Key Takeaways:
Seoul’s court halted Bithumb’s 6-month FIU suspension on April 30, allowing the exchange to continue full operations. The FIU fined Bithumb 36.8 billion won ($24.6M) for 6.65 million AML and KYC violations in March 2026. Upbit, Coinone, and Korbit face similar FIU sanctions, with Coinone’s first court hearing set for May 12. Court Steps In as Bithumb Fights Record PenaltyThe FIU also levied a 36.8 billion won ($24.6 million) fine against the exchange for approximately 6.65 million compliance violations.
The violations fell into two categories. One pertained to roughly 3.55 million cases of failed customer identity verification, and the other to 3.04 million instances where Bithumb failed to block transactions with unregistered virtual asset operators.
Bithumb filed an administrative lawsuit and sought an injunction on March 23, days before the suspension was due to take effect on March 27. Thursday’s ruling keeps the exchange fully operational while proceedings continue. The company stated it plans to “faithfully present our position throughout the remaining legal proceedings.” Notably, Bithumb has not yet paid its fine, despite the FIU offering a 20% discount for timely settlement more than four weeks ago.
A Pattern of Legal Challenges Across Korean ExchangesBithumb is not fighting alone as the ruling closely follows a favorable first-instance judgment for Upbit operator Dunamu on April 9, a case where the court noted exchanges’ self-initiated compliance efforts in the absence of clear regulatory guidelines. The FIU has since appealed that decision.
This string of court stays is exposing deeper questions about the legal foundation of the FIU’s sanctions framework. Courts have consistently factored in whether exchanges made self-directed compliance efforts despite the absence of clear regulatory guidance, a standard the FIU’s penalty calculations do not appear to have accounted for.
The regulator argued during the Bithumb hearing that the suspension would affect only part of trading activities with limited revenue impact. The court remained unconvinced.
















