Korea's Broadcasting and Media Communications Review Committee (방미심위) signaled it may issue another review suspension on requests to block illegal overseas crypto exchange sites, according to materials submitted to lawmaker 이주희 of the Democratic Party on an unspecified recent date. The committee cited ongoing police investigations as grounds for potential suspension under regulations Articles 12 and 13, which permit halting reviews when related legal proceedings are underway. This follows a persistent regulatory deadlock between 방미심위 and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), with neither agency advancing enforcement actions against unregistered offshore crypto platforms despite investor protection concerns. The standoff centers on disputes over evidence standards, enforcement scope under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (특금법), and procedural authority — leaving targeted platforms unregulated.
방미심위 Cites Police Investigation as Suspension Grounds
방미심위 stated in submitted materials that it has historically considered final judgments from courts and related agencies when administrative or judicial procedures are ongoing before proceeding with reviews. The committee noted that regulations Articles 12 and 13 allow suspension when identical matters are pending in court or when the committee deems it necessary. With police investigations currently underway into illegal crypto sites, the committee is expected to invoke these provisions to repeat past suspension decisions. 방미심위 also referenced past committee composition delays, stating that "repeated review vacuums occurred due to delayed appointment of successor members after term expirations," and called for National Assembly review of amendments to the Broadcasting and Media Communications Commission Act. However, the committee completed its 9-member structure in March and is currently operating normally, raising questions about the relevance of citing past vacancies as a current impediment.
FIU-방미심위 Document Standoff Stalls Review Schedule
방미심위 requested supplementary materials from FIU on 지난달 19일 (last month 19th) to verify facts, but no official response document has been received nearly a month later. The committee stated that FIU did not submit materials proving the illegality of the sites when initially requesting access blocking, and has continuously requested supplementary submissions since receipt. As a result, no review schedule has been established for the matters FIU submitted. 방미심위 indicated it will proceed with reviews only after examining FIU's response, police investigation progress, and illegality determinations under 특금법. The committee specified it will comprehensively review: regulatory equity with overseas crypto platforms not included in the review scope such as Binance; appropriateness of blanket site blocking based solely on non-registration; and blocking measures focused on sites with confirmed fraud or user harm.
April Inter-Agency Meeting Exposes Constitutional and Equity Disputes
At an inter-agency working meeting held 4월 16일 (April 16) involving 방심위 (predecessor to 방미심위), FIU, Office for Government Policy Coordination, and National Police Agency, the agencies exchanged sharp disagreements. FIU stated it had reported unregistered 특금법 violators to investigative authorities and requested site blocking from 방심위, but noted police faced difficulties identifying operator identities and 방심위 had suspended reviews citing ambiguous domestic business activity standards and ongoing investigations. FIU highlighted it had independently blocked 31 apps (17 on Google, 14 on Apple) through consultations with Google and Apple, and urged resumption of site reviews. 방심위 countered that requiring the committee to resume reviews based on FIU's independently implemented actions could appear as coercion of administrative acts, and stated this conflicted with constitutional principles minimizing administrative interference in expression freedom, given the committee's status as a government agency with central administrative authority under the Broadcasting and Communications Commission Act. 방심위 also questioned FIU's illegality criteria — specifically whether providing Korean-language homepage services, offering won-based payment, or targeting domestic users with promotions (with any single factor sufficient for illegality determination) — lacked clarity on enforcement equity with other overseas operators, actual won payment verification, and whether operators directly controlled promotional activities. The committee further expressed dissatisfaction that FIU blocked apps without prior consultation and publicly referenced the committee's name, stating it learned of the actions through media and the National Assembly and requesting advance discussion in future cases to avoid policy confusion.
Lawmaker 이주희 Urges Swift Blocking Framework
Lawmaker 이주희 stated, "Illegal overseas crypto exchanges directly lead to investor harm, so blocking reviews must not be delayed further," and emphasized, "Related agencies must cooperate closely with a sense of responsibility to establish a swift blocking system."
FAQ
Why did 방미심위 signal another review suspension on crypto site blocking?
The committee cited ongoing police investigations into illegal crypto sites as grounds for potential suspension under regulations Articles 12 and 13, which allow halting reviews when related legal proceedings are underway.
What dispute exists between 방미심위 and FIU over blocking illegal crypto exchanges?
방미심위 claims FIU did not provide sufficient evidence of illegality when requesting site blocking and questions FIU's criteria (Korean-language service, won payment, domestic promotions). FIU counters that it independently blocked 31 apps and urges 방미심위 to resume site reviews, while 방미심위 argues this could constitute administrative coercion and violate constitutional principles on expression freedom.
What action did FIU take independently regarding illegal crypto platforms?
FIU blocked 31 apps (17 on Google, 14 on Apple) through direct consultations with Google and Apple, without prior coordination with 방미심위, which the committee later stated caused policy confusion.
