1. What did the Kazakhstan court order?
A court in Kazakhstan's Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) has barred Coinbase and five other crypto platforms from offering unlicensed digital asset services inside the centre, the Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA) said on October 20. The injunctions, handed down in a September 15 judgment, also stop the six firms from marketing those services or distributing related mobile apps there.
In plain terms, the AIFC Court told the companies that if they want to serve customers in the centre, they first need to hold the proper licence. An injunction is a binding judicial order to stop doing something, and ignoring it can expose a company to further legal consequences. The ruling therefore turns what had been a regulatory warning into an enforceable court directive.
The case matters beyond Kazakhstan because it involves some of the better-known names in the industry, including a US-listed exchange that is among the largest in the world by customer numbers. It also shows how a regulator in a specialised financial zone can use the courts, rather than only its own supervisory powers, to push overseas platforms toward compliance.
Readers should also note what the order does not say. Nothing in the announcement alleges fraud, theft or any harm to customers. The dispute is about authorisation: whether a platform is entitled to offer regulated digital asset services in a particular jurisdiction without first being licensed by the authority responsible for that jurisdiction. That is a narrower matter than a criminal case, but it carries real consequences for firms that depend on reaching customers across borders.
2. Which exchanges are covered by the injunctions?
According to AFSA, the injunctions cover six platforms: BingX, Bitcoin.com, Huobi Global (also known as HTX), BitMart, Coinbase and WEEX. All six are prohibited from offering or promoting digital asset services in the AIFC without authorisation, and from making available mobile applications through which such services are delivered.
The restriction on promotion is as significant as the restriction on service. A platform that never formally opens accounts for local users can still run afoul of a licensing regime if it advertises to people in the jurisdiction. By naming marketing and app distribution explicitly, the order closes off the most common routes through which an offshore exchange reaches new customers.
The mention of mobile applications reflects how most retail crypto trading now takes place. For many users, the exchange is an app on a phone, and the app store is the front door. Restricting distribution of those apps in the centre goes directly to the channel through which many people would sign up.
The list is also notable for its mix. Some of the names are exchanges with global trading volumes, while Bitcoin.com is widely associated with wallet and trading products for retail users. The common thread is not size or business model but the absence of an AIFC licence at the time AFSA acted. In that sense, the regulator applied one standard to firms of very different profiles.
3. Does the Coinbase Kazakhstan order apply across the whole country?
No. The injunctions are not a nationwide ban. In the September 15 judgment, Justice Sir Stephen Richards ruled that the orders apply only to the AIFC and to users who are located there. Customers elsewhere in Kazakhstan are not covered by the court's decision, so the practical reach is narrower than the headline list of names might suggest.
That limit follows from how the centre is built. The AIFC is a financial hub in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, and it operates with its own legal framework and its own regulator. Crypto firms that wish to provide services in the centre must obtain a licence before doing so. The court's authority and AFSA's licensing rules both stop at the boundary of that framework.
For the platforms, the distinction is important. A ruling confined to a single financial centre is a far smaller commercial problem than a countrywide prohibition, although the reputational weight of a court order naming a company as an unlicensed operator is not trivial. For users in Astana's financial district, the practical consequence is that access to these services through compliant channels is not available unless a platform later secures a licence.
It is worth separating the legal reach of the court from the commercial footprint of the exchanges. A ruling that applies strictly to users within the centre leaves untouched whatever business these firms conduct with customers elsewhere in Kazakhstan, which is governed by the country's own digital asset law rather than by the centre's framework. The two regimes sit side by side, and the 2023 website block against Coinbase came from the national side of that divide.
4. What role do Apple and Google play in the order?
The order also binds Google and Apple in their capacity as app-store operators, since they control how mobile applications reach users. However, the court declined to issue a separate injunction against the two technology companies. Instead, it stated that AFSA should first discuss the necessary steps with them.
That approach gives the regulator a measured path. Rather than compelling two global technology groups through a direct order from the outset, the court asked the authority to engage them and work out what compliance would require. Reports on the matter describe possible app-store duties arising once the companies have been formally served with the relevant papers.
If the app-store operators eventually have to act, the likely effect would be restricting the listed exchanges' apps for users in the AIFC. That would be a more technical and more effective form of enforcement than pursuing the exchanges alone, because the exchanges are mostly based outside Kazakhstan and may be difficult to reach through ordinary legal channels.
Serving papers on companies of this size is itself a procedural step, and the court's decision not to issue a stand-alone injunction means the app-store duties are contingent rather than immediate. Until the two companies are served and engage with AFSA, the order leaves their obligations undefined, and any change to what users in the centre can download would follow only after that process.
5. Why was LBank removed from the case?
A seventh platform, LBank, was named in the initial proceedings but is no longer subject to the order. It was removed on September 18, three days after the judgment, after it addressed AFSA's concerns. The regulator said the platform had blocked access to its services in Kazakhstan.
LBank's exit shows what the regulator treats as a satisfactory outcome. The authority's stated concern is unlicensed activity within its jurisdiction, and a platform that cuts off access to local users resolves that concern without needing a licence. Whether the six remaining firms choose to follow the same route, or to pursue authorisation, is not yet known.
The contrast also illustrates the choice facing any international exchange confronted with a regional licensing regime. It can apply for authorisation and accept the associated supervision, it can restrict access from the territory, or it can ignore the demand and risk a court order. In this case, six firms did not respond in time, and a court order followed.
For the regulator, a removal like this is also a useful precedent. It signals that cooperation after proceedings have begun can bring a case to a close for a given company, which may encourage other warned platforms to engage rather than wait for a judgment. For the court, the removal shows the proceedings were aimed at changing behaviour inside the centre rather than at punishing firms for past conduct.
6. How did the enforcement effort unfold?
The court entered a default judgment because the platform operators did not respond within the required period. A default judgment is a ruling issued when a defendant fails to take part in the proceedings; the court decides on the material before it without hearing the defendant's side. It does not necessarily mean the defendants accept the findings, and it can in some systems be challenged.
AFSA said its enforcement campaign began in 2025 with warnings sent to more than 20 crypto platforms. Court proceedings followed in early 2026. The sequence of warnings first and litigation second is typical of regulators that prefer to give firms an opportunity to comply voluntarily before seeking binding orders.
Of the more than 20 platforms that received warnings, six are now under injunction and one more was dropped from the case after taking corrective action. The authority did not say in the material reviewed what became of the remaining firms that were warned.
The timeline also shows how long such a process can take. Warnings in 2025, proceedings in early 2026 and a judgment in September 2026 mean the effort ran for well over a year before binding orders were in place. Regulators in financial centres with a small domestic market often rely on this patient approach, because a licence regime is only credible if unlicensed operators eventually face consequences.
7. What is Coinbase's history in Kazakhstan, and what comes next?
This is not the first time Coinbase has encountered restrictions in the country. In 2023, Kazakh authorities blocked the exchange's website over alleged violations of the country's digital asset law. The latest order concerns a different mechanism, a court injunction within the Astana financial centre, but it adds to a record of friction between the exchange and local regulators.
The platforms had not responded to requests for comment by the time the news was published, so their positions on the injunctions remain unstated. It is also unclear whether any of them intends to seek a licence from AFSA, restrict access in the centre, or contest the judgment.
The next visible step is AFSA's discussion with Apple and Google about what the order requires of them as app-store operators. The outcome of those talks will show whether the injunctions translate into concrete limits on app availability for users in the AIFC. Until then, the order stands as a clear signal that the Astana financial centre intends to enforce its licensing requirement for crypto services through the courts.