a separate but related note, the Malta Digital Innovation Authority was also established to oversee the creation and enforcement of future policies related cryptocurrency.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250