국문 KR 영문 EN

The Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Not a “Manual,” but a Legal Benchmark

Many people understand the Bitcoin whitepaper as nothing more than a technical document.
 

In actual disputes or criminal investigations, however, the whitepaper functions not as a simple explanation, but as the starting point for legal judgment.
 

The contents of a whitepaper serve as key evidence in determining how a project was structured, what assumptions underpinned its design, and what representations were made to users or investors.
 

The assumption that “having a whitepaper makes a project lawful” is therefore highly dangerous.
 

If, at an early stage, a project adopts or modifies the structure of Bitcoin without proper legal review, and the actual operational model differs from what was explained to investors, such conduct may be evaluated as deceptive.
 

In particular, where a project promises principal protection or high returns while in practice paying earlier participants using funds from later investors—a so-called Ponzi scheme—fraud charges may be established (see Seoul High Court Decision, Aug. 7, 2020, Case No. 2020No596).
 

From this point onward, the matter clearly exceeds the limits of what an individual or business can assess on its own.
 

For those losing sleep over these concerns, meaningful solutions do not begin with technology, but with a legal perspective.
 

Risks That Arise When the Whitepaper and Actual Operations Diverge

Problems arise when elements that do not exist in the Bitcoin whitepaper are added during real-world business operations.
 

Typical examples include discrepancies in profit-sharing methods, reward mechanisms, or the identity of the actual operator compared to what is described in the whitepaper.
 

When technical explanations and business operations are not clearly separated—particularly where multi-level membership recruitment structures or principal-guarantee arrangements are involved—the structure may constitute violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Authorization or the Door-to-Door Sales Act.
 

Furthermore, if high returns are promised to investors despite the absence of any realistic ability to generate such returns, fraud liability may arise.
 

The extent to which discrepancies between a whitepaper and actual operations are legally tolerable is assessed from the standpoint of investor protection and transactional fairness.
 

Legal liability is especially likely to arise in cases such as the following:
 

• The whitepaper describes a decentralized structure, but in reality a specific entity controls token issuance and distribution

• The technical development plan or business model stated in the whitepaper is false or lacks any realistic feasibility

• Investor returns are sourced not from genuine business revenue but from funds contributed by new investors

Accordingly, without legal review at the whitepaper drafting or reference stage, projects may later face liabilities that are extremely difficult to manage or unwind.
 

Issues That Become Critical During Investigations and Trials

Investigative authorities and courts do not focus on the technical sophistication of a Bitcoin whitepaper.
 

Instead, the following issues are central:
 

• Substance of fund flows: whether investor funds were used as described in the whitepaper, or diverted to pay returns to earlier investors

• Identification of responsible parties: who actually planned and operated the business, and whether the individual was merely an investor or a de facto operator

• Existence of return guarantees: whether principal protection or fixed returns were promised, and whether there was any actual capacity to honor such promises

Simply asserting that a project “referred to the Bitcoin whitepaper” does not constitute a viable defense.
 

The initial design of the structure and the manner in which it was presented to investors directly translate into legal responsibility. Beginning a response only at the investigation or trial stage is often already too late.
 

In crypto-related fraud cases, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply. Where the amount obtained through deception exceeds KRW 5 billion, punishment may include life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years.
 

Where unauthorized fund-raising or multi-level marketing structures are combined with such conduct, enhanced penalties under multiple statutes may apply (see Suwon District Court Decision, Sept. 23, 2022, Case No. 2022No1558).
 

For this reason, legal review by qualified professionals is essential from the business-structure design stage.
 

Why Legal Interpretation of the Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Essential

Ultimately, how a Bitcoin whitepaper should be interpreted, and how far it may be reflected in an actual business model, is a quintessential legal judgment.
 

Decent Law Firm conducts an integrated review of:
 

• the original intent of the Bitcoin whitepaper

• the actual business and operational structure

• fundraising and reward mechanisms

• regulatory and investigative perspectives

Through this approach, we provide not merely isolated advice, but consistent legal support that spans from structural design to dispute resolution and investigation response.

Issues surrounding the Bitcoin whitepaper are not matters of technical debate—they are questions of legal liability.
 

This is precisely where the involvement of professionals with substantial experience in virtual asset cases becomes indispensable.