124 Interactions, 2 Today
While Binance has increased its compliance efforts, its regulatory troubles continue to grow. The Monetary Authority of Singapore [MAS] is making headlines today after placing the bitcoin exchange on its regulatory watchlist.
The exchange platform was placed on the central bank’s Investor Alert List on 2 September. The list contains companies or entities that have not been licensed by the regulatory body but may have been wrongly perceived by investors to be regulated.
While no other information on the flagging has been released, it comes as no surprise given Binance’s ongoing battle with worldwide watchdogs. Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, India, and Thailand have previously prohibited or cautioned the exchange for offering financial services without a licence.
Binance has been on a hiring spree in an effort to enhance its regulatory connections, appointing global ex-regulators to crucial positions. Binance Singapore appointed Richard Teng as CEO just a few weeks ago. The new CEO was previously the Chief Regulatory Officer of the Singapore Exchange and the MAS’s Director of Corporate Finance.
Binance’s Singapore unit, Binance Asia Services, explained in a statement that this has no influence on the services that it provides. It is distinct from Binance.com and operates its platform through Binance.sg. According to the statement,
“Binance Singapore (Binance.sg) is a separate legal entity from Binance.com with its own local executive and management team and does not offer any products or services via the Binance.com website or other related entities, and vice versa.”
Singapore’s central bank earlier told the Strait Times that it was aware of other regulatory bodies’ measures against Binance. Furthermore, the MAS informed news outlets that Binance’s Singapore branch is exempt from having a licence under the Payment Services Act (PAS) while its application is being considered.
Binance.com said in a statement that it is “actively working with the MAS to address any issues that they may have through constructive dialogue.”