Bithumb Faces ₩36.8 Billion AML Fine as Court Pauses Service Curbs
An April 30 court account says South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit imposed a ₩36.8 billion fine on Bithumb in March 2026, but the Seoul Administrative Court halted the associated six-month partial business suspension pending judgment in the exchange’s main lawsuit. That interim order allows Bithumb to continue normal operations while the dispute proceeds.
The regulatory findings themselves have not been overturned. What changed after the sanction was announced is its immediate effect on customers: the contested measure is not currently restricting Bithumb’s services, and even the original order was narrower than a shutdown of the exchange.
What the FIU found
The Financial Services Commission’s official notice records an inspection conducted from March 17 to April 18, 2025, a sanctions decision on March 16, 2026, approximately 6.65 million violations, 45,772 transfers involving 18 unregistered overseas virtual-asset businesses, about 3.55 million customer-verification breaches, roughly 3.04 million failures to restrict customers with incomplete verification, around 16,000 record-retention breaches and a ₩36.8 billion fine.
The customer-due-diligence findings covered more than incomplete paperwork. The cited cases included unusable identity-document images, missing or inadequate address information, overdue reverification and higher-risk customers allowed to transact without additional checks. Other findings concerned failures to retain copies of identification documents collected during verification.
Transfers involving unregistered overseas operators formed a separate part of the case. This matters because the enforcement action was not based on one defective control: it combined alleged failures in counterparty screening, identity verification, restrictions on unverified accounts and preservation of compliance records.
The institutional sanction was accompanied by disciplinary measures for senior personnel. The chief executive received a reprimand warning, while the officer responsible for regulatory reporting was suspended from that role. Together, the measures placed responsibility both on the exchange and on officials charged with maintaining its compliance system.
The suspension was not an exchange shutdown
The original order would have limited external virtual-asset transfers for newly registered customers. Those customers could still trade or exchange cryptoassets within Bithumb and deposit or withdraw South Korean won, while existing customers were outside the specified restriction.
That distinction is important for interpreting the sanction. A partial suspension would not have closed Bithumb, stopped all trading or frozen customer accounts; it targeted the movement of cryptoassets between Bithumb and external wallets or other platforms for one category of users.
The restricted function was nevertheless commercially significant. Customers who move assets between exchanges, withdraw to self-custody or use services outside Bithumb depend on external transfers, so removing that function could make a newly opened account materially less useful even while internal trading remained available.
Why the court paused the restriction
Bithumb challenged the partial suspension through an administrative lawsuit and sought interim protection while the merits were considered. The court accepted that allowing the restriction to take effect in the meantime could cause harm that would be difficult to reverse, including damage to the exchange’s ability to attract new customers.
The stay does not decide whether Bithumb complied with its AML obligations. It temporarily prevents the operational restriction from taking effect while the court examines the legality of the sanction. Nor does the available court account establish that the monetary fine was cancelled; the interim decision concerns the partial business suspension.
This separates the case into two questions. The FIU’s enforcement record sets out the alleged compliance failures and penalties, while the administrative court must determine whether the challenged service restriction has a sufficient legal basis and is proportionate to the conduct at issue.
The lawsuit remains the decisive unresolved issue
A June 23 Newsis case report scheduled the first merits hearing for August 13, 2026, and stated that the stay would remain effective until 30 days after the main judgment. The dispute was expected to examine whether Bithumb took adequate compliance measures where the exchange contests the clarity or application of the relevant regulatory requirements.
A hearing date is not a final judgment. The latest publicly documented procedural position therefore leaves the partial suspension paused rather than cancelled, with the validity of the underlying measure still to be decided.
The court may ultimately uphold, narrow or annul the challenged restriction. Until a merits ruling changes the position, customers should distinguish three elements that are often compressed into one headline: the FIU’s detailed findings remain on the enforcement record, the ₩36.8 billion penalty has not been shown by the cited stay decision to be void, and the customer-service restriction is not currently in force.
What the case means for Korean crypto exchanges
The Bithumb action shows that AML supervision extends beyond detecting obviously suspicious transfers. Regulators are also examining whether exchanges can identify customers reliably, prevent activity before verification is complete, preserve evidence of their checks and block dealings with unregistered overseas operators.
The litigation adds a separate constraint on enforcement. An exchange can contest the legal foundation or proportionality of an operational sanction without the court first accepting its broader argument that the regulator’s factual findings were wrong.
For Bithumb users, the present consequence is straightforward: services continue under the judicial stay. For the wider market, the eventual judgment will be more consequential than the interim order because it may clarify how South Korean authorities can translate large-scale AML control failures into restrictions on customer access.
Also read:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest Web3, AI, and crypto news delivered straight to your inbox.