-
Blogs CryptoCrypto Referral Marketing: Illegal Promotion Risks
Regulatory Boundaries Under Close Scrutiny by Financial Authorities Crypto referral marketing is not always assessed as mere “simple promotion.” Crypto referral activities are often perceived as nothing more than introductions or connection services. Many believe they are legally safe because they do not directly handle virtual assets and because the exchange itself is operated by a separate entity. However, actual legal assessments may differ significantly from this perception. Investigative authorities and courts focus not on labels or contractual form, but on the substantive function the activity performs within the transaction structure. If the conduct goes beyond providing a simple link and instead induces trading participation or repeatedly and continuously encourages the use of a specific platform, such activity may be deemed to exceed the scope of mere promotion and qualify as virtual asset business activity under applicable law. Key Factors in Determining Whether Crypto Referral Marketing Is Problematic Whether a crypto-related marketing activity constitutes a reportable virtual asset business under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information is determined through a holistic assessment, not a single criterion. Authorities typically consider the following factors in combination: Existence of profit motive and the structure of revenue generation Whether economic benefits are linked to trading volume, performance, or number of registered users Whether the activity is repetitive and continuous (as opposed to a one-time act) Degree of direct or indirect involvement in user acquisition Whether the activity performs a substantive role in brokering, arranging, or facilitating virtual asset transactions Existence of human or physical business infrastructure Individually, each factor may appear insignificant. However, when multiple elements are combined, the activity may be deemed a virtual asset business subject to reporting obligations under the law. Common Misconceptions Regarding Crypto-Related Marketing Activities A frequent misconception in practice is the belief that “because the exchange operator exists separately, I am merely an introducer.” However, criminal and administrative liability is assessed based on the individual’s actual role and function, not the overall business structure (Seoul Southern District Court, Judgment dated December 5, 2024, Case No. 2024No1247). Even where overseas exchanges or foreign entities are involved, if crypto-related marketing activities target users in Korea, the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information may still apply. Moreover, modifying promotional language or altering contractual forms after an issue has been identified does not affect the legal evaluation of past conduct. Article 17(1) of the Act provides that anyone who engages in virtual asset business activities without filing the required report may be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. Post hoc formal changes alone are therefore insufficient to avoid liability for already committed violations. What Should Be Reviewed Now in Crypto Referral Marketing Cases Crypto referral marketing cases require simultaneous analysis of criminal liability, regulatory interpretation, and actual transaction structures. Accordingly, Decent Law Firm provides early-stage legal support through the following approaches: Detailed classification of involvement by activity type and timeline Review of responsibility scope based on revenue structure and role allocation Preemptive assessment of criminal risk based on repetition and continuity Examination of Korean legal issues applicable even when overseas exchanges or structures are used Strategic restructuring and response planning prior to formal criminal determination Crypto referral marketing cases are judged not by outcomes, but by legal risk potential. For those already concerned about these issues, early review is often the most realistic way to reduce future exposure. How the structure is organized at the initial stage can significantly affect the eventual scope of liability.
2026-01-12 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Virtual Asset Service Providers Can Now Become Targets of Criminal Investigation
Why Was I Classified as a “Virtual Asset Service Provider”? Many people perceive their conduct as nothing more than simple promotion, operational support, referral activity, customer assistance, or community management. Some believe they never held or managed virtual assets themselves, and that a separate party operated the platform. However, in practice, this perception is often not accepted as it stands. Investigative authorities do not focus on labels or contractual form, but on the degree of actual involvement. What matters is how one contributed to attracting investors, how the activity was connected to the revenue structure, and whether such conduct was carried out continuously or repeatedly. At this stage, many individuals first experience a sense of crisis, realizing, “I didn’t know this could be illegal to this extent.” In reality, many virtual asset–related cases begin not with clear criminal intent, but with poor judgment and misunderstandings about the structure of the business. This article aims to provide practical guidance for those facing similar concerns. Please read the following carefully, as it outlines key issues that should not be overlooked. Legal Definition and Criteria for Determining a Virtual Asset Service Provider 1) Statutory Definition Under Article 2(1)(h) of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information and Article 2(2) of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, a “virtual asset service provider” refers to any person who, as a business, engages in activities related to virtual assets, including ① buying or selling, ② exchanging, ③ transferring, ④ safekeeping or managing, or ⑤ brokering, arranging, or acting as an intermediary. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Specified Financial Information Act, virtual asset service providers must report to the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). Any person who conducts virtual asset transactions as a business without filing such a report is subject to criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Article 17(1) of the same Act). 2) Standards Established by Supreme Court Precedent In determining whether a person qualifies as a virtual asset service provider, the Supreme Court has held that the key inquiry is whether the individual continuously and repeatedly engages in virtual asset transactions for profit. This determination must be made reasonably, based on social norms, by comprehensively considering factors such as the purpose, type, scale, frequency, duration, and manner of the transactions (Supreme Court Decision, December 12, 2024, Case No. 2024Do10710). The Court further clarified that a general user who continuously and repeatedly trades or exchanges virtual assets solely through an exchange for their own account and benefit would, absent special circumstances, be unlikely to qualify as a virtual asset service provider. However, a person who continuously and repeatedly conducts virtual asset transactions for the benefit of an unspecified number of customers or users, and receives compensation in return, may in principle be deemed a virtual asset service provider (Supreme Court Decision, September 11, 2025, Case No. 2024Do12420). 