New Obligations for Virtual Asset Exchanges to Eliminate Voice Phishing Blind Spots The recent measures announced by Korean financial authorities to prevent voice phishing related to virtual assets are drawing attention in the domestic digital financial market. This legislation, set to take effect in October 2026, primarily imposes obligations on virtual asset exchanges to suspend payments and refund victims. This marks the first step to extend a system previously applied only to traditional financial institutions to the virtual asset market, demonstrating the government's commitment to establishing a new foundation for digital assets. However, these measures hold significance beyond mere institutional change. As the virtual asset market rapidly grows and establishes itself as a new center of economic activity, a crucial question arises: can these measures serve as a shield against crimes rampant in the shadows? Currently, the domestic virtual asset market is expanding rapidly. With a surge in digital financial transactions and the widespread adoption of overseas remittances and non-face-to-face services, virtual assets have become a common investment tool. This massive market offers opportunities to investors but also becomes a target for financial crimes like voice phishing. In particular, virtual assets, due to their non-face-to-face transaction nature and strong anonymity, present a structure where it is difficult to recover damages once a crime occurs. In this context, the new legislation aims to block crimes relying on virtual assets and minimize their potential misuse by criminals. Considering that countless victims have lost valuable assets due to voice phishing, this system is highly likely to meet a practical need. The Financial Services Commission (FSC) is developing concrete implementation plans and exploring ways to enhance the effectiveness of the legislation. For instance, through this amendment, exchanges will be required to more clearly verify transaction purposes and continuously monitor suspicious funds. Regulations will be established to immediately suspend accounts upon detection of suspicious cases and to strengthen refund procedures for victims. The FSC plans to pursue follow-up measures, including amendments to subordinate legislation containing detailed standards and procedures, before the law's implementation. These subordinate laws are expected to include criteria for determining payment suspension targets, specific steps for refund procedures, and the scope and methods of exchange monitoring. While these systems may impose additional burdens on exchange operations, they are considered a necessary process for investor protection. Experts generally view this legislation positively but also point out its practical limitations. Given the nature of the virtual asset market, completely blocking all suspicious transactions is challenging. However, the prevailing assessment is that this measure will be a crucial first step in enabling exchanges to proactively participate in crime prevention. There are also suggestions that, in the long term, efforts to enhance user education and security technology across the entire digital financial system are necessary. This implies that beyond mere institutional protection, raising public understanding of financial transactions and technical response capabilities together is key to eradicating virtual asset crimes. In a situation where security and risk management capabilities are becoming increasingly important across the financial sector, the establishment of exchanges' own security systems and the expansion of personnel are also emerging as essential tasks. Enhanced Victim Protection, Increased Trust in Digital Finance Of course, concerns about these measures are also being raised. One major concern is that if the responsibility of exchanges is excessively expanded, smaller exchanges might find it difficult to meet these requirements. Currently, in Korea, there are numerous small and medium-sized virtual asset exchanges in addition to large ones, and they often lack the infrastructure or personnel capacity of larger exchanges. If the new legislation is applied uniformly to all exchanges, smaller ones might fail to meet legal standards, potentially leading to the side effect of increased market concentration. In response, financial authorities are reportedly considering flexible regulations that reflect the size and characteristics of exchanges. For example, discussions include differentiating the implementation period for monitoring systems based on exchange size or allowing phased application for smaller exchanges. So, how effective will the implementation of the amendment actually be in reducing crime? Similar cases of strengthened regulations abroad are worth noting. Some countries have enhanced supervision over virtual asset exchanges and introduced registration systems, clarifying the responsibilities of exchanges. These measures are assessed