KWBA reportedly submitted feedback to South Korea’s Ministry of Economy and Finance on Oct. 26, the public-comment deadline for a draft enforcement decree under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. The association supports bringing cross-border virtual-asset transfers into foreign-exchange monitoring, but says some implementation details should be revised because of industry readiness and compliance burdens.

What the draft decree reportedly covers

The proposal is intended to bring cross-border virtual-asset transfers into South Korea’s foreign-exchange monitoring system. A Korea.net search-result snippet for a Ministry of Economy and Finance release says the Oct. 7 draft amendment was opened for public comment to implement the June 2 amendment to the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.

The same ministry snippet indicates that the reported scope is not limited to transfers between domestic and overseas virtual-asset service providers. It also describes transfers between domestic providers and personal wallets as part of the proposed virtual-asset transfer business framework. This is significant because it suggests the monitoring system could extend beyond exchange-to-exchange flows.

Available media reporting provides further detail on the mechanism. BigGo Finance said covered operators would need to register in advance and report cross-border transfer information through the Bank of Korea’s foreign-exchange computer network. BigGo Finance also reported a proposed minimum capital requirement of KRW 2 billion, though that figure remains based on reporting and has not been confirmed against an inspected decree text.

Why KWBA wants changes before finalization

As described in the current report, KWBA supports the policy objective but not every implementation detail. The association is not opposing foreign-exchange oversight of cross-border crypto transfers in principle; rather, it wants the ministry to revisit provisions that may exceed the industry’s current operational readiness or prove too costly to implement in practice.

The specific clauses challenged by KWBA cannot be established from the available material because its original Oct. 26 filing was not provided. The narrowest supported interpretation is that KWBA seeks revisions related to operational readiness and compliance burden, while the precise wording of its requested changes has not yet been made public in the supplied material.

Earlier reporting from 2026 helps explain why the burden issue matters. A May market-news report said companies involved in cross-border virtual-asset transfers would fall under a registration regime established by the Act, with exchanges and custodians included in scope. A June SBS Biz report similarly described a system under which operators would register with the Ministry of Economy and Finance and report transaction information when cross-border transfers occur. Those earlier reports do not confirm the final October draft text, but they indicate why exchanges, custodians, and similar operators are the groups most likely to be affected if the framework proceeds in broadly the same form.

Where the process stands after the Oct. 26 deadline

The current situation is best understood as a draft-consultation process rather than a final-rule development. The supplied report establishes that Oct. 26 was the comment deadline and that KWBA filed feedback by then. It does not establish that the ministry has finalized, promulgated, or brought the decree into force.

This distinction matters for readers assessing the immediate compliance impact. The reported framework is specific enough to indicate its direction—registration, reporting, and broader monitoring of cross-border virtual-asset transfers—but it is not yet settled enough for every reported requirement to be treated as binding law. The next meaningful development would be a revised decree text, a formal ministry response to comments, or an official promulgation step.