If You Are Facing Potential Criminal Liability in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation, This Is Essential Reading
Treating a Voice Phishing Police Investigation as “Witness Questioning” May Already Be Too Late
In voice phishing cases, a police investigation may begin either as a witness interview or, from the outset, as a suspect interrogation, depending on the circumstances.
Once investigative authorities recognize the existence of criminal suspicion and commence an investigation, suspect status is established, and the rights of a suspect—including the right to remain silent—must be guaranteed (Supreme Court of Korea, June 24, 2010, Decision 2008Do12127).
However, even if an investigation begins as a witness interview, the individual’s status may be converted to that of a suspect as allegations become more concrete during questioning. For this reason, careful and strategic action is required from the very early stages.
At the initial stage, investigators typically focus on quickly structuring the case around key issues such as whether bank accounts were provided, whether the individual was involved in the delivery or collection of cash, how instructions were received, and whether any form of compensation was involved.
Depending on the direction of the statements made at this stage, the assessment may shift toward viewing the individual as a minor participant, an aider and abettor, or a co-perpetrator.
Why Saying “I Didn’t Know” Rarely Works in Voice Phishing Cases
In voice phishing investigations, the core issue is not merely whether the individual subjectively recognized the crime, but whether they were aware of the possibility of criminal conduct and nonetheless accepted that risk.
Even if a person claims they did not explicitly recognize the conduct as criminal, criminal liability may still be established where dolus eventualis (conditional intent) is found based on factors such as abnormal transaction structures, repeated involvement, or the existence of financial compensation.
In practice, statements such as “I thought it was suspicious but followed instructions anyway” or “I didn’t know it was illegal” frequently become decisive issues during investigations.
Courts have recognized conditional intent in such cases by comprehensively considering factors including the abnormality of the transaction structure, repeated participation, the existence of monetary compensation, the general social awareness of voice phishing schemes, and any prior experience with similar incidents
(Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606; Seoul Southern District Court, Oct. 28, 2020, Decision 2020GoDan3736).
While claims of good faith may be emotionally understandable, entirely different standards apply in legal evaluation.
The Most Critical Point in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation: Initial Response
Making spontaneous statements without legal counsel during the early stage of an investigation, or submitting to mobile phone and messenger forensic analysis without preparation, carries significant risk.
In particular, many cases follow the same pattern: after being told that “telling the truth will be fine,” individuals provide a full account of events, only to find that the issue later shifts to whether they qualify as an aider, abettor, or co-offender.
Subsequent procedures often progress far more quickly than expected.
Depending on the initial response, cases that could have ended in non-referral at the police stage may proceed to prosecutorial dispositions such as suspension of indictment, summary indictment, or even a full criminal trial.
Each outcome carries distinct legal consequences, making it essential to carefully determine the direction of the case from the very beginning.
A voice phishing police investigation is not a one-time questioning process; failure at the initial response stage often directly determines the final outcome.
Why Legal Assistance from Decent Law Firm Is Essential in Voice Phishing Police Investigations
Decent Law Firm does not merely organize post hoc explanations in voice phishing police investigations.
Before suspect status is formally fixed, we analyze the structure of the case and legally design the scope and direction of statements.
Not all acts of providing accounts or transferring funds result in identical criminal liability.
Co-perpetration under Article 30 of the Criminal Act and aiding and abetting under Article 32 are distinguished based on the degree of joint intent and functional control over the execution of the crime
(Incheon District Court, Nov. 26, 2015, Decisions 2015GoDan2502 and 2015GoDan2957 (consolidated)).
Even in the case of aiding and abetting, conditional awareness or foreseeability of the principal offender’s crime is sufficient to establish liability
(Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606).
Because these legal boundaries must be determined through case-specific analysis, professional legal review is essential from the earliest stage.
If statements recorded in investigative records are not strategically managed, reversing their impact in later proceedings becomes extremely difficult.
A voice phishing police investigation should never be taken lightly.
If an investigation has already begun, attempting to explain everything alone is not the solution. A structured approach—starting with a careful review of the case framework—is required.
