CoinEx has rejected claims that it helped Iranian state-linked entities move funds through its crypto exchange after a Wall Street Journal report cited $3.84 billion in Iran-linked transactions since 2019.

The exchange said it had “never established any commercial relationship” with Iranian government-related entities, Iranian domestic exchanges, the Revolutionary Guard, or sanctioned parties. CoinEx said it does not have an office or operating entity in Iran.

CoinEx also said its official domain had been blocked in Iran since 2021 after it was blacklisted by the Iranian government. The exchange said that fact shows it was not a platform backed or recognized by Iranian authorities.

The company said some users promoted CoinEx through its global referral program, but it denied organizing Iran-focused promotion. It said ordinary user activity should not be treated as proof of state-level sanctions evasion.

CoinEx disputes on-chain reading

The WSJ report said investigators traced unusual transactions from two wallets controlled by Iran’s central bank. It also said further tracing showed links to funds stolen from Bybit by North Korean hackers.

CoinEx said the report relied too heavily on on-chain interpretation. The exchange said blockchain transactions are open and traceable, but a fund passing through a platform does not prove that the platform knew about, supported, or joined the related activity.

The company also challenged the reported aggregate amount. It said combining two-way fund flows into one number and presenting it as funds “processed” by CoinEx was misleading.

CoinEx said third-party blockchain analytics platforms can reach different results. It added that on-chain attribution has limits and depends on how analysts interpret wallet links and transaction paths.

Bybit hack reference draws response

CoinEx also addressed the Bybit theft cited in the WSJ report. It said it helped Bybit block accounts and freeze assets after learning about the incident. CoinEx said it would conduct an internal review of the transactions mentioned in the report.

WSJ said investigators linked the Iranian central bank wallet trail to assets stolen from Bybit by North Korean hackers. The Bybit hack remains one of the largest crypto thefts reported by the industry.

In a previous article, crypto.news discussed how the Bybit hacker laundered more than half of the stolen Ethereum in less than a week, mainly through THORChain swaps. That activity kept attention on cross-platform money movement after large thefts.

CoinEx said it had also been a hacking victim in 2023, when North Korea-linked actors were reported to have stolen funds from the exchange. In another previous article, crypto.news discussed CoinEx’s plan to resume services after the $70 million Lazarus-linked hack.

Compliance measures expanded

CoinEx said it started a full review and exit process for Iran-related risk exposure after sanctions against Iranian domestic exchanges. The exchange said it strengthened checks for Iranian users, blocked registrations from Iranian regions, and started compliance off-boarding for identified accounts.

It also said it expanded geo-fencing, access restrictions, KYT monitoring, sanctions screening, and transaction freezes for high-risk activity. CoinEx said it would restrict or freeze accounts and assets tied to any sanctioned entity or person.

The response comes during a broader U.S. sanctions push against Iranian crypto activity. As previously reported, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Nobitex, Wallex, Bitpin, and Ramzinex, accusing them of helping sanctioned entities access digital asset markets.

Treasury said Nobitex processed more than 50% of Iranian digital asset inflows in 2025. It also accused the exchange of helping Iranian regime insiders access international platforms and move funds across jurisdictions.

CoinEx said it will keep investing in KYC, AML, sanctions screening, and on-chain risk monitoring. The exchange also said it would respond to concerns from users, partners, and authorities.

Indonesia’s financial regulator has moved to tighten rules governing “finfluencers,” requiring certified competency for individuals who recommend crypto and other digital financial assets. The change signals a broader push to bring social-media promotions within formal financial-consumer protection and licensing frameworks.

Under Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) No. 6 of 2026, announced Wednesday, individuals who provide recommendations about digital assets must hold competency certifications unless they are already covered by a separate licensing requirement. The regulation also limits what influencers can recommend and sets conditions on how marketing is carried out and by whom.

Key takeaways

• Competency certification required: POJK No. 6 of 2026 introduces competency certification obligations for influencers recommending digital assets.
• Scope restricted to authorized listings: Influencers may recommend only digital assets that are listed on authorized exchanges.
• Licensed service-provider rule: Any service providers recommended by influencers must be licensed.
• Marketing must route through regulated businesses: Promotions must be carried out by regulated financial services businesses responsible for the content and distributed via their official communication channels.

