Authorities in Japan have arrested two suspects over their alleged role in helping a fake police fraud group steal cryptocurrency worth 81 million yen ($515,000) from a woman in her 40s.

Police believe the group operated out of Cambodia and is part of a larger operation.

Police Arrest Two In Crypto Scam

According to a report by FNN, Japanese authorities arrested Saki Okayama and Mitsuki Minamisawa in connection with the scam. Group members impersonated police officers and used intimidation tactics to pressure their targets into transferring their crypto assets. The group’s latest target, a woman in her 40s, was told her bank card was linked to a money laundering investigation.

The group claimed that 400 accounts were used to launder funds from a fraud case that led to 600 billion yen in losses.

How The Scam Worked

Authorities also explained how the scam worked. It began with a call from an individual claiming to represent the Osaka Prefectural Police. The caller reportedly told the woman her card belonged to one of several accounts linked to a money laundering investigation.

The woman was also told she was close to being arrested unless she proved her innocence. Authorities alleged that the false accusation and pressure from the scammers led the victim to transfer 81 million yen worth of cryptocurrency.

Authorities have not disclosed which cryptocurrencies were stolen or the wallet addresses that received the crypto. However, they allege the suspects are part of a larger organization and are linked to confirmed losses of around 240 million yen from similar scams. Authorities believe the group operates out of Cambodia, and that a Chinese national is at the helm of the entire operation.

Fake Police Scams And Rising Losses

The arrests come as losses from fake police scams mount in Japan. According to the country’s National Police Agency, fake police scams have resulted in 61.71 billion yen across 5,422 cases in the first seven months of 2026. While the number of cases has dropped 6.4%, losses have jumped by 25.7%. The scale of the frauds has forced authorities to treat such scams as a separate category. Police statistics have reported a 42.9% jump to 210.81 billion yen in special fraud losses from a year earlier.

In a separate incident, an individual lost 73 million yen to scammers pretending to be officials from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department who forced him to transfer the funds to prove his innocence. Authorities have urged people not to fall victim to such scams, stressing that they would not ask someone to transfer funds to designated accounts.

Japanese Regulators Strengthening Fraud Controls

Regulators in Japan are focusing on strengthening controls to check any fraud proceeds moving through cryptocurrency exchanges. The country’s Financial Services Agency and National Police Agency have proposed implementing withdrawal delays and stronger checks on newer wallet addresses. This includes a waiting period before new addresses can be used, stronger measures to monitor transactions, and account restrictions in cases of suspicious activity.

The authorities have also asked exchanges to improve authentication measures and response times when asked to identify suspicious transactions.

The proposal comes after a substantial jump in fraud cases and losses. The National Police Agency reported 18,067 special fraud cases and 151.47 billion yen in losses until May, with fake police schemes accounting for 40.32 billion yen.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Hong Kong-based stablecoin payments company RedotPay has completed a financial audit, a required step toward a U.S. initial public offering, as it pushes ahead with plans to take the business public, it said in a press release Monday.

The company also completed a separate review of its anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing controls. Both were conducted by Big Four firms, which RedotPay did not name. A U.S. IPO prospectus must include audited financial statements; the compliance review is a separate part of the firm’s preparations.

RedotPay lets users hold stablecoins in an app, spend them through a linked Visa card and send money across borders. The company said it had 8.5 million users as of July

“We undertook these audits to build confidence and trust in our financial reporting and compliance standards,” Michael Gao, CEO and co-founder of RedotPay, said in emailed comments. “They also form part of our preparation for taking the company public.”

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) says it is weighing the introduction of a regulated market-making system for digital assets after a yen-pegged stablecoin briefly traded at extreme prices on a major local exchange.

The discussion follows JPYC’s launch on Upbit earlier this month, when the token—linked to the Japanese yen—jumped far beyond its peg within about an hour, an outcome widely attributed to thin liquidity. FSC officials now appear to be reconsidering whether market-making provisions could improve trading efficiency and reduce repeat incidents of sharp price dislocations.

