The Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA) disclosed the enforcement action on October 20, although the original judgment was issued on September 15 and amended three days later.
The remaining platforms covered are Bitcoin.com, BitMart and WEEX. LBank was initially included but was removed after voluntarily restricting access to its services in Kazakhstan.
Importantly, the court’s injunctions are limited to the AIFC’s jurisdiction rather than constituting a nationwide prohibition on the exchanges.
What Exactly Does the Court Order Prohibit?
The September 15 judgment prohibits the six operators from providing, offering or marketing digital-asset services within the AIFC, or to users located there, without the required authorization. It also restricts distributing mobile applications for those unauthorized activities.
The court granted AFSA a default judgment after the relevant operators failed to file acknowledgments of service or defenses within the required period. The decision therefore did not follow a contested trial in which the operators presented their defenses.
The amended judgment also makes the six operators jointly and severally liable for approximately 1.995 million Kazakhstani tenge in legal expenses and court costs. That amount represents litigation costs rather than a regulatory fine.
A central distinction concerns territorial jurisdiction. AFSA originally sought wider restrictions on services offered throughout Kazakhstan. However, legislative changes effective May 1 transferred broader supervision of digital-asset activities outside the AIFC to the National Bank of Kazakhstan.
The court consequently narrowed its injunctions to activities within the financial centre and users located there, while leaving open the possibility of a future application for wider relief.
Investor Takeaway
The injunctions establish restrictions on unauthorized operations within the AIFC, not a blanket national ban. For affected exchanges, the commercial impact depends on how access restrictions are implemented and whether they pursue the appropriate local authorization.
How Will Apple and Google Enforce the Restrictions?
The judgment introduces an additional enforcement mechanism by involving Google Play and Apple’s App Store, which distribute the mobile applications used by cryptocurrency customers.
The court directed that notice of its order be served on Google and Apple. Under the applicable court rules, the companies become bound by the judgment upon service, although they retain the ability to request that it be varied or set aside.
However, the court did not issue a separate nationwide app-removal injunction against the technology companies. Its judgment instead provides for cooperation to prevent applications from facilitating unauthorized activities within the AIFC.
AFSA said the relevant orders would be sent to the two app-store operators. It has not confirmed that all six applications have already been restricted or removed.
For exchanges, app-store restrictions introduce a compliance obligation extending beyond websites and local marketing. Geographic access controls may require coordination with third-party technology providers rather than changes to exchange operations alone.
Investor Takeaway
App-store distribution creates an additional regulatory pressure point for international exchanges. The effectiveness of the restrictions will depend on implementation by Apple and Google, particularly given the court’s narrower territorial jurisdiction.
Why Is Kazakhstan Targeting Unlicensed Crypto Operators?
AFSA said its enforcement campaign began in 2025, when it issued written warnings to more than 20 cryptocurrency platforms explaining the AIFC’s licensing requirements.
Nine operators subsequently restricted access to their applications in Kazakhstan voluntarily, prompting AFSA to withdraw the corresponding claims. Another seven platforms expressed an intention to seek licenses, while six remain subject to the injunctions.
The regulator argued that unauthorized operators create unfair competition for licensed businesses, which must pay for anti-money-laundering controls, customer due diligence and ongoing regulatory supervision.
AFSA also warned that customers of unlicensed platforms do not receive the protections required under its framework, including asset safeguarding, disclosures, complaint handling and dispute resolution.
The latest injunctions follow a wider enforcement campaign. FinanceFeeds previously covered Kazakhstan’s crackdown on unlicensed cryptocurrency exchanges, which involved the seizure of approximately $16.7 million in digital assets.
What Does the Ruling Mean for Licensed Exchanges?
Kazakhstan’s approach distinguishes between operators authorized within the AIFC and those supervised under the national digital-asset framework.
Since May 1, the National Bank has been responsible for licensing and supervising applicable cryptocurrency service providers operating outside the AIFC, while AFSA retains authority over businesses operating within the financial centre.
The change follows the country’s adoption of broader cryptocurrency licensing and trading rules, which extended oversight of digital-asset markets and established additional requirements for operators.
Licensed exchanges may benefit competitively if restrictions reduce access to unauthorized alternatives. Bybit, for example, previously secured AFSA authorization and subsequently launched a localized, regulated cryptocurrency platform in Kazakhstan.
However, the injunctions do not establish how much trading activity might migrate to licensed exchanges, and AFSA has not disclosed the affected platforms’ local trading volumes or customer balances.
The next developments will be whether Google and Apple implement the required restrictions, whether affected operators seek authorization and whether Kazakhstan’s national regulator pursues separate measures outside the AIFC.
Investor Takeaway
The enforcement action could improve the competitive position of licensed exchanges, but any resulting market-share gains remain unquantified. Licensing decisions, app-store compliance and subsequent National Bank enforcement will provide clearer evidence of the commercial consequences.