Indonesia’s POJK No. 6 of 2026: what changes

Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority (OJK) is framing the regulation as part of its expanded oversight of financial promotions on social media. POJK No. 6 of 2026 focuses on the behavior of “financial information deliverers,” which includes influencers who promote crypto and other digital financial products.

Practically, the regulation creates a compliance pathway and a gatekeeping mechanism. Influencers providing recommendations about digital assets are expected to obtain competency certification unless they fall under another licensing regime. This approach differs from rules that rely only on whether a promoter is formally acting as a licensed intermediary; it instead adds a targeted competency requirement for social-media recommendation activity.

The regulation also narrows the promotional universe. Influencers are permitted to recommend only digital assets that appear on authorized exchanges, which reduces the risk of promoting unapproved offerings. In addition, any service provider promoted alongside such recommendations must be licensed, tying influencer marketing to the status of the underlying entities offering access to regulated services.

Finally, POJK No. 6 of 2026 imposes content and channel controls. Marketing campaigns must be run through regulated financial services businesses, which are responsible for the promotional content. The campaigns must then be distributed through those businesses’ official communication channels. For compliance teams, this structure is significant: it places accountability on regulated firms to ensure that promotional material is aligned with requirements and that distribution does not occur solely through third-party influencer channels outside the regulated firm’s control.

Why certification and channel rules matter for compliance

For institutional stakeholders, influencer promotion requirements are not merely reputational issues—they can create legal exposure, distribution-risk, and documentation gaps across marketing operations.

Certification requirements can affect onboarding and contracting. Firms that engage finfluencers may need to verify whether individuals recommending digital assets have the required competency certification or whether their activities fall under an alternative licensing framework. This can change due diligence procedures, recordkeeping expectations, and the compliance review workflow for campaigns.

Authorized-asset constraints also alter governance. The requirement that influencers recommend only assets listed on authorized exchanges means that firms must maintain an up-to-date inventory of eligible assets and align campaign content with that list. It introduces an ongoing monitoring obligation, especially if exchange authorization status changes or if new assets are promoted in response to market developments.

Licensed-provider requirements shift scrutiny toward partnerships. Even where an influencer’s role is limited to promotion, POJK No. 6 of 2026 conditions recommendations on the licensing status of service providers involved in the promoted services. That makes it necessary for regulated businesses to verify licensing and ensure that contracts with marketing partners do not result in promotion of non-compliant counterparties.

Channel control and content responsibility are likely the most operationally consequential element. By requiring that campaigns be distributed through regulated financial services businesses’ official channels, the regulation may limit the ability of influencers to independently disseminate promotional materials. This creates clearer lines of responsibility for compliance monitoring and supports a record trail for regulators and internal audit.

Indonesia’s move in a broader finfluencer enforcement trend

Indonesia is not acting in isolation. Several jurisdictions have tightened their approaches to influencer marketing tied to regulated financial products, reflecting a wider recognition that social-media endorsements can function as financial promotion and, in some cases, as de facto advice or transaction facilitation.

In March 2022, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) stated that influencers may require a financial services license when content constitutes financial advice or helps arrange transactions. ASIC also highlighted potential liability risks for licensed financial firms that engage influencers who engage in misconduct—an important reminder that regulated entities can face enforcement consequences tied to how they structure third-party arrangements.

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued guidance in 2024 indicating that unauthorized influencers may commit a criminal offense when promoting regulated financial products without appropriate approval from an authorized firm. In a later enforcement push, the FCA led an international “week of action” on April 24, reporting participation from 17 regulators and describing account-takedown efforts affecting a large volume of illegal financial advertisements reaching substantial social media audiences.

Elsewhere in the region, the Philippines introduced crypto-specific marketing restrictions in 2025, covering endorsements, sponsored content, social media posts, podcasts, livestreams, and certain paid educational content. Under those rules, crypto asset service providers must disclose authorized third-party marketers to the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission—again reinforcing the theme that regulators are seeking greater visibility and accountability in the influencer ecosystem.

Potential implications for market participants in Indonesia

POJK No. 6 of 2026 is likely to change how firms in Indonesia plan, approve, and document digital-asset promotional activities. Companies operating as regulated financial services businesses may face pressure to adjust marketing governance so that influencer campaigns are routed through official channels and supported by compliance oversight of both the content and the parties involved.

For exchanges and other market intermediaries, the authorized-list condition creates a compliance dependency on exchange authorization status. For platforms and service providers partnering with influencers, the licensing requirement means that marketing arrangements must be treated as a regulatory-sensitive activity, not simply a branding exercise.

