Recently, new substantive progress has emerged in virtual asset regulation in both Europe and Asia. The EU and eight countries signed the Warsaw Protocol, formally bringing virtual assets and virtual asset service providers (VASPs) into the scope of combating proceeds of crime; South Korea will convene five major exchanges, including Upbit and Bithumb, on October 20 to consult on a virtual asset taxation plan. The two regulatory developments involve anti-money laundering cooperation and tax administration, respectively, and both list virtual assets as an asset type that needs to be brought under regulation.
In Europe, the Warsaw Protocol signed by the EU and eight countries is an additional protocol to the Warsaw Convention. The document brings virtual assets and VASPs into the scope of combating proceeds of crime, and several European countries have formally included virtual assets and VASPs in the framework for recovery of criminal proceeds and anti-money laundering cooperation. 'Included in the scope of combating proceeds of crime' means virtual assets are no longer excluded from the relevant crackdown scope, and the virtual asset service segment is also put forward as an important coverage target. By signing the protocol, several European countries have released a policy orientation with clear signals for global regulation and anti-money laundering. Specific clauses of the protocol have not yet been published, and how the scope of VASP obligations will be defined and how each signatory will implement it afterward remain to be further clarified.
South Korea's progress focuses on virtual asset taxation. South Korea's virtual asset taxation policy is nearing implementation, and communication between the government and major trading platforms has entered a substantive phase. South Korea will convene the five major exchanges on October 20 to consult on the virtual asset taxation plan. Confirmed participants include major trading platforms such as Upbit and Bithumb. The South Korean government's decision to convene major trading platforms shortly before the policy's implementation shows that trading platforms are being treated as communication counterparts in the rollout of the taxation plan. The consultation will affect expectations in South Korea's crypto market, so specific progress is drawing attention. The full list of the five exchanges has not yet been published, nor have the specific topics, proposed tax rate, or implementation timetable of the consultation been disclosed. The currently confirmable facts center on three aspects: the consultation time, the participants, and the fact that the policy is nearing implementation.
From the perspective of policy signals, the significance of the EU and eight countries signing the Warsaw Protocol lies in clarifying the regulatory status of virtual assets in combating proceeds of crime. The explicit inclusion of virtual assets in the additional protocol to the Warsaw Convention means the relevant scope has extended to the virtual asset service segment. This change has a more direct impact on virtual asset service institutions, with VASPs listed as a focus of policymakers. However, because the specific scope of obligations has not been announced, how signatories will identify and supervise VASPs in subsequent implementation remains to be observed.
From the perspective of tax administration, the specific arrangements of South Korea's consultation remain at a stage with limited information. The proposed tax rate, implementation timetable, and how trading platforms will specifically cooperate in the taxation process have not been made public. Current information on South Korea's taxation plan is mainly directional, and specific operational rules are still to be announced.
The two regulatory developments belong to Europe and Asia, respectively, and are independent of each other. The Warsaw Protocol signed by the EU and eight countries mainly centers on combating proceeds of crime and anti-money laundering cooperation, while South Korea's October 20 consultation centers on tax administration. The former points to virtual assets being included in the international anti-money laundering and criminal proceeds recovery framework; the latter points to the implementation of South Korea's domestic virtual asset taxation policy. What they share is that virtual assets are both listed as an asset type that needs to be brought under regulation. For virtual asset service institutions, the EU's inclusion of VASPs in the scope of combating proceeds of crime shows that the virtual asset service segment has been included in the attention of policymakers; South Korea's taxation consultation is likewise at the communication stage before policy implementation, and the specific ways in which trading platforms will cooperate in the taxation plan have not yet been made public.
Going forward, three aspects can be watched: first, the implementation arrangements of each signatory after the signing of the Warsaw Protocol, and further definition of the scope of VASP obligations; second, the specific details and implementation pace of South Korea's taxation plan after the October 20 consultation; third, whether other jurisdictions introduce similar regulatory moves, thereby forming broader international coordination. How these developments are implemented will continue to affect the compliance arrangements and operational pace of virtual asset service institutions.