Regulation of Cryptocurrency and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) in Japan

Regulation of Cryptocurrency and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) in Japan

Japan

Japan was the world’s largest Bitcoin market accounting for over 61% of global trades as of December 2017, twice the trading volume of the United States [1]. Japan recognised cryptocurrencies as a legal payment method in April 2017 when the Payment Services Act (the PSA) was amended. Virtual currencies are treated as assets which can constitute means of payment rather than as legal currencies.

Crytpo Exchanges

The PSA also gave the Japan Financial Services Authority (the FSA) the ability to license and regulate cryptocurrency exchanges in Japan. Cryptocurrency exchanges are subject to money laundering regulations and are required to check customer identity when accounts are opened, maintain transaction records and notify authorities of suspicious transactions.

In May 2018, it was reported [2] that the FSA is considering imposing more stringent review standards for registered exchange operators. This comes in response to the hack of Tokyo cryptocurrency exchange, Coincheck, in late January 2018 which saw almost $500 million in digital tokens stolen [3]. The proposals involve regulating cryptocurrency exchanges under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) rather than the Payment Services Act which would oblige exchanges to manage customer funds separately from corporate assets and generally provides more robust investor protection including rules on insider trading. If implemented, the proposals would classify cryptocurrencies as a “financial product”. New restrictions would also be imposed on the kinds of cryptocurrencies that will be allowed on government-registered exchange operators. For example, highly anonymous cryptocurrencies will most likely not be allowed.

If introduced, the new framework will apply to existing operators as well as new applicants.

ICOs

The FSA issued a statement on ICOs [4] on 27 October 2017 warning of the risks of fraud and price volatility and outlining the possible regulatory treatment of ICOs. In summary, depending on how an ICO is structured, it may fall within the scope of the Payment Services Act and/or the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Thus:

  1. Where a coin issued in an ICO is a virtual currency under the PSA, any business which provides exchange services for virtual currencies on a regular basis must be registered with the Local Finance Bureau; and
  2. An ICO which has the characteristics of an investment and “the purchase of a token by a virtual currency is practically deemed equivalent to that of legal tender”, the ICO will be subject to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.

On 4 April 2018, Tama University’s ICO Business Research Group, which is backed by the Japanese government, published a report proposing to regulate ICOs in Japan [5] (the “Tama Report”) as a means to establish ICOs as a sustainable financing method. The report proposes regulation covering all stages of ICO issuance and financing, including both preliminary activities – that is private sales of tokens as well as the public sale. The report identifies three principal types of ICOs:

  1. Venture Company type – i.e. tokens are issued by small venture companies that find it difficult to access the main capital market or obtain venture capital. Buyers tend to be investors seeking a higher return than is available on conventional equities and are willing to take a higher degree of risk.
  2. Ecosystem type – i.e. tokens issued by multiple collaborating companies and/or local governments to form a new market through an ecosystem, which will give rights of participation in the ecosystem on advantageous terms.
  3. Large company type – i.e. tokens issued by companies to raise funds for higher-risk in-house projects (e.g. development of new products). Token purchasers tend to be those who seek special offers from the issuers or want to express support for their projects.

The trading of ICO tokens in the secondary market is already regulated under Japan’s Payment Services Act (discussed above). The Tama Report thus focusses on regulation of ICO issuance and is proposing the adoption of two key principles and guidelines for ICO issue and five trading principles aimed at protecting purchasers of tokens.

I. Proposed Principles for ICO Issuance

  1. Issuance principle 1 – Issuers should define and disclose:
    1. conditions for the provision of conveniences such as services and
    2. rules on the distribution of procured funds, profits, and residual assets to token purchasers, shareholders, and debt holders;
  2. Issuance principle 2 – Issuers should define and disclose a means for tracking the progress of white papers. The rationale for the principle is that token purchasers need to be able to ascertain the progress of the plans described in the white paper. The Tama Report notes that the information disclosed need not necessarily be financial statements. The report further emphasizes the need for transparency around white papers including provision for their revision and making a revision history available to token holders.

II. Proposed Guidelines for ICO Issuance

  1. Guideline 1 – ICOs should be designed to be acceptable to existing shareholders and debt holders. The intention behind the proposed guidelines it that ICOs should not be used as a means to bring advantage or disadvantage to specific stakeholders.
  2. Guideline 2 – ICOs should not provide a loophole in existing financing methods. The report notes that ICO use should not be allowed to avoid financial laws.

III. Proposed Principles for Investor Protection around Token Purchase and Sale

5 principles are proposed to protect purchasers of ICO tokens.

  1. Trading Principle 1 – Token sellers would need to confirm the identity (KYC) and suitability of customers.
  2. Trading Principle 2 – Administrative companies supporting token issuance should confirm issuers’ KYC.
  3. Trading Principle 3 – Cryptocurrency exchanges should establish and adopt an industry-wide minimum standard for token listing.
  4. Trading Principle 4 – After listing, insider trading and other unfair trade practices should be restricted.
  5. Trading Principle 5 – All parties involved in the trading of tokens including issuers, trading exchanges and administrative companies should take measures to ensure cyber security.

Bloomberg reports that the Financial Services Agency of Japan will consider the guidelines outlined in the report in late April 2018, but that implementation could take a few years.

