Following China, South Korea and Russia, Bitcoin Watchers Wary of Future Bans
The China and South Korea bans and expected Russian regulations could impact the bitcoin business as enthusiasts wait to see what additional regulations and bans may follow.
October 11, 2017 at 12:36 PM
4 minute read
There is new speculation that more nations may ban bitcoins, following bans on certain bitcoin activity in China and South Korea. Most recently, Russia has apparently backed away from a ban, but is likely to step up regulations on cryptocurrencies.
The bans could impact the bitcoin business as enthusiasts wait to see what additional regulations and bans may follow.
Joshua Ashley Klayman, an attorney at Morrison & Foerster, told Legaltech News that there had been limited concern that Russia could ban token sales, and “there may be a generalized anxiety regarding whether additional jurisdictions may follow China's and South Korea's leads.”
She explained that bans by China and South Korea “are likely to, and may already have begun to, change the landscape for token issuers, token purchasers and token exchanges.”
For example, the elimination of some jurisdictions, which were popular “token destinations” for providing capital for token sales and token trading opportunities, now means that other locations could “attract more token sale and exchange businesses, and benefit from increased business,” Klayman said.
“My understanding is that the recent news about Chinese and South Korean bans have not been bans specifically targeting the cryptocurrency bitcoin, but, rather, relate to bans by those jurisdictions of the launching of initial token sales—sometimes called initial coin sales, ICOs, token generation events, TGEs, etc.—of digital tokens generally, as well as bans on exchanges that permit the trading of digital tokens,” she said.
On the other hand, if jurisdictions, such as China, were to ban bitcoin mining, it could have a “significant effect” on the bitcoin market and on the ability and time required to mine blocks, given that approximately 80 percent of bitcoin mining is concentrated in China, according to Klayman, citing estimates. Moreover, recent increased token sales in Japan may be in response to the Chinese and South Korean bans, according to news reports cited by Klayman.
Similarly, other locations, such as Gibraltar and Isle of Man, have indicated “their desire to attract distributed ledger technology—including token sales and cryptocurrency exchanges—and that becoming a destination for such technology may provide such jurisdictions a potentially significant economic upside,” Klayman said.
In addition, the South Korean and Chinese bans may cause fraudsters and scammers to rethink before launching fraudulent token sales, she said.
“Increased regulatory attention to token sales across the world—and the related possibilities of investigations of past token sales and requirement to return to token purchasers the proceeds of certain token sales—may encourage token issuers, cryptocurrency exchanges and others to be more cautious and to strive to comply with applicable legal frameworks,” Klayman speculated. “Also, the media attention regarding token sale risks may make token purchasers more wary consumers of, or investors in, digital tokens, which could lead to more responsible token issuers benefitting and fewer investments being made in fraudulent token sales.”
Some locations have long considered bitcoin use illegal, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, Klayman noted. Certain other jurisdictions may also have more limited bans, such as a ban on financial institutions and their employees undertaking in-house bitcoin transactions, while simultaneously being less restrictive regarding the ability of private citizens to use or hold bitcoin.
The majority of countries that have provided official guidance regarding token sales or cryptocurrency exchanges, including the U.S., Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Australia and Switzerland, have indicated a desire to regulate token sales, rather than institute an outright ban, Klayman said.
“It cannot be ruled out that other jurisdictions could ban digital tokens or token sales, but the broader trend seems to be for jurisdictions to acknowledge that token sales and cryptocurrency exchanges are a new form of capital raising—but that they are not somehow exempt from compliance with existing regulatory frameworks and laws, including securities and investor protection laws,” she said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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