Key takeaways

• FSC officials are reviewing whether to add market-making mechanisms to improve “efficiency and stability” in South Korea’s digital asset market.
• JPYC’s debut on Upbit saw prices spike to more than four times the peg shortly after trading opened, with limited liquidity cited as a driver.
• South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act currently lacks a market-making exemption from market manipulation rules, restricting market makers from providing liquidity.
• Academics have debated the market-maker carve-out for years, balancing liquidity benefits against concerns it could enable manipulation.
• The possible shift aligns with broader efforts to consolidate crypto regulation, including planned stablecoin coverage under a Digital Asset Basic Act.

JPYC’s price spike reopens the market-making debate

Upbit began trading JPYC on Sept. 17. The stablecoin opened at 12 Korean won per JPYC and climbed to a high of 37.6 won within roughly an hour—over four times the token’s value relative to its peg. The surge was attributed to limited liquidity on the exchange.

For regulators, the episode became more than a market curiosity. Yoo Young-joon, director of digital finance policy at the FSC, said at a Seoul conference that the commission would look at whether systems such as market-making activities should be introduced to enhance the efficiency and stability of the digital asset landscape. Yoo also referenced growing criticism tied to user losses after the price movement following JPYC’s listing, saying demands for “discipline” in this area are increasing.

What the FSC is reconsidering under current rules

Under South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act, there is currently no explicit exemption that would allow market-making to proceed without conflicting with market manipulation provisions. In practice, this means market makers cannot provide liquidity in crypto markets under the existing interpretation of the law.

Yoo’s comments suggest that the FSC may be exploring a more permissive approach—potentially by creating space for market-making activity—if it can be structured in a way that addresses manipulation risks and better protects users during listings and other periods where liquidity is thin.

Why academics argued about carve-outs well before JPYC

The market-maker question is not new in South Korea. Researchers have debated whether a legal carve-out could improve liquidity and reduce volatility, while also weighing whether market-making could blur the line between stabilizing markets and enabling market manipulation.

In a 2024 peer-reviewed paper published by the Seoul Law Review, KB Securities researcher Lee Min Jung discussed why regulators previously did not permit crypto market making, noting the concern that it could amount to manipulation. Lee argued at the time that introducing market makers might be premature, but she also suggested regulators could consider a carve-out once markets become more stable.

Separately, a paper by Yoonyoung Choi from the Korbit Research Center made the case that the absence of a formal market maker system has contributed to “serious liquidity problems” in the domestic crypto market. The research highlighted how such conditions can create price discrepancies and higher volatility, pointing to the Kimchi premium—an established pattern of local price differences—as one example of market inefficiency in South Korea.

Liquid markets, listing shocks, and regulation ahead

The FSC’s apparent willingness to revisit market-making rules arrives as South Korea continues building out its broader framework for crypto regulation. In July, the FSC said it planned to introduce a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoins and the wider crypto market, including rules for digital asset businesses, exchanges, disclosures, and internal controls.

However, lawmakers have not settled every detail. The source reporting notes that key elements—particularly rules governing won-denominated stablecoin issuers—remain unresolved. That uncertainty means any future market-making changes could become intertwined with how stablecoins and exchange operations are ultimately treated under the new law.

Seen in this context, JPYC’s debut on Upbit looks less like an isolated trading glitch and more like a stress test of the current ecosystem: when liquidity is limited at launch, even yen-pegged stablecoins can temporarily diverge sharply from expected value, exposing traders to outsized risk. A market-making framework—if designed with safeguards—could help reduce those extreme spreads, but it would also require regulators to draw clear boundaries around acceptable conduct.

What to watch next

Investors and exchange users should watch for whether the FSC proposes a formal market-making exemption and, if so, what compliance conditions it would attach—especially in relation to liquidity provision during listings and periods of low trading depth. The next steps may also hinge on how stablecoin rules are finalized under the Digital Asset Basic Act.

President Donald Trump has made millions from memecoins, but politicians in California don’t have that chance anymore.

On Sunday, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that bans the state’s public officials from issuing memecoins, or cryptocurrencies representing a famous personality, internet joke or viral trend rather than a specific use case.