Note: The above represents Charltons’ current understanding of the regulation of ICOs in different jurisdictions. Charltons advises only on Hong Kong law and while the above represents our understanding of the legal position in certain other jurisdictions, legal advice from qualified lawyers in the relevant jurisdictions should be sought in relation to any particular transaction or situation. Further, this note is intended for educational purposes and it does not constitute Hong Kong legal advice. Specific advice must be sought in relation to any particular situation. 

August 2018

Notes

  1. Japan Times. “Cryptocurrency’s worrying boom”. 26 December 2017. <https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/12/26/editorials/cryptocurrencys-worrying- boom/#.WmVd8ryWZhE>
  2. <https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Bitcoin-evolution/Japan-fleshes-out-crypto-market-rules-to-prevent- Coincheck-2.0>
  3. <http://fortune.com/2018/01/31/coincheck-hack-how/>
  4. Japan FSA. “Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) – User and business operator warning about the risks of ICOs”. 27 October 2017. <http://www.fsa.go.jp/policy/virtual_currency/07.pdf>.
  5. Bloomberg. “Japan Unveils Guidelines for Allowing Initial Coin Offerings”. 5 April 2018 <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-05/japan-plans-first-step-toward-legalizing-initial-coin-offerings>

Japan Cryptocurrency regulation

Japan ICO initial coin offering

International ICO Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Regulation of Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Blockchain technology cryptocurrency

Regulation of ICOs in different jurisdictions

Cryptocurrency regulations in key jurisdictions

Japan crypto currency exchanges

Crypto currency exchanges
Cryptocurrency exchange platform
ICO bitcoin

JAPAN

Download presentation slides

Japan is one of the most progressive jurisdictions in terms of crypto regulation. Japan was the first country to recognise cryptocurrencies as a legal payment method in April 2017 (with the revision of its Payment Services Act (the PSA)) and Bitcoin is widely accepted by Japanese retailers and also for payment of utilities bills. For example, in 2019 the “Coincheck Gas” service was launched, which allows users to pay their gas bills using Bitcoin.“Coincheck Gas” was the result of a collaboration between the Coincheck virtual currency exchange and the energy company “E-net Systems”. This collaboration enables users of Coincheck to pay for their gas bills using Bitcoin.

Hong Kong Crypto Regulation – FATF, China, Japan & US Crypto Regulation | Webinar 4

In Japan, cryptoassets are treated as assets which can constitute means of payment rather than as legal currencies. This compares to the position in Hong Kong where cryptocurrencies are also not treated as currencies (or legal tender), but virtual commodities. They are however often referred to as “virtual currencies”.[65]

Further, as early as 2017, the Japanese National Tax Agency released guidelines on tax treatment of virtual assets. In Hong Kong, the IRD issued DIPN 39 in March 2020 providing broad guidance and clarity on the tax treatment of virtual assets.

As for crypto exchanges, Japan’s Financial Services Authority (the FSA) licenses and regulates virtual asset exchanges subjecting them to money laundering regulations. As crypto asset exchange services are broadly defined, other service providers engaging in crypto activities must also register with the FSA (including crypto custodians).[66] Crypto asset exchange service providers must not engage in activities relating to security tokens as these activities are governed by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) and additional licensing is required.[67]

As of March 2020, there were 23 approved crypto exchanges in Japan (one being OKCoin, once one of China’s “Big 3” crypto exchanges, which moved to the US following the 2017 ban).[68] A number of exchanges were licensed initially, however following the hack of Tokyo cryptocurrency exchange, Coincheck, in January 2018 (which saw almost US$500 million in digital tokens stolen) the FSA tightened its screening of crypto exchanges and with the cost involved with licensing increasing, many firms withdrew their licensing applications and ultimately, no exchanges were licensed for a year.[69] One firm which withdraw its application was Payward Japan, which operates Kraken exchange. Kraken withdrew entirely from the Japanese market in 2018 as a result of the crackdown but recently re-entered and has since been awarded a licence.[70]

Further to amendments to the FIEA, which took effect in May 2020, security tokens and ICO tokens are classified as electronically recorded transferable rights (ERTRs).[71] As a result, they are not considered “crypto assets”, which are regulated by the PSA. ERTRs are themselves classified as Type 1 Securities and licensing requirements therefore apply to the broker, issuers and ICO operators and ICOs must be handled by a licensed securities company. If the tokens offered do not represent investment contracts (i.e., in the case of utility tokens), the offering is regulated by the PSA.[72] In this case, the issuer is required to register as a crypto asset exchange service provider (or can sell the tokens via a registered exchange).[73] This compares to the position in Hong Kong where ICOs involving tokens which are not securities are unregulated.

Another major change following the amendments to the PSA and FIEA taking effect in May 2020, is that crypto asset related derivative businesses are now regulated under the FIEA. Previously, the Japanese derivative regulations did not apply as crypto assets were not included in the definition of underlying assets to which the regulations apply.[74] As for Hong Kong, which is quite a dominant player in the crypto derivatives space, with most of the derivatives trading volume deriving from exchanges based in Hong Kong,[75] this area remains largely unregulated, however this may change if the FSTB proposals are adopted.

Charltons Crypto Regulation Forum 2021

 

CH-018285 (Webpage Portal)
2018-09-26 (Published)
2021-06-29 (Updated)
DM#127544

Japan

Coincheck

Japan National Tax Agency

OKCoin

Japan financial services authority

ICO tokens

Electronically recorded transferable rights

Type 1 securities and licensing requirements

Bitcoin Coincheck Gas

Japanese derivative regulations

Bitcoin E-net Systems