3) Practical Factors Considered in Investigations Investigative authorities prioritize substance over form. In practice, the likelihood of being classified as a virtual asset service provider increases when the following factors are combined: Access to or ability to manage investor funds or virtual assets Substantial involvement in transaction execution, operation, or intermediation A profit-oriented revenue structure, such as fees, performance-based compensation, or referral commissions Continuity, organization, and repetition of the activity Common Misunderstandings 1) “I Only Lent My Name” or “I Only Provided Technical Support” Such arguments are rarely accepted in practice. In criminal proceedings, courts focus not on formal titles or contractual arrangements, but on the actual performance of tasks and the allocation of profits. Where a conspiracy or joint participation is recognized, even a person who handled only part of the operations may be held jointly liable for the entire offense (Criminal Act, Article 30). 2) Overseas Exchanges, Foreign Corporations, or Offshore Servers Formal structures such as overseas exchanges, foreign entities, or relocating servers abroad do not, in themselves, constitute grounds for exemption from liability. Under Articles 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act, both Korean nationals and foreign nationals who commit crimes within the territory of the Republic of Korea are subject to Korean criminal law, and Korean nationals may also be subject to Korean law for crimes committed abroad. Accordingly, if a business structure targeting domestic users is identified, Korean criminal law may apply regardless of server location or place of incorporation. 3) “I Can File a Report Later” This assumption can lead to irreversible consequences. Article 17(1) of the Specified Financial Information Act imposes criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million on those who conduct virtual asset transactions as a business without filing a report. Such violations cannot be cured through ex post reporting. Moreover, to file a valid report as a virtual asset service provider, requirements such as ① obtaining Information Security Management System (ISMS) certification, and ② securing real-name verified deposit and withdrawal accounts must be satisfied (Article 7(3) of the same Act). Even if these requirements are met at a later stage, criminal liability for previously unreported business operations cannot be avoided. This is therefore a matter that should never be taken lightly. Decent Law Firm’s Assistance – Why Immediate Intervention Is Critical The most dangerous scenario in virtual asset cases arises when investigative authorities have already structured the case internally on the assumption that the individual is a virtual asset service provider, while the individual themselves remains unaware of this classification. In such circumstances, explanations offered may function not as a defense, but as confirmation. Decent Law Firm’s approach begins by dismantling and reassessing the structure of the case. We separate operational, promotional, technical, and financial elements by function and timeline, reorganizing the actual scope of involvement and examining whether the classification as a service provider itself can be contested. At the same time, we assess whether there is room to avoid designation as a principal or accomplice, and how far criminal liability may extend. Beyond criminal defense, we also evaluate long-term administrative risks, including FIU sanctions and future reporting restrictions. At this stage, the need for professional intervention is clear. A single misstep can lead to irreversible consequences. If you have already been contacted by authorities or informed of a potential change in your legal status, this is not a matter to assess on your own. In virtual asset service provider cases, the initial response strategy effectively determines the outcome. If you are reading this, you are still at a point where a strategic response can be formed.
2026-01-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
If Recovering Losses from a Copy Trading Scam Is Urgent
1. How Copy Trading Scams Typically Begin Copy trading scams often start by gaining investors’ trust through phrases such as automated trading, professional management, or profit mirroring. Statements like “you don’t need to trade yourself” or “just follow a verified account” appear to reduce the burden of investment decisions. In fact, small profits may be generated in the early stages, making the scheme seem like a legitimate investment. However, after a certain period, a recurring pattern of inducing additional deposits begins. As the invested amount increases, withdrawals are delayed. Investors are asked to prepay fees or accept changing conditions, followed by loss of contact or restricted account access—at which point the damage becomes final. Unlike a simple investment loss, cases suspected to involve copy trading scams hinge on whether there was an intent to deceive investors and unlawfully obtain financial gain. Because this determination is made by comprehensively examining the transaction structure, fund management practices, and the operator’s conduct, becoming a victim without having the opportunity to explain one’s position is far from uncommon. 2. The Core Structure That Makes It Look Like a Legitimate Investment Copy trading scams are often highly sophisticated in appearance. They are designed to resemble lawful investment services through real-time trading screens, screenshots of profit verification, and performance graphs. Some even use interfaces similar to actual exchanges to eliminate suspicion. However, there is a clear gap between the structure perceived by the investor and the way the system is actually operated. Whether this discrepancy constitutes a violation of the duty to disclose material information or amounts to deceptive conduct depends on the specific facts of each case. If there is a material inconsistency between how the investment structure was explained and how it was actually operated—and that inconsistency influenced the investor’s decision—it may serve as a key basis for establishing fraud. 3. The Three Questions Victims Ask Most Frequently Q1. Can it still be considered fraud even if I actually made profits? Yes. Initial profit payouts are often used to build trust and induce additional deposits. The key issue is not whether profits occurred, but how those profits were generated. Q2. The account was in my name—can this still be considered fraud? What matters more than the account holder’s name is who actually controlled the trades and the funds. If the operator effectively controlled the transactions, it may be difficult to view the activity as a normal investment. Q3. When should I consider legal action if withdrawals are blocked? Once withdrawal conditions are repeatedly changed or additional payments are demanded, delaying a response is risky. If this is accompanied by avoidance of contact or account restrictions, immediate legal assessment is required. 4. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat copy trading scam cases as mere investment disputes. From the earliest stage, we focus not only on individual losses, but on the overall transaction structure and fund flows. We organize legal issues based on the substance of the investment method, the operator’s level of involvement, and indicators of fund control. Based on this analysis, we assess the feasibility of criminal complaints and investigation responses, while also considering parallel recovery measures such as civil damages claims or restitution of unjust enrichment. In copy trading scam cases, outcomes vary significantly depending on the initial response. Drawing on extensive experience with virtual asset and automated trading matters, we provide clear, practice-oriented strategies that reflect the key points investigators focus on. Accurately identifying the structure is what ultimately determines the direction of the case.
2026-01-05 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
If You Are a Victim of Telegram Crypto Scams—Read This Carefully
1. How Telegram Crypto Scams Work & Common Tactics Telegram itself is merely a messaging app. The scams exploit anonymity, closed private groups, and bots to deceive victims and induce mistakes. In practice, perpetrators use false information or exaggerated profit promises to mislead victims into making incorrect decisions and then misappropriate their assets. They often rush decisions with phrases like “signal room,” “VIP,” “inside information,” “kimchi premium,” “airdrop,” or “high-yield staking,” following a recurring pattern: deposit inducement (deception) → withdrawal restrictions (retaining proceeds and concealing losses) → requests for additional payments (secondary deception) → disappearance (evidence destruction and flight). Legally, fraud can already be established at the moment of the initial deposit inducement. Subsequent stages may constitute a continuation of the offense or separate counts of fraud. Common scam types include: Signal-room schemes: Promising “multiple-X returns” or “stop-loss lines,” then charging membership or commission fees. Fake exchanges/apps: Luring users via links, showing fake profits, then blocking withdrawals. Advance withdrawal fee schemes: Demanding extra transfers for “fees,” “taxes,” or “KYC costs” before withdrawal. Wallet connection/signature scams: Inducing wallet connections or signatures under the guise of verification or airdrops to drain assets. OTC direct-deal scams: Promising USDT exchange or similar services, taking the transfer, then cutting contact. 2. Telegram Crypto Scam Red Flags The more of the following that apply, the higher the likelihood of deception: Guaranteed principal or profits. Pressure to decide quickly and discouragement of external verification. Claims that additional deposits are required to withdraw. Vague or unverifiable exchange/project information; difficulty confirming official channels. Requests to transfer funds to third-party accounts or personal wallet addresses. Instructions to delete chats, prohibit screenshots, or otherwise avoid leaving evidence. 3. What to Do Within 24 Hours & How to Secure Evidence First, stop all additional transfers immediately. Claims like “withdrawal will be released once you pay the fee” often lead to secondary losses. Preserve evidence: Telegram chats can be auto-deleted or removed by the other party. Immediately save screenshots, screen recordings, and exported chats for group rooms, DMs, announcements, and instructions. Collect evidence: Counterparty IDs, room links/names, inducement messages, deposit/withdrawal records, TXIDs, wallet addresses, timestamps and amounts, and KRW transfer records (recipient name and account). Create a timeline: Summarize on a single page “when–who–what was said–where–how much was sent.” Immediate actions: KRW transfers: Contact the relevant financial institution at once to request payment suspension for suspected scam accounts pursuant to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Upon report, the institution should promptly suspend payments where scam use is suspected. Crypto transfers: As virtual assets are not directly covered by the Act, contact the relevant exchange immediately to request withdrawal blocking under its terms, and file a report with investigative authorities to seek exchange cooperation and on-chain tracing. Parallel legal steps: Criminal complaint: File promptly for fraud (Criminal Act Art. 347) to enable investigation, suspect identification, and asset tracing. Civil action: If the perpetrator’s identity and assets can be identified, consider a damages claim (Civil Act Arts. 750, 751) and pre-judgment attachment to prevent asset dissipation. Recovery options: Consider compensation orders within criminal proceedings or applications for crime-victim relief funds, where applicable. 4. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Decent Law Firm structures the facts to identify key deception points and fund flows required for complaints and petitions. We systematize chat records, transaction histories, and wallet movements into evidentiary packages aligned with investigative tracing and recovery procedures, while assessing the practicality of civil measures such as attachments and damages claims to maximize cost-effectiveness. Above all, we focus on preventing secondary losses at the most vulnerable stage—additional payment inducements—by providing clear, timely guidance. If you have been affected, we encourage you to seek advice before it’s too late.