Cross-border considerations also matter. Influencer marketing often spans jurisdictions, and promotional content created for one market can be repurposed elsewhere. Firms will need to assess how Indonesian requirements interact with local rules in other countries—particularly where the same campaign is distributed through global social-media accounts that may not distinguish between audiences subject to different regulatory standards.

Closing perspective

Indonesia’s POJK No. 6 of 2026 adds certification, licensing, and channel controls aimed at reducing compliance risk from crypto promotions on social media. Market participants should monitor OJK implementation details—such as how competency certification is administered and verified—and align influencer contracting, asset eligibility checks, and distribution workflows accordingly.

Kanga, a Poland-founded crypto exchange, says it has secured a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license in Latvia—an approval it says will let it operate across the European Union through passporting.

In a Wednesday statement shared with Cointelegraph, Kanga’s operator, SIA AlphaRoute, said it received a Class 3 MiCA license from the Bank of Latvia after the regulator’s Supervisory Committee approved the authorization. The license was granted on June 18 and, according to the exchange, authorizes services including crypto custody, trading, and transfers across the EU.

Key takeaways

• Kanga (via SIA AlphaRoute) obtained a Class 3 MiCA license from the Bank of Latvia, enabling EU passporting.
• The authorization covers core exchange activities including custody, trading, and transfers, per the exchange’s announcement.
• Kanga says it began Latvia pre-licensing in November 2025 to prepare for MiCA’s transitional period.
• Poland remains without MiCA implementation legislation as the EU’s July 1 transitional deadline approaches, due in part to a recurring legislative deadlock.

Latvia licensing sets up EU-wide expansion

MiCA’s framework is designed to harmonize crypto regulation across the EU, but implementation schedules and national legislative processes have differed. Kanga’s move to obtain licensing in Latvia effectively positions it to serve EU customers under a compliant path while other jurisdictions—such as Poland—remain in flux.

According to Kanga’s statement, the relevant authorization was granted after the Bank of Latvia’s Supervisory Committee approved SIA AlphaRoute’s application. The exchange emphasized that the license permits it to provide crypto services across EU member states once passporting mechanisms are used.

Kanga also described how it planned for the regulatory shift. Its chief executive, Dominik Tomczyk, said the company began the pre-licensing process in Latvia in November 2025 after reviewing multiple jurisdictions. He framed the decision around using MiCA’s transitional period to ready internal systems and the organization for the new rules.

“From the very beginning, we knew that we had to use the transitional period provided for under the MiCA regulation to prepare the organisation to operate within the new regulatory framework,” Tomczyk said.

The exchange added that it will share additional information about operational changes and service terms through its official communication channels, pointing to a likely period of adjustment for customers as it aligns offerings with MiCA requirements.

Why passporting matters as MiCA deadlines loom

For operators, MiCA passporting is often the difference between being able to scale across borders quickly and being forced to run separate regulatory processes in each country. By securing a Class 3 license in Latvia, Kanga is effectively aligning itself with an EU-wide compliance route rather than waiting for national legislation elsewhere to catch up.

The timing is notable. The EU’s transitional deadline is set for July 1, and the broader compliance landscape remains uneven across member states. Kanga’s license—granted June 18—arrives shortly before that deadline, during a window when exchanges and custody providers may be reassessing market access and legal certainty.

That context is especially relevant for Poland-based firms. If a home market delays implementation, companies may seek licensing in other EU jurisdictions to avoid service uncertainty and to continue serving EU customers under a stable regulatory framework.

Poland’s legislative deadlock continues

While Kanga points to regulatory progress in Latvia, its home country still faces obstacles to MiCA implementation. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, Poland has remained without MiCA implementation legislation ahead of the EU’s July 1 transitional deadline, with lawmakers attempting to break a deadlock after the Polish president vetoed a government-backed crypto bill three separate times.

Cointelegraph reports that President Nawrocki vetoed the bill for a third time on June 11, arguing that successive versions failed to address his objections—especially provisions he considered overly burdensome for crypto companies. Following the veto, members of the Poland 2050 party, part of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s governing coalition, reportedly submitted a new proposal incorporating changes requested by the president.

As described by the bill’s sponsors, the latest proposal would reduce some fees, remove certain regulatory provisions, and make the overall framework less restrictive for crypto firms. Poland 2050 has reportedly called for the legislation to be fast-tracked through parliament.