The measure, AB 2409, was signed along with 10 other bills on corruption and consumer protection. Others set rules for paying back crypto scam victims and creating a legal process to seize crypto from transnational criminal networks.

Newsom’s office titled the announcement “THE OPPOSITE OF TRUMP,” accusing the Trump administration of corruption and self-dealing, including through the viral $TRUMP memecoin.

“While the scam that is Donald Trump continues to hurt American families, California is fighting to make our economy work for people, not the powerful. No official should profit off their office — and we’re putting stronger protections in place to ensure it doesn’t happen in our state,” Newsom said in the press release.

Trump’s office did not immediately respond to CoinDesk’s request for a comment.

It’s unclear whether the ban covers meme tokens already in existence, such as $TRUMP.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission said it is considering a market-making system for digital assets, after a stablecoin linked to the value of the Japanese yen traded for as much as four times its peg on a major South Korean crypto exchange earlier this month. 

Crypto exchange Upbit opened trading of JPYC, a yen-backed stablecoin, on Sept. 17, with the market opening at 12 Korean won per JPYC before reaching a high of 37.6 Korean won just an hour later, more than four times its market value. The spike was attributed to limited liquidity on Upbit. 

“We will also review the need to introduce systems such as market-making activities to increase the efficiency and stability of the digital asset landscape,” Yoo Young-joon, director of digital finance policy at the FSC, said at a conference in Seoul on Monday, Digital Asset reported. “There were also criticisms that user losses occurred from the price surge after the JPYC listing, so demands for discipline in this area are expanding.”

South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act currently does not contain an exemption for market-making from its market manipulation provisions, preventing market makers from providing liquidity in crypto markets. The latest comments from Yoo suggest the FSC could be reconsidering this decision. 

South Korean academics have debated the market-maker carve-out before. In a 2024 peer-reviewed paper from Seoul Law Review, KB Securities researcher Lee Min Jung said regulators at the time did not allow crypto market making as it could amount to market manipulation. While Lee argued that introducing market makers would be premature due to manipulation concerns, she said regulators could consider a carve-out once the market becomes more stable. 

Researchers had called for a formal market-making framework long before the recent JPYC episode. A paper by Yoonyoung Choi from the Korbit Research Center argued that the domestic crypto market has been experiencing “serious liquidity problems” due to the absence of a formal market maker system, leading to price discrepancies and high volatility. The paper cited the Kimchi premium as an example of inefficiency in South Korea’s crypto market.

Related: South Korea drops Travel Rule threshold for crypto transfers

The potential introduction of a market-making system comes as South Korea works to establish a broader regulatory framework for its crypto industry. 

The FSC said in July that it planned to introduce a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoins and the broader crypto market, including rules for digital asset businesses, exchanges, disclosures and internal controls.

However, lawmakers have yet to settle several key aspects of the legislation, including rules governing won-denominated stablecoin issuers.

Magazine: THORChain under fire over Bitget, ETH evolves beyond blockchain: Hodler’s Digest

Binance Wallet has added USDT gas-fee payments on four blockchain networks as of Sept. 25, allowing users to transact without first holding each chain’s native gas token.

According to Binance’s updated support documentation Binance Wallet gas-fee guide, the option currently works on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum, Solana and TRON. Users with USDT in Binance Wallet can select the stablecoin to cover the network fee when completing supported transactions.

Previously, users generally needed BNB for transactions on BNB Smart Chain, ETH on Ethereum, SOL on Solana and TRX on TRON. A wallet without the required native token could leave the user unable to complete an on-chain transaction even when it held the asset being transferred.

Binance said its wallet calculates the network fee based on current blockchain conditions. The company said more networks will gain support later, though it has not provided a rollout timetable.

Binance Wallet uses USDT for gas on four networks

The USDT option changes how Binance Wallet users can fund transaction costs, but it does not remove the underlying blockchain fee. Validators or other network participants still receive the network charge required to process the transaction.

Binance states in its support guide that “none of the network fee goes to Binance.” The company distinguishes blockchain gas from service fees that Binance Wallet may charge for certain products, including swaps.

Network charges remain dynamic. Binance says congestion can push fees higher on Ethereum Virtual Machine networks and Solana as users compete for transaction processing. Lower activity can reduce the amount required.

