Electronic Financial Transactions Act Violations in Korea: Penalties and Response After Referral to the Public Prosecution Service

Penalty requirements for handing over a bankbook or debit card, procedures after referral to the Public Prosecution Service, and the distinction from aiding and abetting fraud

People are sometimes questioned by the police on suspicion of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act after sending a debit card to obtain a loan, or after handing over a bankbook or debit card in response to an offer of a part-time job or a fee for the use of their account. If the account was then used for voice phishing, a charge of aiding and abetting fraud may also arise.

Referral of a case to the Public Prosecution Service does not by itself mean that criminal punishment is certain. Which provision applies, and whether an offense is established, depends on what access medium was handed over and how, and on whether there was any promise of consideration or awareness that it would be used for a crime.

1. Meaning of an Access Medium Under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

A violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act arises when an access medium used for electronic financial transactions is transferred, lent, kept, delivered, or circulated in a manner prohibited by law. Article 2, Item 10 of the Act defines an access medium as a means or information used to give transaction instructions in electronic financial transactions or to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of the user and the transaction details.

• Electronic cards such as debit cards and cash cards, and equivalent electronic information
• Electronic signature creation data and certificates
• User identification numbers registered with a financial company or electronic financial business operator
• The user's biometric information
• Passwords needed to use an electronic card, electronic signature creation data, or a certificate

Not all financial information is an access medium in the same legal sense. Disclosing only an account number and handing over a debit card together with its PIN must be reviewed separately in terms of the applicable law and the elements of the offense.

2. Penalty Standards for Handing Over a Bankbook or Debit Card

Handing over a bankbook or debit card is not punishable in every case. However, if the conduct amounts to a transfer, a loan made while receiving, demanding, or promising consideration, or a loan or delivery made with knowledge that the medium would be used for a crime, as defined by law, it is subject to criminal punishment.

Prohibited Acts Concerning Access Media

Unless otherwise provided in another law, Article 6(3) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the following acts.

• Transferring or acquiring an access medium
• Borrowing or lending an access medium, or keeping, delivering, or circulating it, while receiving, demanding, or promising consideration
• Borrowing or lending an access medium, or keeping, delivering, or circulating it, for the purpose of using it for a crime or with knowledge that it will be used for a crime
• Pledging an access medium as collateral
• Arranging, brokering, or advertising any of the above acts, or soliciting them while receiving, demanding, or promising consideration

Article 49(4) of the Act provides that a person who violates these prohibitions is subject to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. Whether a person is actually punished, and how severely, depends on the applicable provision, intent, the specific conduct, and the circumstances of the offense.

Liability When No Consideration Was Actually Received

The law covers not only cases in which consideration was actually received but also cases in which it was demanded or promised. If a person agreed to receive a fee and lent a debit card, the elements of the offense may be satisfied even if the promised amount was never paid.

Supreme Court Ruling on Sending a Debit Card to Obtain a Loan

Sending a debit card to obtain a loan does not by itself establish a loan of an access medium in exchange for promised consideration. In a case where the defendant sent a debit card after being told it was needed to repay loan principal and interest, the Supreme Court held that a person who lends an access medium must be aware of receiving, demanding, or promising an economic benefit in return for the loan, and set aside the lower court's conviction (Supreme Court Decision 2022Do5903, July 28, 2022).

The circumstances in which the access medium was provided, what the person was told at the time, and what was actually promised must therefore be examined in detail.

Legal Issues and Supporting Materials by Situation

* The table separates the issues to be reviewed. No single fact in it determines guilt or innocence.

Separate Prohibition on Providing Account Information

Article 6-3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act separately prohibits receiving or providing, or keeping, delivering, or circulating, account-related information for the purpose of using it for a crime or with knowledge that it will be used for a crime. Even without handing over a debit card, other legal issues may arise depending on the type of information provided and the person's awareness at the time.

3. Procedures After Referral to the Public Prosecution Service

Referral is the process by which the police transfer a case they have investigated to a prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service. On October 2, 2026, the Prosecutors' Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency were established, putting into effect a criminal justice system that separates investigation from prosecution. Under Article 4 of the Public Prosecution Service Act, prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service are responsible for, among other things, deciding whether to indict.

Police Investigation and Referral

After questioning the suspect and reviewing the evidence, the police refer the case to a prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service if they conclude that the allegations are substantiated.

Prosecutor's Review and Requests for Supplementary Investigation

The prosecutor reviews the referred case file and determines whether an offense is established and whether indictment is warranted. If further investigation is needed to decide on indictment, the prosecutor may request a supplementary investigation from the judicial police officer under Article 197-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Indictment, Non-Indictment, and Other Dispositions

Under Article 52 of the Regulation on Mutual Cooperation Between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers and General Investigation Rules, the prosecutor decides on a referred case by way of indictment, non-indictment such as a suspension of indictment or no charge, a request for supplementary investigation, or another disposition.

Court Proceedings After Indictment

If the prosecutor files an indictment, the case is decided by the court through summary proceedings or formal trial proceedings. A person who receives notice of referral should first confirm the charge on which the case was referred and whether the materials on the elements of that charge are sufficient.

4. Distinguishing Aiding and Abetting Fraud When the Account Was Used for Voice Phishing

The mere fact that an account in a person's name was used for voice phishing does not automatically establish aiding and abetting fraud. However, if the person provided an access medium or otherwise facilitated the crime while aware that it might be used for a crime, aiding and abetting fraud may also be at issue.