2026-01-01 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Promoting Bybit Coin Referrals Is Now Risky — Illegality Concerns Are Real
1. Why Coin Referrals Are Becoming a Serious Legal Issue In recent virtual asset–related investigations, referral structures such as Bybit coin referrals have been repeatedly scrutinized. This trend stems from the clear stance taken by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The FIU has consistently emphasized that it is, in principle, illegal for unreported virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to solicit, broker, or intermediate transactions for Korean residents, or to support KRW-based payments. At present, only 27 operators have completed official registration in Korea. If domestic or overseas platforms not included on this list operate Korean-language websites, provide KRW deposits or withdrawals, or conduct promotions targeting Korean users, they face a substantial risk of violating the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “Specified Financial Information Act”). This standard applies equally to overseas exchanges if they target Korean residents. The core issue, however, lies in the lack of a clearly defined boundary as to what constitutes “virtual asset service provider activity.” Because enforcement authorities assess factors such as repetition, fee structures, and the scope of customers on a comprehensive basis, the line between mere personal use and business activity remains blurred. In this environment, investigative risks are rapidly expanding—and coin referral structures have increasingly come under scrutiny. 2. What Bybit’s Recent Announcement Signifies Bybit’s recent official compliance announcement carries significant implications. The exchange made clear its intention to strengthen a global compliance framework aligned with local regulations and to allow marketing, promotion, and user solicitation only in jurisdictions where regulatory requirements are satisfied. With respect to Korea, Bybit explicitly addressed the risks associated with unregistered marketing and intermediary activities, including brokerage-like conduct. It prohibited referral and commission-based structures that specifically target Korean users. Bybit further stated that it is restricting referral and commission-based promotional activities aimed at Korea, and that if such activities are identified, partnership termination and commission clawbacks may follow. This indicates that even overseas exchanges now recognize Korean-targeted referral schemes, such as Bybit coin referrals, as a clear regulatory risk and are beginning to draw firm boundaries. 3. Structures That Law Enforcement Authorities Actually Focus On In practice, referral activities are rarely assessed in isolation. Instead, they are evaluated in conjunction with other transactional structures. For example, when repetitive P2P or OTC transactions are conducted through Telegram or open chat rooms, and a fee structure exists alongside repeated trades, such activity is likely to be classified as “transactions conducted for business purposes.” In several cases, this has led to violations of the Specified Financial Information Act. Similarly, currency exchange structures exploiting the so-called “Kimchi premium” may pose relatively low risk if limited to simple arbitrage. However, when combined with false invoices or quid pro quo remittances, they can give rise to violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Specified Financial Information Act, and even obstruction of business charges. Within this context, inducing users to open accounts on unregistered overseas exchanges and receiving transaction-volume–linked commissions—such as in Bybit coin referral schemes—may be deemed to involve elements of brokerage, intermediation, or agency, making them potential targets of investigation. Although standalone precedent is limited, cases in which such conduct is combined with investment solicitation or deceptive practices frequently escalate into criminal matters. A single act that was previously taken lightly can be interpreted as a critical link in a serious criminal scheme—this risk should never be underestimated. 4. Decent Law Firm’s Support in Virtual Asset Investigations In Bybit coin referral–related cases, outcomes often hinge on what is properly organized and clarified at the earliest stage. If factors such as transaction frequency and repetition, the existence of a commission structure, the scope of counterparties, awareness of fund sources, and one’s actual role are not systematically analyzed, even a minor matter can expand into allegations of participation in a serious criminal offense. For those facing uncertainty and anxiety at this stage, practical and experience-based legal assistance is essential. Decent Law Firm analyzes key issues by integrating FSC and FIU materials and guidelines, investigative practices, and recent case law, carefully assessing whether a client may be deemed a virtual asset service provider and whether the matter could be linked to other criminal offenses. We provide comprehensive support—from interview and statement strategies at the investigation stage, through warrant proceedings, to substantiation and defense at trial—going beyond advisory services to help design the overall structure of the investigation response. If you have received a request for appearance or are facing a search and seizure, this moment is critical. If you are concerned about issues related to Bybit coin referrals, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Task Force will stand with you throughout the process.