TRON operates differently through its resource model, which uses bandwidth and energy. Users can obtain resources through mechanisms such as staking TRX or renting energy. When available resources cannot cover a transaction, TRX may be burned to pay the remaining cost, according to Binance’s explanation.

For Binance Wallet users, USDT now serves as another payment method for those costs on supported chains. Binance has not said the networks themselves have changed their native fee mechanisms.

Exchange balances provide another way to cover gas

Users without enough USDT in Binance Wallet can use supported balances held in their Binance Exchange accounts on the same four networks.

The official Binance support page lists BNB, USDT, USDC, ETH and SOL among assets that can be used through eligible Spot, Funding or Earn balances. Users select the Exchange Account option when choosing how the network fee will be paid.

Binance lists several other routes when neither wallet USDT nor an eligible exchange balance is available. Users can transfer the required gas token from Binance Exchange, receive it from another wallet or buy supported assets using a bank card.

A separate option lets eligible users draw BNB from their Spot or Funding Account for gas on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum and opBNB. Binance says users need more than 0.01 BNB in the relevant account before selecting that payment method.

The company continues to warn users to select the correct blockchain when moving assets between Binance and another wallet. Its withdrawal guide says choosing an incompatible network can result in assets becoming unrecoverable.

TRON users get a separate zero-gas offer

The rollout follows a separate Binance Wallet promotion for transfers on TRON.

Starting Sept. 23, eligible users can receive zero gas fees when sending USDT and other TRC-20 tokens through Binance Wallet. The campaign runs through Dec. 22, 2026, according to a Binance Wallet announcement.

Binance said the offer is supported by TRON DAO and remains subject to available campaign spots. After the promotional period, the company said qualifying transfers will receive a discounted fee of 1 USDT per transaction.

To use the promotion, users start a transfer through Binance Wallet, select the token and destination, then choose the network-fee payer when signing the transaction. USDT can be selected as the payment method before confirmation.

The TRON promotion and the four-network USDT feature cover related transaction costs under different terms. The support documentation presents USDT as a payment option for gas on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum, Solana and TRON, while the TRON campaign temporarily reduces eligible TRC-20 transfer charges to zero.

Binance Wallet has been reducing transaction friction

Binance has made several changes to its self-custody wallet since renaming Binance Web3 Wallet in December 2024.

As crypto.news previously reported, the rebranded Binance Wallet introduced a unified wallet interface and changes to asset management and its airdrop section. Binance said at the time that upgrades would arrive in several stages.

Network fees remained separate from trading fees in later wallet promotions. In February 2025, Binance waived trading charges on eligible wallet swaps, while users still had to pay blockchain gas fees, as crypto.news reported.

Binance Wallet has since expanded the number of services available through the self-custody product. In April 2026, the wallet introduced perpetual futures trading through its app and web interface, with an Alpha Points campaign tied to trading volume, according to related crypto.news coverage.

By May, Binance Wallet had integrated Event Rush on BNB Chain, where verified users could trade tokens linked to event outcomes using USDT. The service operates through a third-party decentralized application and is restricted in some regions, as crypto.news reported.

Binance’s current documentation identifies Binance Wallet as a self-custody product provided by Binance Barbados Limited. The company states that the wallet services are not supervised by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or another regulatory authority.

Zano’s core team has restarted the Zano blockchain to undo roughly a month of activity after it identified a vulnerability tied to “Gateway Addresses” that allowed unauthorized ZANO and Freedom Dollar (fUSD) tokens to enter circulation. The restart reverts the chain to block 3,833,000—immediately before Hard Fork 6 introduced the affected feature.

According to the project’s leadership, the recovery will only take full effect once participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services adopt the updated software. The team says transactions and token activity that occurred during the compromised period will no longer appear on the recovered chain. However, it also warns that the rollback cannot reverse payments that were already settled on other blockchains.

