AIFC Court Bars Coinbase and Five Crypto Platforms

Coinbase injunction stops at the AIFC boundary

AFSA’s jurisdiction guidance describes the AIFC as a designated area within Astana with a special financial legal regime. It is a specific jurisdiction within Kazakhstan, rather than another name for the country’s entire financial market.

The distinction also runs in the other direction. AFSA says licensed centre participants can serve clients elsewhere in Kazakhstan under applicable rules, and abroad subject to host-country law. The geographic reach of a licensed business and the territorial reach of this injunction are separate questions.

The September 15 judgment, issued by Justice Sir Stephen Richards, considered changes to Kazakhstan’s digital-asset regime that took effect May 1. The judge explained that the National Bank had the wider national role and limited the injunction accordingly.

It restrains unauthorized services and app distribution in the AIFC or to users there. Reading that as a court-ordered block throughout Kazakhstan would extend the order beyond its stated terms. Equally, the limited order does not establish that these platforms have permission to operate elsewhere in the country.

The case illustrates the jurisdiction-specific character of exchange permissions. Daily Crypto Briefs’ coverage of Coinbase’s Abu Dhabi tokenization authorisation concerned different services under a different regulator. A permission in one financial centre does not settle an operator’s status in another.

LBank removed as six platform orders remain

The operative list consists of BingX, Bitcoin.com, Huobi Global, also known as HTX, BitMart, Coinbase and WEEX. The original judgment included LBank, making it important to read the subsequent amendment alongside the initial decision.

The court’s September 18 variation order removed LBank after AFSA applied to change the list. The document says the operator had reported measures addressing the regulator’s concerns; AFSA separately described those measures as blocking access in Kazakhstan.

That removal changes who is currently subject to the injunction. It is not evidence that LBank received an AIFC licence, and the amended order does not supply a licensing approval for that platform.

The revised order also retains joint liability for 1,995,479.95 tenge in court and legal costs. That is a litigation-cost award, not a disclosed customer-loss total or an assessment of funds held on the platforms.

AFSA’s digital asset service provider register offers a separate route to checking permissions. Its entries distinguish legal company names, licence numbers, current status and authorized activities, including custody, dealing and operating a trading facility.

Those fields answer different questions. An active licence for one activity is not automatically permission for every product offered under a familiar brand. Checking the operating entity and the relevant activity is more informative than relying on a logo or an app-store listing alone.

Apple and Google face app-store enforcement steps

The judgment’s app-store provisions require notice to Google and Apple and make them bound upon service. The judge declined a separate injunction against them at that stage, favouring dialogue about implementation first.

That leaves an important gap between legal obligation and observed access. The reviewed sources do not confirm when service occurred or establish a completed takedown for each app. They also do not disclose affected customer counts, balances or a platform-specific withdrawal timetable.

App distribution has become a practical part of financial supervision. The separate Google crypto-advertising change in the UAE similarly connects platform access with local permissions, although advertising certification and enforcement of this court order follow different processes.

AFSA warns that users of unlicensed services lack the protections required of supervised firms. Its notice identifies asset safeguarding, disclosures, complaints handling and dispute resolution as relevant protections; it does not announce a compensation scheme for customers of the six platforms.

Alternative.me’s Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index stood at 55, or Greed, against 59 the previous day. It measures market sentiment rather than the impact of these restrictions.

The next concrete evidence is confirmation of app-store implementation, changes to the court order or new licensing decisions. Until then, the documents establish the legal restriction and its boundaries, while the number of customers experiencing access changes remains undisclosed.