2025-12-30 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Recovery Strategies Every Blockchain Scam Victim Must Know
Why Blockchain Scams Cause Such Severe Damage Unlike conventional financial fraud, blockchain scams are rooted in the abuse of technological characteristics. Due to the inherent nature of blockchain technology, once a virtual asset transaction is completed, it is technically irreversible. This non-reversible structure makes post-incident recovery extremely difficult. When overseas exchanges or foreign wallets are involved, jurisdictional issues further complicate the situation, significantly raising the difficulty of any legal or practical response. A major problem is that many victims mistakenly perceive these cases as mere investment losses. Technical jargon such as whitepapers, smart contracts, and algorithms is often used to disguise intentional deception, causing victims to miss the critical window for effective action. In practice, early response timing plays a decisive role in determining whether meaningful recovery is possible in blockchain fraud cases. For those already experiencing anxiety and fear due to such losses, we hope this guide helps provide some clarity and direction. Common Types of Blockchain Scams (From the Victim’s Perspective) In practice, blockchain scams tend to follow recurring patterns: Fraud disguised as coin investments or private sales Schemes posing as crypto loans, staking programs, or yield products Fake exchanges, wallets, or phishing sites designed to steal login credentials or assets Signal groups, automated trading services, or guaranteed-profit schemes The critical issue is distinguishing between ordinary investment risk and losses caused by deceptive conduct. This distinction directly affects whether criminal fraud charges may be established and whether civil liability for damages can be pursued. If this assessment is incorrect, the entire response strategy may be fundamentally misguided. Immediate Actions to Take Once You Recognize the Fraud If fraud is suspected, the first step is to immediately stop any further transactions, change passwords for all related accounts, and prevent secondary damage. At the same time, evidence preservation is the highest priority. You must securely retain and back up original materials, including transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots and original files of Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email communications, website URLs and whitepapers provided by the counterparty, contracts, and transfer records. Failure at this stage can create decisive limitations in both criminal and civil proceedings later on. You may request withdrawal freezes from virtual asset service providers (exchanges), ask investigative authorities to suspend payments related to fraudulent accounts, and consider filing a report under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damage Proceeds. The earlier the response, the greater the possibility of practical measures being taken. Waiting passively only reduces the available options—active intervention is essential. How Decent Law Firm Makes a Practical Difference Blockchain scam cases cannot be resolved simply by filing a criminal complaint. They require a coordinated strategy that integrates structural analysis of the scam, clear legal issue identification, and parallel criminal and civil actions. Decent Law Firm conducts in-depth reviews of transaction flows and technical structures to precisely assess whether fraud is legally established, and prepares structured criminal complaints and legal memoranda for submission to investigative authorities. We also develop realistic, case-specific strategies involving exchanges, overseas platforms, and potential civil recovery depending on the feasibility of identifying the perpetrators. Ultimately, blockchain scams are not merely technical issues—they are problems of legal structure and accountability. If damage has already occurred, it is crucial not to proceed alone. Early, accurate legal intervention is the most effective way to define the proper course of action. In blockchain fraud cases, speed and precision make a tangible difference. We strongly encourage you to prepare and act without further delay.
2025-12-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Essential Reading for Victims of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams
Typical Types of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams Recently, cryptocurrency loan scams have become increasingly sophisticated, carefully disguised to appear like legitimate financial transactions. At first glance, they may look no different from lawful crypto-backed loan services. Common methods include the following: Luring investors with promises of high returns and low-interest crypto-backed loans Explaining a structure where a loan is executed after depositing USDT, while in reality no loan is ever provided Demanding advance payments under the guise of loan fees or security deposits Using fake loan websites that impersonate well-known exchanges or platforms The key point is that although these schemes take the form of a “loan,” their substance is to deceive victims into transferring cryptocurrency to a specific wallet and then misappropriate it. Missing this fundamental nature can completely derail the direction of any legal response. Key Legal Issues at Stake The most important legal criterion in cryptocurrency loan scams is whether fraud under Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act is established. Even if the transaction is labeled as a loan, fraud is constituted if the perpetrator deceives the victim and thereby obtains property or a financial benefit. Investigative authorities and courts typically examine the following elements when determining whether fraud has occurred: Whether there was a deceptive act toward the victim Whether the victim was induced into a mistake due to that deception Whether there was a disposition by the victim based on that mistake (i.e., transfer of cryptocurrency) Whether the perpetrator acquired property or a financial benefit Whether there is a causal relationship between the deceptive act and the victim’s financial loss If there are multiple victims or repeated offenses, enhanced punishment may apply, such as habitual fraud under Article 351 of the Criminal Act or aggravated penalties under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. If a criminal organization was formed or joined, additional liability may arise under Article 114 of the Criminal Act. What matters is not the form, but the actual structure of the scheme. Only by proving this process can a victim move beyond the status of a “cryptocurrency scam victim.” Risk Factors Commonly Overlooked by Victims One of the most common misconceptions among victims is the belief that “because it is structured as a loan, it is different from an investment scam.” However, even if the scheme outwardly takes the form of a loan, fraud is established if, from the outset, the perpetrator had no intention or ability to provide a loan and instead deceived the victim to misappropriate cryptocurrency. This is not merely a civil breach of contract, but a criminal offense subject to punishment. Victims often give up on taking action for reasons such as: Assuming recovery is impossible because overseas platforms or wallets are involved Missing the appropriate time to report due to delays The problem is that the longer reporting is delayed, the more difficult it becomes to trace cryptocurrency wallets, freeze scam-related accounts, track criminal proceeds, and identify those involved. A misjudgment at this stage can effectively eliminate any realistic chance of recovery. Decent Law Firm’s Approach and Direction of Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat cryptocurrency loan scams as simple criminal complaints. The core issue lies in the underlying fraud structure. Our approach includes: Analyzing the flow of cryptocurrency and the structure of the scam Developing a strategic approach at the criminal complaint stage Conducting a realistic assessment of the possibility of tracing and recovering virtual assets Determining whether to pursue civil proceedings in parallel, if necessary Cryptocurrency-related cases require a fundamentally different approach from ordinary fraud cases. The later the response, the more sharply the chances of recovery decline. If you are trapped in repeated anxiety and uncertainty over this issue, there is no need to lose time making decisions on your own. At the same time, you must clearly recognize that taking this matter lightly can lead to irreversible consequences. Because cryptocurrency loan scams are cases in which early action directly determines the outcome, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice at the earliest possible stage.
