Thailand's Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub, the country's largest cryptocurrency exchange, alleging that the company and two of its former directors concealed a 1.7 billion baht ($47 million) hack that occurred in May 2021. The regulator says the theft, which affected 16 types of digital assets, was never disclosed in the exchange's mandatory filings.
According to the SEC, Bitkub's daily net-capital reports filed between May and October 2021 showed no significant changes in asset holdings, despite the breach. That pattern, regulators argue, amounts to a violation of Thailand's Digital Asset Business Decree, which requires exchanges to accurately disclose material changes to their asset base.
Who's Named in the Complaint
Alongside Bitkub itself, the SEC named two former directors, Sakolkorn Sakavee and Thaweesap Rawan, as defendants. The complaint has been filed with Thailand's Economic Crime Suppression Division and will now move to police and prosecutors, who will decide whether to bring the case to court.
Bitkub's Response
Bitkub has pushed back on the implication that customers were ever at risk. The exchange said its co-founders personally purchased replacement assets to cover the shortfall, leaving neither the platform nor its users at a loss.
Bitkub said customer funds are safe, adding that the SEC itself confirmed its holdings were intact as of September 2025.
The company has framed the episode as a historical matter that was resolved internally years ago, even as regulators now argue the lack of disclosure at the time was itself the violation.
A Difficult Stretch for Bitkub
The criminal complaint lands at an awkward moment for the exchange. Bitkub shelved a planned listing on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in November 2025 and has since been weighing an alternative $200 million listing in Hong Kong. The exchange currently ranks 68th globally by trading activity, well behind regional rival Binance Thailand, which sits at 31st.
A prolonged legal process could complicate either listing path, since prospective investors and exchanges typically scrutinize unresolved regulatory actions closely before signing off on a public offering.