Elements of Aiding and Abetting

Article 32 of the Criminal Act punishes a person who aids and abets another's crime as an accessory and provides that the accessory's punishment is reduced from that of the principal offender. To establish aiding and abetting fraud, there must be more than the mere provision of an account: an act that facilitates the crime and intent with respect to that act must be proven.

Standards for Assessing Intent to Aid and Abet

A claim that the person did not know it was voice phishing may not be enough to defeat the charge. The Supreme Court has held that intent to aid and abet does not require awareness of the specific details of the crime committed by the principal offender, that dolus eventualis (awareness or foresight of the possibility) is sufficient, and that where the defendant denies intent, it may be proven through circumstantial facts closely related to intent (Supreme Court Decision 2022Do649, April 14, 2022).

Investigators may therefore examine not only the suspect's statements but also the following circumstances.

• How the person came into contact with the other party
• What the person was told about the purpose of using the account or card
• Whether there were unusual transactions or remittance instructions
• The details of the funds that moved through the account
• Whether the person remained involved after becoming aware of circumstances suggesting a crime

These circumstances are assessed together with the facts and evidence of each case, and intent cannot be presumed from some circumstances alone. Because violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and aiding and abetting fraud have different elements, each must be reviewed separately.

5. Responding After Referral to the Public Prosecution Service

After referral, the person should confirm exactly which charges apply and organize objective materials that support how the access medium came to be provided and what the person was aware of at the time. Even after the police interview is over, there may be materials to submit or issues to explain while the prosecutor reviews the case.

Confirming the Referred Charges

The offense charged and the course of the investigation should be confirmed through the referral notice or other means. The scope of review differs depending on whether the case concerns only the Electronic Financial Transactions Act or also involves other charges such as aiding and abetting fraud. Even for the same act of providing an access medium, it must be determined whether the issue is a transfer, a loan with promised consideration, or provision with knowledge of criminal use.

Organizing How the Access Medium Was Handed Over

If a debit card was requested during a loan consultation, the person should confirm which financial product was offered and what explanation was given about providing the card. If the person instead agreed to let someone use the account for a period in exchange for a fee, the consideration agreed and the scope of use become the key issues.

Securing Objective Materials

Because statements alone may not adequately explain how events unfolded, the following materials should be checked.

• Text messages, KakaoTalk, and other messenger conversations with the other party
• Loan advertisements and part-time job postings
• Account transaction history and whether any fee was paid
• Records of delivering the debit card or financial information
• Instructions from the other party and call records
• When the person became aware of the crime, and any report or action taken afterward

It is advisable to review materials already submitted together with new materials and to organize them by date. In particular, the person's awareness at the time the access medium was provided should be explained separately from what the person did after learning that it had been used for a crime.

Response Strategy Depending on Whether the Allegations Are Admitted

When contesting the allegations, the review should focus on why the statutory elements are not met and on objective materials that support this. When admitting the offense, the specific circumstances of involvement, the number of acts, the benefit actually obtained, and the status of restitution to victims may be reviewed.

The possibility of non-indictment, such as a suspension of indictment, also depends on the allegations, the evidence, and the specific mitigating circumstances. Rather than simply emphasizing that it is a first offense, it is necessary first to examine what conduct actually occurred and how far legal responsibility for that conduct extends.

6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. I lent my debit card but was never paid. Can I still be punished?

Yes. Even if no consideration was actually received, lending an access medium while demanding or promising consideration may constitute a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Whether there was a legal agreement on consideration and awareness of it must still be assessed separately.

Q2. Can I be punished for sending my debit card to get a loan?

Not necessarily. In a case where the defendant sent a debit card after being told it was needed to repay loan principal and interest, the Supreme Court found it difficult to conclude that the defendant was aware of lending the card in exchange for promised consideration. If other elements, such as awareness of criminal use, are at issue, they must be reviewed separately.

Q3. Will I be questioned again after my case is referred to the Public Prosecution Service?

Not necessarily. A prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service may decide the case after reviewing the referred investigation records and submitted materials, and may request a supplementary investigation from the judicial police officer if more investigation is needed.

Q4. If voice phishing proceeds were deposited into my account, do I have to compensate the victim?

A deposit alone does not automatically establish civil liability for damages. Actual participation, intent or negligence, and the causal link to the loss must be examined, and the requirements for criminal and civil liability are assessed separately.

Q5. Is a suspension of indictment possible for a first-time violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act?

It is possible, but being a first offender does not guarantee it. Many factors must be considered together, including whether the allegations are admitted, the specific circumstances of involvement, the seriousness of the offense, and the status of restitution.

Cases under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act turn on what authority was handed over and whether there was any consideration or awareness related to a crime. Even after referral to the Public Prosecution Service, the elements of the charge and the related evidence should be examined closely before the decision on indictment is made, and where voice phishing is involved, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act violation and aiding and abetting fraud should be considered separately.

Related Laws and Official Sources

• National Law Information Center — Electronic Financial Transactions Act Article 2 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Electronic Financial Transactions Act Article 6 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Electronic Financial Transactions Act Article 6-3 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Electronic Financial Transactions Act Article 49 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Public Prosecution Service Act Article 4 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Criminal Procedure Act Article 197-2 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Regulation on Mutual Cooperation Between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers and General Investigation Rules Article 52 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Criminal Act Article 32 (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Supreme Court Decision 2022Do5903 (July 28, 2022) (Korean)
• National Law Information Center — Supreme Court Decision 2022Do649 (April 14, 2022) (Korean)

* Prepared on the basis of the statutes and case law in force on the National Law Information Center as of November 9, 2026.