At the same time, regulatory pressure in Poland is not limited to legislative timing. The country’s crypto sector has also faced increased scrutiny following a fraud investigation into Zonda, which Cointelegraph previously reported as Estonia’s largest crypto exchange. Prosecutors reportedly estimate customer losses exceed 350 million zlotys (about $92.7 million). Developments tied to that case may affect how regulators and lawmakers approach compliance and oversight of crypto platforms.

What to watch next for Kanga and EU MiCA adoption

Kanga’s Latvia license provides a concrete example of how crypto firms may navigate MiCA’s rollout when national implementation is delayed. Investors and customers will likely want to monitor how Kanga communicates specific operational changes, and whether Poland’s MiCA bill ultimately passes in the near term—since the pace of home-country legislation can still influence competition, costs, and compliance strategies for exchanges headquartered in Poland.

With the EU transitional deadline approaching, the next key signal will be whether other exchanges follow similar cross-border licensing paths—or whether Poland’s legislative process finally catches up, narrowing the gap between “ready under MiCA” and “still waiting for national law.”

Kanga, a crypto exchange founded in Poland, said it has obtained a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license in Latvia, allowing it to passport its services across the European Union.

The exchange’s operator, SIA AlphaRoute, received a Class 3 MiCA license from the Bank of Latvia after its Supervisory Committee approved the authorization, according to a Wednesday statement shared with Cointelegraph.

The license was granted on June 18 and authorizes the company to provide services, including crypto custody, trading and transfers, across the EU, said the exchange.

Kanga’s approval comes as Poland remains without MiCA implementation legislation ahead of the EU’s July 1 transitional deadline, with lawmakers still trying to break a deadlock following three presidential vetoes.

Source: Kanga

Kanga’s path to EU-wide operations

Kanga began the pre-licensing process in Latvia in November 2025 after reviewing several jurisdictions, according to SIA AlphaRoute CEO Dominik Tomczyk.

“From the very beginning, we knew that we had to use the transitional period provided for under the MiCA regulation to prepare the organisation to operate within the new regulatory framework,” Tomczyk said.

Related: Binance withdraws Greece-filed MiCA application

The company said it will provide customers with additional details about operational changes and service terms through its official communication channels.

Poland’s MiCA deadlock

President Nawrocki vetoed a government-backed crypto bill for a third time on June 11, saying successive versions failed to address his objections, including provisions he considered overly burdensome for crypto companies.

Members of the Poland 2050 party, part of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s governing coalition, have since reportedly submitted a new proposal incorporating several changes requested by the president.

According to the bill’s sponsors, the proposal would reduce some fees, remove certain regulatory provisions and make the framework less restrictive for crypto companies. Poland 2050 reportedly called for the legislation to be fast-tracked through parliament.

Poland’s crypto sector also faces heightened scrutiny following a fraud investigation into Zonda, the country’s largest crypto exchange, where prosecutors estimate customer losses exceed 350 million zlotys (about $92.7 million).

Magazine: Bitcoin decouples from tech stocks, Ether eyes ‘selling wave’: Market Moves

Binance says it is withdrawing its application for Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) authorization in Greece and plans to seek approval in another EU member state, days ahead of the July 1 deadline for firms to become licensed or take steps to scale back their EU operations. The decision comes as the European regulator signals that crypto service providers lacking authorization after the transitional period ends must act immediately to wind down activity within the bloc.

In a statement on Wednesday, Binance said it would announce the new member state publicly once it is ready. Binance’s head of Europe and the United Kingdom, Gillian Lynch, told Reuters that the exchange is “not leaving Europe” and would pursue authorization elsewhere if the Greek process does not progress.

Key takeaways

• Binance has withdrawn its MiCA authorization application with Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC), aiming to seek authorization in another EU member state.
• The move occurs just before MiCA’s July 1 transitional cutoff, when ESMA expects unauthorized crypto service providers to begin winding down EU activities.
• Binance warned that some users may be affected and that it will communicate with impacted accounts, while stating that user funds remain protected.
• Licensing uncertainty may influence token issuers indirectly, as authorized exchanges increasingly gatekeep MiCA white-paper notifications and listing readiness.

