A Bybit customer says their account has now been restricted for 70 days without a final compliance decision or access to funds, prompting the user to escalate the dispute to regulators in the United Arab Emirates after repeated support escalations failed to produce a resolution timetable.
The customer said in a September 28 Reddit post that Bybit continues to describe the compliance review as escalated and marked “top priority,” while telling them that no further action is currently required. The user says they have now contacted Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, or VARA, and submitted a violation report to the UAE’s federal capital-markets regulator.
The claims have not been independently verified, and Bybit has not publicly commented on the specific case. The post identifies compliance appeal 01KY1KHS9D7B98T7ARJ3QDX39B and support case #27509855.
The complaint is notable because it follows other recent customer reports describing unusually long Bybit compliance reviews. DaveFinances previously covered a separate case in which a customer said 7,032 USDT had remained inaccessible since a June compliance review.
Other Bybit Users Describe Similar Two-Month Reviews
The latest Reddit thread quickly drew responses from other users claiming comparable timelines.
One commenter said their own restriction had lasted more than 70 days. Another said a review took roughly 70 days before reaching an outcome. Those comments are anecdotal and do not establish how common such cases are across Bybit’s wider customer base.
However, the reports are consistent with other recent discussions in Bybit-related communities.
In a separate September thread, users described compliance restrictions lasting roughly two months before some accounts were eventually terminated and withdrawals made available. One customer said their account was closed after about 20 days of review and that they received a 120-hour period to withdraw their assets. Another said a roughly two-month restriction ended in termination followed by withdrawal access.
Those outcomes have also not been independently verified by Bybit.
Other complaints have involved different triggers. Several customers recently said their Bybit accounts were restricted after small payments linked to Heleket, illustrating how blockchain transaction screening can escalate relatively modest transfers into broader account reviews.
Bybit’s Terms Give It Broad Powers to Restrict Accounts
Bybit’s current UAE terms give the exchange broad authority to suspend or limit accounts when it considers activity suspicious, unauthorized or potentially connected to fraud, money laundering or other illegal activity.
The terms also allow restrictions when Bybit cannot verify information supplied by a customer, when a competent authority directs it to act or when restrictions are required by applicable law.
Importantly, the terms reviewed by DaveFinances do not specify a maximum duration for an investigation-driven account suspension.
They also state that Bybit does not have to disclose the underlying reason for suspending, terminating or freezing an account in certain circumstances. That can create an obvious tension between financial-crime controls and customer expectations: compliance teams may deliberately disclose little during a live investigation, while customers can be left without a clear deadline or explanation.
If an account is ultimately closed, Bybit’s UAE terms say users must withdraw their virtual assets and fiat before closure and that the company will use commercially reasonable efforts to return virtual assets remaining in terminated accounts.
That makes termination followed by withdrawal access a plausible endpoint under Bybit’s framework, although the 120-hour windows described by Reddit users appear to be case-specific customer reports rather than a universal timeline stated in the public terms.
The UAE Complaint Route Is More Complicated Than It First Appears
The customer’s regulatory escalation adds another layer because Bybit operates through different legal entities and regulatory frameworks.
Bybit’s current UAE terms identify Bybit Virtual Asset Platform Operator L.L.C. – S.P.C. as an Abu Dhabi-incorporated virtual asset service provider regulated by the UAE Capital Market Authority under licence number 20200000337.
The CMA replaced the Securities and Commodities Authority, or SCA, at the beginning of 2026. The customer described their submission using the older SCA name, which remains familiar and is still reflected in parts of the regulator’s web infrastructure.
Dubai is different. VARA’s public register currently lists Bybit Fintech FZE as holding an in-principle approval for exchange services rather than a full VASP licence. VARA states that firms holding only an in-principle approval cannot begin virtual-asset operations or service customers under that approval until a full licence is obtained.
That means the regulator with direct responsibility for an individual complaint can depend on the particular Bybit entity that contracted with the customer and where the service was provided.
The distinction also appears elsewhere in Bybit’s regulatory structure. In Europe, customers use a separately regulated entity, and the exchange’s regional segmentation was recently visible when Bybit EU became the recommended alternative for Dutch MEXC customers under the EU’s MiCA framework.
A Violation Report May Not Be the Same as a Personal Funds Complaint
There is another important detail in the customer’s chosen escalation route.
The UAE regulator’s official capital-market violation reporting service distinguishes between a regulatory violation report and a personal complaint.
According to the authority, a complaint is generally intended to protect an individual’s rights against a regulated firm and can involve a financial claim. A violation report, by contrast, is intended to flag conduct that may violate financial-market laws in the wider public interest.
The service also lists an estimated processing period of 90 days.
That does not mean the current Bybit matter will take another three months, nor does it indicate how the regulator will classify the submission. But it does mean regulatory escalation should not automatically be interpreted as an immediate route to unlocking an account.
The authority could determine that another complaint mechanism is more appropriate, request additional material, examine whether the matter falls within its jurisdiction or engage with the regulated entity directly.
The 70-Day Cluster Is the More Important Signal
One customer waiting 70 days can be an exceptional compliance case.
Several unrelated customers describing roughly the same two-month experience is more interesting.
It still does not prove systematic misconduct. Crypto exchanges deal with sanctions screening, blockchain analytics, source-of-funds reviews, fraud indicators and legal requests that can make some cases materially more complicated than ordinary customer-service tickets.
But a pattern of extended reviews with no estimated completion date creates a different risk: the compliance process itself becomes a customer-access issue.
This distinction matters because recent online speculation has sometimes jumped from withdrawal complaints to much broader claims about Bybit’s financial condition. As DaveFinances previously reported, Reddit claims about possible Bybit insolvency lacked supporting evidence. Long compliance holds are not, by themselves, evidence that an exchange cannot meet its liabilities.
The more defensible question is narrower: how long can a centralized exchange restrict a verified customer while an internal risk review remains open, particularly when support channels cannot provide a decision date?
Regulatory Escalation Creates a New Observable Test
That is why this case becomes more useful to watch from September 28 onward.
Until now, the customer’s path appears to have followed the familiar exchange escalation chain: customer support, compliance review, internal escalation and “top priority” status.
None of those steps, according to the customer, produced a deadline.
Regulatory escalation creates an external event that can now be observed. There are several possible outcomes.
Bybit could complete the compliance review and restore the account. It could terminate the relationship while giving the customer a limited period to withdraw funds, matching the outcome reported by some other users. The regulator could request additional information or determine that the complaint belongs with another authority. Or the review could continue with little immediate change.
The most revealing outcome would not necessarily be whether the customer remains a Bybit user. It would be whether outside regulatory involvement forces a definitive decision after more than two months of internal review.
If termination and withdrawal access again become the resolution after approximately 70 days, the emerging pattern would deserve closer scrutiny. It could suggest that some lengthy Bybit compliance cases are eventually being resolved not by clearing customers to resume trading, but by ending the commercial relationship and returning their assets.
For now, however, the evidence consists of individual customer reports rather than a disclosed Bybit policy or regulatory finding.
The next concrete development will therefore matter more than another support escalation: whether the 70-day customer receives reinstatement, a withdrawal-and-termination notice, a regulatory response or simply another request to wait.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape.