-
Blogs CriminalAn Arrest Warrant Has Been Requested — What You Must Do Right Now
What Is a Detention Hearing (Pre-Arrest Warrant Review)? A detention hearing in Korea is a court procedure where a judge decides whether a suspect should be detained after a prosecutor files for an arrest warrant. This system was introduced through amendments to the Korean Criminal Procedure Act in 1995 and has been fully implemented since 1997. Its purpose is to ensure that the suspect is given an opportunity to explain their position before being detained. At the hearing, the judge does not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, the judge evaluates whether detention is necessary based on the following factors: Whether the suspect has a stable residence (this includes actual living arrangements, family ties, and employment — not just the registered address) Whether there is a risk of evidence destruction Whether there is a risk of flight In short, the key issue is not “Did the suspect commit the crime?” but rather “Is detention necessary at this stage?” What Happens If the Warrant Is Granted or Denied? Outcome Meaning Next Steps Warrant Denied No detention Investigation and trial proceed while the suspect remains free Warrant Issued Detention in a detention center Investigation and trial proceed while the suspect is in custody Reapplication Prosecutor may refile after supplementing the case Another detention hearing may be held (if the original grounds for denial are not resolved, it may be denied again) If the warrant is denied, the suspect can prepare their defense while remaining at liberty. If the warrant is issued, the suspect will be detained, which significantly restricts both daily life and the ability to prepare a legal defense. This makes the detention hearing a critical turning point in the entire criminal process. The 24-Hour Golden Window — What Your Lawyer Does The period immediately following a warrant request is often referred to as the “golden 24 hours.” During this time, the role of a defense lawyer is crucial. A lawyer does far more than provide general assistance. The goal is to persuasively demonstrate to the court that detention is unnecessary. Key actions include: Quickly analyzing the suspect’s situation and the prosecution’s claims Preparing and submitting a written legal opinion to the court before the hearing Presenting evidence of: Residential stability Employment and family ties Willingness to cooperate with the investigation Lack of risk of evidence destruction Attending the hearing with the suspect and responding directly to the judge’s questions Even with the same allegations, the outcome can vary significantly depending on how the defense is prepared and presented. A detention hearing is not a procedure you should face unprepared. Your Response Starts the Moment You Are Notified Once you are informed that an arrest warrant has been requested, the response must begin immediately. At Decent Law Firm, our criminal defense team provides rapid and strategic support from the moment a warrant request is made — from preparing for the detention hearing to developing a non-custodial defense strategy. Our focus is on: Quickly understanding the facts of the case Identifying the most effective defense approach within a limited timeframe Presenting a structured and persuasive argument to prevent detention If you or someone close to you is facing an arrest warrant request in Korea, seek legal assistance without delay. Time is the most critical factor.
2026-04-29 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Custody Review in Korea: Lawyer Fees and Release Within 48 Hours
1. What Is a Custody Review (구속적부심사)? When a family member or close contact is suddenly detained, most people are unsure what to do next. However, even after detention, there is a legal procedure in Korea that allows you to request release through the court—this is called a custody review (구속적부심사). A custody review is a process where the court re-examines whether the detention is lawful and necessary. Even if a detention warrant has already been issued, the detainee may be released if the grounds for detention are insufficient or excessive. The procedure moves very quickly: Filing deadline: Within 7 days from the date of detention Court hearing: Within 48 hours after filing Decision: Typically within 24 hours after the hearing The request can be filed not only by the detainee, but also by a spouse, immediate family member, or attorney. 2. Why Hiring a Lawyer Is Critical A custody review is effectively a one-time opportunity. In principle, it cannot be refiled, which means the initial strategy is crucial. In practice, cases handled with legal representation show a significantly higher likelihood of release compared to those without. This is because an experienced criminal defense lawyer will: Analyze and challenge the legal basis for detention Rebut concerns about flight risk or evidence tampering Present strong personal circumstances (residence, employment, family ties) Structure persuasive arguments tailored to the court’s decision-making Given the extremely limited preparation window of 48 hours, professional legal support can directly impact the outcome. 3. Lawyer Fees for Custody Review Legal fees for a custody review vary depending on the complexity of the case and the experience of the lawyer. In general: Starting from approximately KRW 3 million Can exceed KRW 10 million for complex or serious cases However, more important than the cost is the lawyer’s ability to respond immediately. In custody review cases, speed and coordination often matter more than the fee itself. 4. What to Look for When Choosing a Lawyer In urgent detention situations, the right lawyer can make a decisive difference. You should focus on the following: • Immediate client access (detention visit) A lawyer must meet the detainee as soon as possible to understand the case details, prior statements, and investigation status. Early intervention prevents unfavorable statements from being solidified. • Hearing preparation Court hearings are often brief—sometimes just 10 to 20 minutes. The detainee must be prepared in advance on how to respond clearly and calmly. Without preparation, nervous or inconsistent answers may negatively affect the outcome. • Evidence and document preparation Key supporting documents—such as proof of residence, employment certificates, family records, medical documents, and written statements—must be gathered within 48 hours. Identifying and organizing these effectively requires legal experience. 5. What You Should Do Immediately After Detention If someone close to you has been detained, you should promptly check the following: Whether the 7-day filing window has passed Whether the stated grounds for detention are excessive or inaccurate Whether a lawyer can be appointed immediately for rapid response Delays at this stage can significantly reduce the chances of release. Decent Law Firm – Criminal Defense Team A custody review is a race against time. The outcome depends on how quickly and strategically the case is handled. Decent Law Firm provides: Emergency detention visits Preparation and filing of custody review petitions Full representation at court hearings Detention is not the end—it is the beginning of legal response. The 48-hour window is critical. Acting quickly can make all the difference.