Key takeaways

• Zano restarted the chain at block 3,833,000, rolling back about a month of history linked to an exploit affecting Gateway Addresses.
• The reset targets activity after the Hard Fork 6 feature deployment, meaning compromised transactions won’t show on the restored chain.
• Participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other infrastructure providers must upgrade to complete the recovery.
• Zano says it will publish a reimbursement and claims process to address losses, though cross-chain settlements cannot be undone.

Rollback mechanics: what changed and what can’t be reversed

The project says the vulnerability’s impact is limited to the period after Hard Fork 6, when Gateway Addresses were introduced. By restarting the network from block 3,833,000, Zano invalidates both legitimate transactions included after that block and any unauthorized ZANO and fUSD that the exploit minted or introduced.

That matters for users and service operators because it effectively resets the on-chain record for that interval. Anyone who relied on transactions during the rolled-back window—whether for balances, accounting, or automated workflows—will need to reprocess those events against the restored chain state.

At the same time, the team draws a clear boundary around what is feasible. While the rollback can change what is recognized on Zano itself, it cannot undo transactions already finalized elsewhere. For users who moved value through cross-chain transfers or other external systems, the project’s update implies that losses tied to already-settled external payments may not be recoverable via the chain restart alone.

What are “Gateway Addresses,” and why they became a target

Zano says it has not published a full post-mortem yet, but it confirmed the exploit originated with Gateway Addresses. The feature was created to make integrations easier for bridges, exchanges, and payment services by allowing them to manage funds through a single account-style balance model.

Before Gateway Addresses, Zano wallets tracked funds as separate transaction outputs (UTXOs), rather than as one consolidated account balance. That difference influences how exchanges and payment processors work: services had to scan the blockchain to identify incoming payments, track which outputs corresponded to customer deposits, and select appropriate outputs when users requested withdrawals.

By contrast, an account-style abstraction can streamline integration logic—especially for services that want a unified view of balances. The Zano team’s decision to revert the network “immediately before Hard Fork 6,” however, suggests the abstraction layer introduced new attack surface that was not sufficiently contained.

Zano’s public explorer shows the rollback taking place on Sunday, reflecting the chain reset and the shift back to the pre–Hard Fork 6 state. The project did not provide additional technical details in the excerpted information, but the explicit identification of Gateway Addresses helps narrow the likely root cause to the feature rather than to core transaction privacy itself.

Token supply, trust, and the case for restarting

The Zano leadership framed the restart as a tradeoff between immediate disruption and long-term credibility. Quinten van Welzen, head of marketing and growth, argued that “doing nothing” would have meant unauthorized ZANO and fUSD remaining in circulation indefinitely—diluting holders and undermining the idea of a fixed supply.

Van Welzen also suggested that allowing the compromised supply to stand would signal to future attackers that they could retain value after an exploit. In that view, the most damaging outcome would not just be the technical breach, but the precedent it sets for adversaries.

Restarting from an earlier block, he said, comes with real costs: it eliminates about a month of blockchain history and requires the community to rebuild trust. Still, the team’s position is that restoring the intended supply and restarting from a clean state offers a path back that justifies the disruption.

Why exchanges and validators are central to the fix

Zano’s recovery depends on adoption. The team said participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services must adopt the update so the network stabilizes on the recovered chain state. This requirement is especially important for institutional and high-throughput operators, where delayed upgrades can lead to inconsistent balances, duplicate processing, or mismatched transaction histories.

For traders and users, the implication is straightforward: infrastructure readiness will determine how quickly services converge on the restored ledger. For exchanges in particular, the rollback also affects deposit and withdrawal accounting—so operators may need to re-sync transaction histories and ensure customer records match the post-recovery state.

In parallel, Zano says it is working to account for losses. The team indicated that it will publish a reimbursement and claims process, which should become a key reference for affected parties once the details are released. Until then, the only fully reliable takeaway for users is that transactions from the compromised period are expected to disappear from the restored chain, while any already-settled activity outside Zano may not be reversible through the rollback.

Going forward, readers should watch for the promised reimbursement/claims instructions and any technical follow-up that clarifies exactly how Gateway Addresses were exploited, because those details will likely determine how integrators adjust their systems and how quickly confidence can be rebuilt after the Hard Fork 6 rollback.