Scan to download
BTC $66,612.46 +4.45%
ETH $1,823.27 +9.45%
BNB $620.48 +2.81%
XRP $1.27 +12.30%
SOL $75.18 +11.17%
TRX $0.3197 +0.46%
DOGE $0.0890 +2.89%
ADA $0.1859 +11.75%
BCH $221.74 +11.12%
LINK $8.42 +7.43%
HYPE $67.44 +11.47%
AAVE $74.45 +13.34%
SUI $0.8018 +6.77%
XLM $0.2235 +22.88%
ZEC $523.28 +22.82%
BTC $66,612.46 +4.45%
ETH $1,823.27 +9.45%
BNB $620.48 +2.81%
XRP $1.27 +12.30%
SOL $75.18 +11.17%
TRX $0.3197 +0.46%
DOGE $0.0890 +2.89%
ADA $0.1859 +11.75%
BCH $221.74 +11.12%
LINK $8.42 +7.43%
HYPE $67.44 +11.47%
AAVE $74.45 +13.34%
SUI $0.8018 +6.77%
XLM $0.2235 +22.88%
ZEC $523.28 +22.82%

virtual

South Korean Ministry of Finance: Tokenized stocks are considered securities rather than virtual assets, with taxation expected to begin as early as the second half of the year

According to a report by Bloomvingbit, the South Korean Ministry of Finance and Economy stated that tokenized stocks are considered securities rather than virtual assets. If the Financial Services Commission confirms their securities nature, taxes can be imposed immediately under the current Capital Markets Act, potentially as early as the second half of this year. Officials from the Ministry of Finance pointed out that although tokenized stocks are formally virtual assets, they are essentially closer to securities.The Financial Services Commission has previously clarified in its token securities guidelines that token securities are securities issued in the form of digital assets and fall under the jurisdiction of the Capital Markets Act. Currently, the market generally believes that tokenized stocks are classified as virtual assets (non-taxable assets) and can enjoy tax exemption until the implementation of virtual asset taxation next year. However, the Ministry of Finance emphasizes its stance on taxation and is establishing an information exchange system with overseas tax authorities such as the IRS. Offshore transactions on overseas platforms are also included in the taxation scope; regardless of where they are issued, as long as the economic value and rights structure essentially belong to securities, they can be subject to dividend income tax.

In the past six years, the five major virtual asset platforms in South Korea have experienced 57 incidents of hacking and system failures, with a total compensation amount reaching 7 billion won

According to the Korea Herald, the five major virtual asset trading platforms in South Korea (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, Gopax) have experienced a total of 57 hacking and system failure incidents over the past six years (from 2020 to April 2026), with a total compensation amount of approximately 7 billion Korean won (about 5.1 million USD). By exchange, the number of incidents is as follows: Upbit 26 incidents, Bithumb 14 incidents, Gopax 8 incidents, Coinone 6 incidents, Korbit 3 incidents.Among them, Bithumb compensated approximately 2.5 billion Korean won (about 1.8 million USD) for the BTC misissue incident in February this year, Upbit compensated approximately 790 million Korean won (about 570,000 USD) for a hacking incident in November 2025, and compensated approximately 3.2 billion Korean won (about 2.3 million USD) for a system incident on December 3, 2024. It is worth noting that the standards for compiling incident reports by exchanges and the scale and form of compensation vary. For example, Gopax counts errors that occur when viewing the asset list as system failures, while Bithumb only counts situations where all customers encounter difficulties using core services for more than 10 minutes as system failures.In addition, Bithumb also provided some applicants who suffered losses due to system failures with free fee vouchers instead of cash compensation. The compensation amounts for system failures are as follows: Upbit approximately 3.21 billion Korean won, Bithumb approximately 3.2 billion Korean won, Coinone approximately 49 million Korean won. Korbit and Gopax did not provide any compensation.

The second trial of the 660,000 yuan virtual currency theft case in Wuhan, China, has been revised: the main culprit was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison, and the amount stolen was determined based on the actual payment cost incurred by the victim

According to the "Procuratorial Daily," Lin, Zeng, and Dai conspired to use virtual currency trading as a pretext. During the trading process, they secretly filmed the victim's digital wallet private key and, after the virtual currency was credited, secretly logged into the victim's wallet to reverse the transaction, transferring the related virtual currency back to their controlled accounts. The three committed the crime three times, causing the victim a total economic loss of 660,000 yuan.The first-instance court held that in the absence of a clear judicial interpretation regarding the valuation method of virtual currency and sentencing standards, it was inappropriate to directly determine the amount involved as particularly huge based on the victim's purchase amount of 660,000 yuan. Therefore, they sentenced the three based on "other serious circumstances," imposing prison terms ranging from eight years to five years and six months, along with fines. The Hanyang District Procuratorate of Wuhan City in Hubei Province subsequently filed an appeal, which was supported by the Wuhan City Procuratorate.The prosecution argued that the first-instance court applied the law incorrectly and imposed an excessively light sentence. Prosecutor Dai Wentao of the Wuhan City Procuratorate stated that in the case where the victim had a clear loss amount to refer to, it was contradictory and legally erroneous to claim that the value of virtual currency could not be determined. In judicial practice, using the resale price and transaction price as the basis for determining the amount of theft has become mainstream, and determining the value of virtual currency based on the actual cost paid by the victim has factual, legal, and practical basis.The Intermediate Court of Wuhan accepted the prosecution's opinion in the second instance, revoked the corresponding content of the original judgment, and changed the determination of the theft amount to particularly huge. It sentenced the principal offender Lin to ten years and six months in prison for theft, and sentenced the accomplices Zeng and Dai to eight years in prison each, along with fines.

The Qingdao procuratorate clarifies the property nature of virtual currency in a case involving the theft of 107 bitcoins

According to Shandong Legal News, a Bitcoin theft case prosecuted by the Li Cang District Prosecutor's Office in Qingdao has been sentenced. The defendant, Zhang, was sentenced to 10 years and 9 months in prison for theft and fined 100,000 yuan.In the early hours of a certain day in 2024, the virtual currency wallet of the victim, Feng, was quietly accessed, and 107 Bitcoins were transferred, equivalent to over 22.54 million yuan at the market price on that day. It was found that Feng had entrusted an acquaintance, Zhang, to assist with the operation. During the process of registering the wallet on behalf of Feng, Zhang obtained the mnemonic phrase, and after multiple attempts in the early morning, he cracked the wallet and transferred the Bitcoins. After being apprehended, Zhang claimed that his actions were a "protective takeover" to prevent the Bitcoins from being stolen by others. The prosecution traced the funds and found that the stolen Bitcoins were transferred multiple times and exchanged for over 660,000 yuan, exposing his lies.The prosecution determined that Bitcoin has economic value and exclusive control, meeting the core characteristics of "property" in criminal law, and can be the object of theft. The actual proceeds from the sale of the stolen Bitcoins, amounting to over 660,000 yuan, were used as the basis for the theft amount. After the defendant appealed, in November 2025, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original sentence. This case is a typical example of Qingdao's legal punishment of crimes in the virtual currency field, clearly conveying the judicial stance: activities related to virtual currency must be conducted within the legal framework, and stealing others' virtual property also constitutes a crime.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.