2026-04-27 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Deepfake Crime in Korea: Can You File a Complaint Without Evidence? A Complete Legal Guide
According to recent statistics on digital sexual crime support cases in Korea, deepfake-related offenses—such as manipulated images and synthetic videos—continue to rise, with a significant concentration among victims in their teens and twenties. Korean law enforcement authorities are treating deepfake crimes as a top enforcement priority, leading to faster investigations and stricter penalties. The critical issue, however, is how you respond immediately after discovering the damage. Many victims attempt to delete the content first, but in practice, evidence preservation must come before removal to secure a meaningful investigation. What to Do Before Deleting Deepfake Content — Preserve Evidence First If you discover a deepfake image or video, do not rush to delete it. Instead, you should first secure key evidence. Capture screenshots that clearly show the URL, upload date, and account ID. Save all conversations with the suspected offender, and if possible, obtain statements from third parties who witnessed the content or its distribution. Even if the content has already been deleted, it is still possible to proceed. Due to the nature of digital crimes, complete deletion is difficult, and data can often be recovered through server logs and digital forensics. In some cases, the act of deletion itself may serve as evidence of intent. If you request deletion or report the case without proper evidence collection, you may unintentionally reduce the available investigative leads. Legal Consequences — More Serious Than You Might Expect Deepfake crimes in Korea are not treated as minor offenses. They are prosecuted under laws governing sexual crimes, and penalties can be severe. Creating a deepfake video can result in up to five years of imprisonment or a substantial fine. Distributing such content may lead to up to seven years in prison. If the act is committed for profit, the sentence may increase to a minimum of three years of imprisonment. Habitual offenders may face even harsher penalties. Importantly, even possession or viewing of such content can be punishable, meaning that liability can extend beyond the original creator or distributor. Legal Procedure — A “Three-Track” Strategy Is Most Effective Handling a deepfake case typically requires more than a single legal action. In practice, the most effective approach is to proceed with three tracks simultaneously. First, you can file a criminal complaint with a local police station or a cybercrime investigation unit. The investigation generally follows a process of account tracing, search and seizure, and digital forensic analysis. Second, you should request content removal and blocking through relevant authorities to prevent further distribution. Third, you may pursue a civil lawsuit for damages to recover compensation for emotional distress and financial loss. For platforms like Telegram, where anonymity is high, early evidence collection becomes even more critical, as identifying the perpetrator may take longer. Frequently Asked Questions Can I file a complaint without screenshots? Yes. An investigation can begin based on the victim’s statement and circumstantial evidence. However, any additional materials—such as URLs, chat records, or witness statements—can significantly improve the speed and effectiveness of the investigation. What if I don’t know who the perpetrator is? This does not prevent you from filing a complaint. Investigative authorities can identify anonymous users through account data, IP logs, and transaction records. What if the perpetrator requests a settlement? You should not respond immediately. Statements made during settlement negotiations can affect both criminal proceedings and civil claims. It is important to consult with a lawyer before making any decisions. If You Are a Victim — Timing and Strategy Matter Deepfake crimes spread rapidly, while evidence can disappear just as quickly. That is why preserving evidence first and establishing a proper legal strategy early on is essential. At Decent Law Firm, we provide comprehensive legal support for deepfake-related cases—from initial evidence preservation and complaint filing to criminal defense strategy and civil damage claims. Our approach goes beyond simple document preparation; we focus on building a strategy that leads to real investigative and legal outcomes. If you are facing an urgent situation, you do not need to have everything prepared. A brief summary of the facts is enough to begin. We will guide you step by step on what to do first and how to proceed effectively under Korean law.
