Questionable team leadership and business ethics - Legal Crypto.com Employee Review

1.0
Apr 5, 2023
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Some friendly colleagues. Almost fully remote work. Strong marketing. Starting salary is not bad. Good stepping stone for careers because of the big brand.

Cons

I echo some of the previous reviews here. There is seriously questionable management, legal team leadership, business ethics and transparency. A stressful working environment mainly because of bad leadership. The GC was promoted after joining as a very junior Legal Counsel. Most colleagues know there is unbelievable incompetency and immaturity. This really reflects the low standard of hiring in important positions. Even standard of English is poor as a lawyer. Management don't care about competency, only following orders, so many leadership positions have a similar pattern of bad hiring. There is a lot of open favouritism towards a certain HK team lapdog which everyone is aware of. Many competent lawyers in Asia resigned or were pushed out due to internal politics within 1-2 years. There is a lot of questionable business practices. I wouldn't be surprised if there is eventually public news the business is to be investigated by regulators... Don't believe the many short reviews posted by the internal recruitment team to mislead candidates. This company is constantly hiring... because people are constantly leaving!

Explore other reviews about Crypto.com

5.0
Jan 29, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

they have a lot of jobs

Cons

they are one of the best

2.0
Mar 19, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Work From Home Decent Salary

Cons

In a compliance role, leadership should be willing to listen when analysts/associates raise concerns about regulatory risk, process weaknesses, or policy gaps. In my experience, that was not the culture here. Too often, valid concerns were dismissed instead of taken seriously, even when they involved issues that could affect the firm from a compliance and control perspective. What made the experience especially frustrating was the leadership style within parts of compliance. Rather than encouraging open dialogue, managers came across as defensive, dismissive, and more focused on protecting their own authority than addressing the substance of the issue and creating a toxic environment where raising concerns did not feel safe or productive. Instead of approaching issues in a professional and solution-oriented way, interactions could become personal, degrading, and hostile. This became even more concerning when the NAM compliance department later failed several items in an internal audit, including areas that had already been flagged by analysts as process or policy gaps. That, to me, reflected a broader problem: important concerns were being raised internally, but not handled with the seriousness or humility they required. There was also very little transparency or accountability when it came to employee development, feedback, or career progression. Communication with subordinates was poor, and employees were not given meaningful support or clarity around growth opportunities. HR was equally disappointing. From my perspective, there did not appear to be a reliable or well-structured path for employees to raise concerns and expect a fair resolution. Overall, my experience was that parts of the compliance culture operated more like an insular power structure than a healthy control function. For a company in a heavily regulated space, that is a serious leadership and culture problem.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All