Bitget

Named twice by the same regulator

Japan’s Financial Services Agency published a warning document naming Bitget Limited of Singapore, with Gracy Chen as its representative, on 28 November 2024, for having "conducted crypto-asset exchange business with residents of Japan as counterparties through the internet" without registration, in breach of article 63-2 of the Payment Services Act 1. The FSA’s standing list of unregistered operators carries the same company from an earlier warning in March 2023 2.

Four of the eight exchanges ranked here are on that list, warned on the same day, which is the proportion to keep in mind: Japan registers no offshore exchange that will not live inside its rules, so this is a statement about market access rather than about client money. Being named twice, nineteen months apart, is the part specific to this company.

What is not disclosed

Bitget does not disclose its operating legal entity on its own site and publishes no incident reports. That is the weakest transparency score of the eight, and it is the reason the only company name on this page — Bitget Limited of Singapore — came from a Japanese regulator’s warning document 1 rather than from the exchange.

Against that: no customer-funds breach on record, a proof-of-reserves publication, and a protection fund the company says is large. None of those is audited by a third party here, which is the ordinary state of this industry and the reason the solvency component treats a self-published snapshot as the weakest evidence it will take.

What the warnings turned into

Two warnings from the same regulator eventually produced a withdrawal. Bitget stopped accepting new registrations from Japanese residents in August 2026, and from November existing users there cannot open new positions or add to old ones across its product lines 3.

Elsewhere it is trying the other route: it applied in 2025 for authorisation under the EU’s markets in crypto-assets regime through the Austrian regulator, and as of the middle of 2026 that application had not been decided 3. A pending application is not a licence and it is not an enforcement matter either — it is a company choosing to ask rather than to route around, which is the opposite of what the Japanese warnings describe.

Both facts belong on a page a reader uses to decide where to open an account, because the question they are really asking is whether this exchange will take them, and keep taking them. On current evidence the answer depends heavily on where they live and is moving.