MiCA authorization withdrawal and the new EU strategy

Binance’s stated objective is to remain compliant with EU requirements as the MiCA framework moves into its post-transitional enforcement phase. The exchange said it is taking the necessary steps before July 1 to comply with applicable obligations. It did not specify which member state it plans to approach next.

According to Reuters, Lynch said Binance contacted other regulators but submitted a formal application only in Greece. Binance reportedly held discussions with several authorities, including Ireland and Latvia, before focusing on Greece. Reuters also reported that some regulators expressed concerns related to Binance’s past money-laundering penalties, its international operating structure, and risk-related cultural factors.

For compliance teams and institutional stakeholders, the key point is that MiCA licensing is not a single, centralized EU process for market access. Authorization is assessed by national competent authorities and embedded in national supervisory relationships, which can lead to different outcomes across jurisdictions even within the same regulatory regime.

Why the July 1 deadline is operationally material

MiCA’s transitional period ends on July 1. In a public statement on Tuesday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said that crypto service providers that remain unauthorized by the deadline must take “immediate” steps to wind down their EU activities. ESMA’s wording effectively creates a near-term compliance forcing function: firms must either secure authorization or implement drawdown and cessation measures for EU-facing operations.

Binance’s announcement therefore has immediate operational implications. The company did not provide additional detail beyond saying it expects some users could see changes. It said it will communicate directly with affected users and that its priority is to minimize disruption. It also reiterated that all user funds remain safe and secure.

However, unresolved questions remain for regulated counterparties and compliance monitors. Withdrawal of an application can create uncertainty about timelines and the scope of what activities remain permissible during the transition to a new authorization path. For institutions that rely on regulated on-ramps and exchange counterparties, this increases the importance of verifying current licensing status and conducting ongoing controls around service availability and permitted services in specific EU jurisdictions.

Potential effects for European market access

Even if MiCA licensing constraints do not necessarily eliminate EU demand, the regulatory transition can influence how euro-denominated trading access evolves. CryptoQuant analyst Maartunn told Cointelegraph that euro pairs account for about 1% of Binance’s global spot trading volume, indicating that a European licensing setback may have limited impact on overall business volume.

Still, Binance remains a significant venue for euro trading. CryptoQuant data cited in the reporting suggested Binance handled roughly $100 million to $250 million in daily euro-pair volume in 2026, with occasional spikes of about $600 million. The same data placed Binance second in share of euro-denominated spot trading at an estimated 18.5%, behind Kraken’s estimated 43.3% share.

These figures matter for institutional monitoring because MiCA authorization affects not only retail access but also how regulated market participants evaluate venue risk. Where firms have counterparties spread across multiple exchanges, licensing uncertainty may change routing decisions, hedging practices, and settlement reliability—even without direct changes to token market fundamentals.

MiCA compliance as an ecosystem function for exchanges and token issuers

Binance’s licensing challenge may reverberate beyond trading venues. Authorized exchanges increasingly act as compliance gatekeepers for token issuers seeking MiCA-related documentation readiness, including work tied to white-paper notifications and listing processes.

In a LinkedIn post, Ryan King, creator of the EU Crypto Register, said he tracked at least 380 of 867 white-paper entries where notifications were made by third parties rather than the token issuers themselves. He reported that Kraken, LCX, OKX, and Bitstamp together accounted for 271 of those third-party notifications, representing about 31% of the total.

King told Cointelegraph that this approach can be “symbiotic,” because exchanges employ MiCA-trained compliance teams, maintain regulator relationships, and have access to large law firms. He said exchanges increasingly request white papers during onboarding and may offer to prepare documentation, even for tokens covered by transitional arrangements. According to King, one exchange allegedly told a token project to “fill it in and we’ll handle the rest,” reflecting the practical role exchanges can play in operationalizing MiCA requirements.

For market participants, the compliance implication is that exchange authorization status can shape how quickly issuers can move from token planning to EU-ready documentation. When authorization trajectories shift or when a major exchange alters its EU operational posture, it may affect issuer workflows, legal review capacity, and timelines for token availability on EU-compliant venues.

Closing perspective

Binance’s withdrawal of its Greece application and intent to pursue authorization elsewhere set the stage for a rapidly developing compliance timeline as the July 1 MiCA cutoff approaches. What to watch next is whether Binance can secure a new authorization path in time and how ESMA’s “wind down” expectations translate into concrete permitted activity during the transition—particularly for EU customers, counterparties, and token issuers relying on exchange-led compliance processes.