2025-12-29 14:26:08

South Korean financial authorities are strengthening anti-money laundering regulations for virtual assets. According to the latest news, regulators plan to expand the scope of the Travel Rule — this "real-name system" mechanism in the crypto industry currently only applies to transactions over 1 million Korean won, but it is proposed to extend to cover small transactions.

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of South Korea has initiated the first meeting of the task force for the revision of the Special Act. While advancing this policy, regulators also plan to refine the regulatory framework for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and develop corresponding anti-money laundering standards for emerging asset classes such as stablecoins. This series of measures reflects the regulatory authorities' determination to improve the compliance framework for crypto assets.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
3
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ForkPrince

· 22h ago

Are small transactions also to be included? Korea is really aiming to make the crypto world completely transparent. --- Expanding the scope of the travel rule, another round of compliance reshuffling is coming. --- Stablecoins also need to meet anti-money laundering standards? That’s a tough move. --- Is this for real? Even small amounts require real-name registration, how can trading continue? --- Korea’s combination punch is quite accurate; other countries will probably follow suit. --- Another regulatory storm is coming, exchanges will have to work overtime to update their systems. --- Improving the compliance framework is a good thing, at least money laundering and black markets have no way out. --- Now they’re only requiring changes starting from 1 million Korean won, crypto users will have an even harder time. --- Stablecoins are also being targeted, indicating that regulators are really putting in effort. --- This is the pace of thoroughly scrutinizing the entire on-chain world.

View OriginalReply0

ShibaSunglasses

· 22h ago

Small transactions also require real-name verification. Korea is trying to tighten control over the crypto industry. --- Travel rule extended to small transactions? If it continues like this, how can we play? --- Another wave of regulation is coming. It feels like Korea has recently been especially aggressive in anti-money laundering efforts. --- Stablecoins are also going to have standards set. It seems no one can escape. --- Starting from 1 million KRW, that's already troublesome, and now they want to expand further... --- FIU is holding another meeting. This time, they probably will introduce some new regulations. --- As for anti-money laundering, the polite way is to say it's compliance; the harsh way is to say it's choking. --- Korea's regulation approach is like this, constantly messing with exchanges and users. --- VASP detailed regulatory system? They’re just afraid someone might find loopholes.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiChef

· 22h ago

Small transactions also require real-name verification? Korea seems to want to turn on-chain into a bank, with maximum freedom. --- Both the Travel Rule and VASP—regulators are really playing a compliance race with us. --- Stablecoins are also under scrutiny, and there's really no way to hide now. --- Real-name verification is only for transactions over 1 million Korean won. Now they want full coverage? How am I supposed to handle my small transactions? --- Korean regulators are taking this seriously, and other countries will probably follow suit. --- Another country choosing a "friendly" approach to embrace compliance. The question is, does on-chain privacy still exist? --- Will this comprehensive anti-money laundering policy end up increasing the costs for small transactions? --- Expanding the Travel Rule to small transactions is really absurd—normal transactions also need to be reported? --- The regulators' determination is clear, but it's uncertain whether this framework will actually be effective in the end.

View OriginalReply0