A Governmental Approach to Address Risks from Cryptocurrencies: Focusing on South Korea

 
 
 
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract


    Background/Objectives: Cryptocurrency-related risks range from fraud, to hackings, and to money-laundering, terrorist financing, and tax-evasion. This study aims to investigate how the Korean government has developed and implemented regulatory policies.

    Methods/Statistical analysis: This study draws on documentary research. Various documents were used, mainly including government publications, research papers, and trend analysis reports. Documentary research was an appropriate method in this research. Firstly, there has not been enough attention to this research topic, which needed to acquire contextualized knowledge before carrying out empirical research. Secondly, performing empirical research was not feasible at the time of this research due to fast-changing technical elements.

    Findings: To effectively control misuse of cryptocurrencies, the Korean government has developed and enforced regulatory policies. The government policies were manifestations of an interdepartmental approach initiated by the higher government. However, those regulatory policies were not based upon any comprehensive regulatory framework tailored to cryptocurrencies. Also, two strands of regulatory strategies were adopted. The first strategy focused on regulating cryptocurrency exchanges. Those exchanges were found to be the least regulated by the government unlike comparable financial exchanges. This approach could be effective in that individual users were required to use traditional banking services when buying and selling cryptocurrencies. The second strategy depended on the pre-existing financial regulatory framework by utilizing public financial institutions. This traditional regulatory framework included watchdog agencies, banks, and credit card companies. The financial regulatory framework also set the boundary for relevant policies of non-financial institutions. In this respect, non-financial institutions involved did not have a clear presence in the framework, while public financial institutions’ role was extensive enough to put pressure on cryptocurrency exchanges.

    Improvements/Applications: The governmental approach to cryptocurrencies needs to be revamped over time because the contextual factors change constantly. It needs to incorporate government’s responses as well as market trends.

     

     


  • Keywords


    cryptocurrency, regulatory policy, financial regulatory framework, financial institutions, non-financial institutions

  • References


      [1] Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008 Oct.Available from: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/

      [2] Kyunghyang Shinmun. We Need an Exit Strategy to Prevent Cryptocurrency Speculation Frenzy. Seoul. 2018 Jan 12. [cited 2018 June 12]. Available from:http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201801121639267&code=790101

      [3] Popper N. Worries grow that the price of Bitcoin is being propped up. New York Times. New York. 2018 Jan 31. [cited 2018 June 20]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/technology/bitfinex-bitcoin-price.html

      [4] Brown SD. Cryptocurrency and criminality: The Bitcoin opportunity. The Police Journal. 2016 Dec;89(4):327-39.

      [5] Buxton J, Bingham T. The rise and challenge of dark net drug markets. Policy Brief. 2015 Jan;7.

      [6] UNODC. World Drug Report. 2014. Available from:https://www.unodc.org/wdr2014/

      [7] Ladegaard I. We know where you are, what you are doing and we will catch you: Testing deterrence theory in digital drug markets. The British Journal of Criminology. 2017 Apr;58(2):414-33.

      [8] Stroukal D, Nedvedova, B. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency as an instrument of crime in cyberspace. In Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences; 2016 Oct 12; Istanbul: International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences; 2016. p. 219-226.

      [9] Soska K, Christin N. Measuring the Longitudinal Evolution of the Online Anonymous Marketplace Ecosystem. InProceedings of USENIX Security Symposium; 2015 Aug 12-14; Washington. D. C.: The Advanced Computer Systems Association; 2015. p. 33-48.

      [10] Kruithof K, Aldridge J, Décary-Hétu D, Sim M, Dujso E, Hoorens S. Internet-facilitated drugs trade. An Analysis of the Size, Scope and the Role of the Netherlands. Santa Monica: RAND Europe. 2016.

      [11] Payne G, Payne J. Key concepts in social research. London: Sage; 2004. p. 60.

      [12] National Police Agency. Recent trends of cryptocurrencies, related problems and future directions. Seoul. 2017. 13 p.

      [13] Financial Supervisory Service. Information on cryptocurrency exchanges. 2017. 3 p.

      [14] Financial Services Commission. Hosted avirtual currency-related agency joint Task Force meeting. Seoul: 2017. 7 p. Available from: http://www.korea.kr/briefing/pressReleaseView.do?newsId=156229299

      [15] Lee W. Korean Blockchain Association plans to come up with self-regulatory measures on cryptocurrency exchanges. Dtoday. Seoul. 2018 Apr 17 [cited 2018 June 10]. Available from: http://www.dtoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=264493

      [16] Financial Services Commission. Current situations of virtual currency and the government’s responses. Seoul:2017.16 p. Available from: https://www.fsc.go.kr/info/ntc_news_view.jsp?bbsid=BBS0030&menu=7210100&no=32027


 

View

Download

Article ID: 22664
 
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.24.22664




Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.