The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated civil proceedings against Liang “Allan” Guo, the former director of Blockchain Global, in relation to the high-profile collapse of the ACX crypto exchange. The case represents a significant step in Australia’s tightening grip on digital asset regulation and highlights the severe consequences of corporate mismanagement in the crypto sector.
Allegations of Mismanagement and Misleading Conduct
In a press release issued on 28 May, ASIC accused Guo of breaching his duties as a director during his tenure at Blockchain Global, which operated ACX Exchange from 2016 until its collapse in 2019. The regulator alleges that Guo was directly involved in the mishandling of customer funds and failed to maintain proper financial records. Furthermore, ASIC claims that Guo made false and misleading statements regarding the safety and management of customer assets on ACX.
According to ASIC, funds deposited by customers were used to purchase crypto assets and commingled into a single pooled account rather than being stored in segregated wallets. This practice not only violated basic financial protocols but also significantly increased the risks to users, many of whom were left unable to access their assets when the platform collapsed.
Collapse and Liquidation
The downfall of ACX Exchange in late 2019 shocked the Australian crypto community, with users reporting frozen accounts and inaccessible funds. Blockchain Global was formally placed into liquidation in February 2022. Liquidators later revealed that the company owed over AUD 58 million to unsecured creditors, including AUD 22 million claimed by former ACX customers alone.
A comprehensive report submitted by court-appointed liquidators in November 2023 triggered ASIC’s formal investigation in January 2024. The report highlighted critical failures in financial governance and revealed that customer funds had been misappropriated, potentially for personal use by directors.
International Flight and Pending Criminal Charges
Adding to the controversy, ASIC disclosed that Guo was under interim travel restraint orders as of February 2024. However, he departed Australia in September after the restraints lapsed and has not returned since. The regulator is now exploring possible criminal charges against him, which may include allegations of using company funds for personal expenses such as mortgage repayments.
ASIC’s pursuit of Guo forms part of a larger regulatory trend, as authorities move to address the legal grey zones that have long surrounded digital asset platforms. The regulator is working to ensure that directors of crypto firms are held to the same standards as those in traditional financial institutions.
Regulatory Shake-Up for Crypto Platforms
The case comes amid broader moves by the Australian government to overhaul crypto regulations. In March 2025, the Treasury proposed a licensing regime for digital asset platforms, aiming to bring exchanges, custodians, and stablecoin issuers under the framework of traditional financial services laws. This includes mandatory redemption guarantees, stronger transparency around token listings, and tighter custody requirements for customer funds.
In a parallel move, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) warned in April that inactive crypto exchanges still registered with the agency may face deregistration, citing the potential for criminal exploitation, including fraud and money laundering.
A Warning for the Crypto Industry
ASIC’s case against Guo sends a clear message: regulatory oversight is intensifying, and misconduct in the digital asset industry will face serious consequences. As Australia sharpens its legal tools to govern the crypto space, both current and former industry leaders are likely to face increased scrutiny. The proceedings against Guo could set a precedent for future actions against those who have operated on the fringes of regulatory compliance.
With crypto adoption continuing to rise, Australia’s proactive stance may serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to balance innovation with investor protection.