2025-12-22 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto HOT
Crypto Referral Controversy: How Korea’s Financial Authorities Define Unregistered Business Activities
1. Key Points from the Financial Services Commission (FSC) [Promotion and Intermediation of Unregistered Virtual Asset Service Providers Also Subject to Regulation] Under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”), only 27 virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are currently registered with Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). In a recent press release, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) announced that promotional, intermediary, or brokerage activities conducted on behalf of unregistered virtual asset service providers may also constitute illegal conduct and will be subject to strict enforcement. The FSC identified the following activities as key areas of concern: Marketing or soliciting Korean residents on behalf of unregistered VASPs (including overseas exchanges) Introducing, brokering, or intermediating unregistered VASPs (e.g., referral programs) Promoting services or inducing sign-ups through Telegram channels, open chat rooms, or similar platforms In other words, activities that go beyond merely sharing a link and instead form a structure that can be evaluated as “business conduct” may fall within the scope of regulatory sanctions. 2. Crypto Referrals: Simple Promotion or Brokerage Activity? Many operators assume that crypto referral activities are lawful simply because they do not directly operate an exchange. However, the legal interpretation may differ. Under the AML Act, any entity that conducts brokerage or intermediation of virtual asset trading as a business is required to register as a virtual asset service provider. While there is not yet a Supreme Court decision directly addressing crypto referral structures, guidance can be drawn from court precedents involving structurally similar FX margin trading arrangements. 3. Judicial Perspective: Comparable Court Precedents In prior cases, Korean courts have held that providing account-opening links to overseas trading platforms and receiving commissions proportional to customers’ trading volumes—approximately 25% in certain cases—constituted regulated brokerage activity under the Capital Markets Act rather than mere marketing. By analogy, crypto referral schemes that repeatedly induce user sign-ups through referral links and receive ongoing revenue shares based on transaction fees may be at risk of being classified as “unregistered virtual asset brokerage.” 4. Not All Referral Structures Are Illegal Key Criteria for Assessing Illegality Crypto referral activities are not automatically unlawful. Regulatory risk varies significantly depending on how the structure is designed and operated. Structures with Lower Legal Risk Providing general information or promotional content without receiving commissions Registering referral codes for users who were already using the exchange Offering non-targeted, general introductions to the public Structures with Higher Legal Risk Promising high returns or offering automated trading programs conditional upon exchange sign-up Actively distributing referral links while repeatedly receiving transaction-based commissions 5. Why Advance Legal Review Is Essential Regulation of crypto referral models remains an evolving area. As a result, the boundary between lawful and unlawful conduct can shift substantially depending on the underlying business structure. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team continuously monitors regulatory guidance from authorities, investigative trends, and emerging court decisions. Based on verified enforcement cases, the team provides multi-layered legal risk analysis of referral, promotional, and intermediary business models. Addressing issues only after regulatory scrutiny begins is fundamentally different from proactively reviewing and adjusting a business structure in advance—and the outcomes can differ dramatically. 6. Navigating Crypto Regulation with Decent’s Virtual Asset Practice Team Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team provides hands-on advisory services across the full spectrum of crypto regulation, including issues involving unregistered VASP operations, referral programs, and the legal compliance of trading signal groups. For businesses currently operating referral-based models—or planning to do so—conducting a proper legal review now is the most practical and effective course of action. Decent delivers clear operational guidelines for sustainable business management and supports rapid response through dedicated communication channels with experienced attorneys when issues arise. Decent Law Firm—Where the Answers to Regulatory Uncertainty Are Found. Partner with Decent to proactively navigate the evolving crypto regulatory landscape.
2025-12-17 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
How to Respond When Involved in an OTC Crypto Fraud Case
1. Understanding OTC Transactions and Their Structure OTC (Over-The-Counter) trading refers to off-exchange transactions conducted directly between individuals or through intermediaries, without using a centralized exchange. In the virtual asset market, OTC trades are commonly used for large-volume transactions, lower fees, and private settlements. The risk is that this structure can be exploited for crimes such as voice-phishing-related money laundering and fraud. “OTC crypto fraud” often occurs when criminals disguise illicit fund flows as legitimate trades and pull ordinary participants into the transaction chain. A simple claim of “I didn’t know” is no longer enough. In OTC-related investigations, authorities focus on what you knew at the time, whether you fulfilled your duty of care, and whether you could have recognized suspicious circumstances. If your explanation is inconsistent or you respond poorly at the early stage, even a transaction you believed to be lawful can escalate into criminal exposure. This is not a matter that ends as a misunderstanding. A wrong first step can lead to real punishment. 2. Potential Criminal Liability in OTC Crypto Fraud Cases 1) Elements of Fraud Under Korean Criminal Law For fraud to be established under the Korean Criminal Act, the prosecution generally must prove all of the following: Deceptive act The victim’s mistake Transfer of property Intent to unlawfully obtain property Mere participation in a transaction is not enough. The key issue is whether criminal awareness and intent can be established. 2) Possible Sentencing Ranges For general fraud, Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act provides for up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. If the amount of unlawful gain is large, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply, significantly increasing sentencing exposure: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more and less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine may also be imposed in addition to imprisonment, up to the amount of unlawful gain If the OTC transaction is linked to voice phishing or other telecommunications-based financial fraud, additional liability may arise under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. 3. Key Defense Strategies at the Investigation Stage Once a suspicious transaction is identified, all further transactions must be halted immediately. Preserving evidence is critical, including: Transaction records Wallet transfer histories Messaging and chat logs Any materials related to the counterparty’s identity During questioning by investigative authorities, it is essential to consistently explain: That the OTC transaction itself followed lawful trading practices That there was no awareness that the funds were illicit That there was no conspiracy or even conditional intent to participate in criminal activity Recent case outcomes indicate that mere involvement in off-exchange trading does not automatically prove criminal intent. However, this tends to apply only where the post-incident explanation is structured, evidence-backed, and legally coherent. Where a person fails to substantiate lack of intent, criminal disposition can follow (Suwon High Court, Sept. 17, 2025, Case No. 2025No635). 4. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to OTC Crypto Fraud Defense OTC crypto fraud cases are highly sensitive to early-stage decision-making. Decent Law Firm supports clients from the outset by analyzing the transaction structure, mapping fund flows, and separating objective facts from assumptions about awareness. We develop a defense framework by: Organizing a consistent statement strategy Selecting and arranging objective supporting materials Conducting precedent-based legal analysis to prevent unfounded allegations of conspiracy or intent Even if your transaction was legitimate, it is possible to be mischaracterized as a participant in criminal activity. In such situations, professional legal representation is not optional—it is essential. Decent Law Firm provides clear standards for evaluating risk and a structured, case-specific legal process for clients considering consultation regarding alleged involvement in OTC crypto fraud schemes.
2025-12-16 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Criminal Liability and Defense Strategies for Involvement in LBank Fraud
Criminal Liability Faced by Perpetrators Involved in LBank Fraud The most immediate consequence faced by individuals involved in LBank-related fraud is criminal liability. Where a person deceives another and obtains property or pecuniary benefits, the offense constitutes fraud, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million under Article 347(1) of the Korean Criminal Act. In addition, under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, penalties are enhanced depending on the amount fraudulently obtained: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more but less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine equivalent to the amount fraudulently obtained may be imposed concurrently. Furthermore, a person who commits telecommunications-based financial fraud may be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year or a fine ranging from three to five times the criminal proceeds, or both, pursuant to Article 15-2(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. Liability Varies Depending on the Role Played in LBank Fraud In LBank fraud cases, the severity of criminal liability varies depending on the participant’s role within the scheme. Those who act as masterminds or planners by designing and operating the overall structure face the heaviest punishment. Individuals who direct or instruct others may be evaluated as instigators or indirect principals. Even those who merely handle cash withdrawals or transfer funds may be punished as co-principals or accessories to telecommunications-based financial fraud. Simply claiming that one “followed instructions” does not exempt liability. Providing bank accounts or lending one’s name is also considered conduct that facilitates fraud and is subject to criminal punishment. In LBank fraud investigations, the key criterion is not the amount actually obtained, but rather the individual’s role within the overall criminal structure. Defense Strategies After Being Identified as a Suspect in LBank Fraud If you are identified as a suspect in an LBank fraud case, early-stage action is critical. Before appearing for questioning, it is essential to immediately retain legal counsel and participate in investigations with counsel present. A single statement or expression made during questioning may later be used as unfavorable evidence at trial. Where involvement is established, efforts toward victim restitution and settlement play a significant role in sentencing. Compensation and settlement with victims may be considered mitigating factors that reduce punishment. Conversely, flight, destruction of evidence, additional offenses, or attempts to coerce or threaten victims must never be taken lightly, as such conduct can decisively aggravate sentencing. For those enduring daily fear and uncertainty as a result of this case, it must be clearly recognized that the choices made now may determine the course of their future. How Decent Law Firm Assists in LBank Fraud Cases LBank fraud cases involve complex structures and overlapping legal provisions, making strategic action from the outset indispensable. Decent Law Firm carefully analyzes each participant’s role and level of involvement to define the scope of liability, and formulates defense strategies to prevent the case from expanding unfavorably during the investigative stage. Defense theories must differ clearly between peripheral participants and core figures, and approaches to statements, evidence organization, and victim restitution must be tailored to each individual case. Large-scale financial fraud cases such as LBank fraud should never be handled lightly. Without 전문적인 legal assistance, they can lead to irreversible consequences. Drawing on extensive experience in such matters, Decent Law Firm provides practical and effective legal representation from the initial investigation through trial. If you need assistance, you may consider working with Decent’s Virtual Asset Defense Team. We stand ready to serve as a reliable shield against the severe consequences of imprisonment.
2025-12-15 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Tax Obligations for Domestic Virtual Asset Trading
Currently, there is no explicit legal basis for taxing income from virtual asset trading under the current tax laws in South Korea. As a result, no taxation is imposed. Courts have also weighed in on this matter with rulings that clarify the legal stance. Seoul Administrative Court Ruling The Seoul Administrative Court ruled: "Under the current tax laws, income from virtual asset trading by individuals (residents and non-residents) and foreign corporations is not listed as taxable income under the Income Tax Act and is therefore not subject to taxation." The court provided the following rationale for its decision: Virtual Assets as Non-Tangible Domestic Assets Virtual assets do not qualify as "domestic assets other than real estate" under the former Income Tax Act (Article 119, Paragraph 12, Subparagraph (m)). As virtual assets are stored and maintained across a global network of computers connected through blockchain, they cannot be considered assets located within Korea. Exclusion from Economic Benefits Clause Income from virtual asset transactions does not meet the criteria for "economic benefits derived from assets located within Korea or similar income" under the same statute (Subparagraph (k)). Principle of Tax Legality Under the principle of legality in tax law, tax regulations must be strictly interpreted as written without expansion or analogy unless special circumstances justify otherwise. Enumerative Tax System The Income Tax Act employs an enumerative system, meaning only income explicitly listed in the law can be taxed. Unlisted income remains untaxed. Planned Taxation of Virtual Asset Trading Income The South Korean government plans to implement taxation on virtual asset trading income starting January 1, 2025. Key Provisions of the Revised Tax Laws Income Classification: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 21, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 27) categorizes "income from the transfer or lending of virtual assets" as other income. Source of Income: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 119, Paragraph 12, Subparagraph (n)) designates this income as domestic source income for non-residents. Withholding Tax Rates: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 156, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 8, Clause (b)) specifies withholding tax rates for virtual asset trading income, differentiating cases based on whether the acquisition cost is verifiable. Corporate Tax Inclusion: Revised Corporate Tax Act (Article 93, Paragraph 10, Subparagraph (k)) includes virtual asset income as domestic source income for foreign corporations. Implementation Timeline Initially scheduled for January 1, 2022, the enforcement was delayed twice and is now set to commence on January 1, 2025. The taxation will apply to transfers or lending of virtual assets occurring after this date. However, there remains a possibility of further postponement. Current and Future Taxation Implications As of now, there is no tax obligation for income generated from virtual asset trading due to the lack of explicit legal grounds. However, once the revised laws come into effect on January 1, 2025, tax obligations will likely arise. Monitoring and Considerations Tax regulations and their interpretation may evolve. Therefore, continuous monitoring is essential. Specific issues, such as the determination of acquisition costs, handling of transactions through foreign exchanges, and taxation of various virtual asset transaction forms (e.g., DeFi, NFTs), are expected to be clarified before the tax implementation. Stakeholders should stay informed on these developments.
2024-09-14 X (Twitter) -
Blogs Crypto
Claim for Damages Against a Domestic Cryptocurrency Exchange
If a cryptocurrency exchange failed to suspend transactions or halt trading despite being informed of a hack involving the issuing foundation of a listed token, resulting in investor losses, what liabilities could the exchange face? Breach of Duty of Care Cryptocurrency exchanges have a duty to protect investors by taking appropriate measures during incidents such as hacking. If an exchange was aware of a hacking incident but failed to suspend trading, this could be considered a breach of its duty of care. Relevant precedents also support this viewpoint. Breach of Contract If an exchange promised to replace an affected token with a new token at a 1:1 ratio but failed to fulfill this commitment, resulting in significant losses for token holders, the exchange may be held liable for breaching its contractual obligations. Unlawful Acts and Liability for Damages Exchanges are obligated to take proper measures to protect investors. If they neglect these responsibilities, their actions could constitute an unlawful act, making them liable for damages under applicable laws. Korean cryptocurrency exchanges are expected to prioritize investor protection. Failure to meet this standard could lead to legal claims for compensation.
2024-09-13 X (Twitter)