2026-04-21 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Front-Running in Korean Stocks: Where Does It Become Illegal? (A Complete Guide for Foreign Investors, Listed Company Executives, and Finance Professionals in Korea)
If you've been investing in Korean stocks, or working in Korea's financial industry, you've probably heard the term "front-running" (선행매매) come up more and more lately. It's not just an issue for stock YouTubers or chat-room operators. Listed company executives, fund managers, analysts, and even ordinary retail investors can find themselves caught up in it — whether as victims or, in some cases, unwitting participants. The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) recently identified illegal activity across five YouTube channels and announced it would refer cases to prosecutors. The message is clear: the era of looking the other way is over. Here's what you need to know. 1. What Is Front-Running, Exactly? Front-running means trading on information that isn't yet public — getting in before everyone else does, and profiting when the news breaks. In the Korean market, it typically shows up in three ways. The first is the stock influencer model. A YouTuber or paid trading-room operator quietly buys shares in a stock, then recommends it publicly to subscribers. Once the price jumps, they sell. Subscribers who bought on the recommendation are left holding losses. The second is the corporate insider model. An executive or employee of a listed company learns about positive news — strong earnings, a major contract, an M&A deal — before it's disclosed, and buys shares in advance. Selling before bad news goes public to avoid losses falls into the same category. The third is the financial professional model. An analyst, fund manager, or trader uses advance knowledge of large institutional orders, upcoming research reports, or trading strategies to place personal trades ahead of the market. Under Korea's Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA), all three can constitute illegal use of material non-public information, market manipulation, or fraudulent trading — carrying criminal penalties, fines, and disgorgement of profits. 2. What Does "Illegal" Actually Mean Here? Regulators look at three things together: the nature of the information (was it material and non-public?), the person's relationship to that information (did they have it through their job or position?), and the timing of the trade. Critically, it doesn't matter whether the trade was ultimately profitable. Using the information to trade — full stop — is the issue. Some specific situations that have drawn enforcement action in Korea include paid subscription services where operators recommended stocks they already owned, auto-trading bots sold without the required investment discretionary license, and YouTube channels providing ongoing investment advice without registering as an investment advisory business (유사투자자문업). One thing worth noting for foreign investors: Korean regulators have been actively cooperating with overseas financial authorities. Cross-border cases are no longer treated as out of reach. 3. If You're a Retail Investor: Protect Yourself The two risks individual investors face are being victimized and, less obviously, being mistaken for a participant. Paid trading rooms (리딩방) on KakaoTalk, Telegram, or Discord can look legitimate on the surface. An operator might post screenshots showing they're "buying along with you" — but in practice, they bought earlier, at a lower price, and are waiting for your money to push the price up before they exit. Warning signs include offers to share profits if you hand over account access, hints about "tomorrow's pick" designed to get you in early, and channels that charge tiered monthly fees (anything from a few thousand won to hundreds of thousands) for stock tips. If you've suffered losses through one of these schemes, the standard path in Korea is: file a complaint with the FSS (금감원 민원), assess the viability of a civil damages claim, and if the facts support it, file a criminal complaint (고소·고발). 4. If You Work at a Listed Company or Financial Firm Front-running isn't just a personal liability issue — it becomes a corporate governance failure the moment a senior employee is involved. For listed companies, a single suspicious trade by an executive can crater market trust and share price, and regulators have been clear that internal control systems will be scrutinized alongside the individual. Strengthened disclosure rules around insider transactions mean "we dealt with it internally" is no longer a viable response. For securities firms, asset managers, and other financial institutions, the exposure is higher because information access is higher. Analysts, PMs, traders, and sales staff are structurally positioned to know things before the market does — and that's precisely why the compliance burden is heavy. One enforcement action can trigger licensing risk, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny across the entire firm. 5. The Minimum Your Company Should Have in Place Whether you're a small listed company or a mid-sized asset manager, the logic of "we're too small to be a target" is exactly how firms end up making headlines. On internal policy, you need a written definition of material non-public information, clear procedures for how it's handled, mandatory account disclosure and trade reporting requirements for employees and related parties, and blackout periods around disclosure events. On training and attestation, key departments — finance, strategy, IR, research, sales — should receive regular compliance training. New hires and newly promoted staff should sign attestations acknowledging their obligations. On monitoring, periodic review of employee and related-party trading patterns, and sampling of trades around disclosure events, is the baseline. On incident response, you should have a documented procedure covering internal investigation authority, communication standards for dealing with the FSS, Korea Exchange, and prosecutors, and a protocol for board and audit committee reporting. If You've Been Affected — or Want to Get Ahead of the Risk For individual investors who suspect they've been the victim of a front-running scheme, we assess the facts and advise on the realistic options across criminal, civil, and regulatory channels. For listed companies and financial firms, we offer a structured review covering internal policy gaps, employee training design, and a full incident response manual — including FSS, Korea Exchange, and prosecutorial engagement. If a suspicious trade has already been flagged internally, we can advise from the investigation stage through to external response. You don't need to have everything figured out before reaching out. A brief initial consultation is enough to get a clear picture of where the risk sits.
2026-04-15 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Drug-Impaired Driving in Korea: Up to 5 Years in Prison and KRW 20 Million Fine
1. What Constitutes Drug-Impaired Driving? Under Korean law, drug-impaired driving is not penalized simply for taking medication. The key issue is whether the driver’s ability was impaired at the time of driving. Relevant substances include not only illegal drugs but also commonly prescribed medications such as: Sleeping pills (e.g., zolpidem) Anesthetics (e.g., propofol) Certain psychiatric or cold medications Authorities focus on actual driving behavior—lane deviation, delayed reactions, or abnormal driving patterns can lead to criminal charges. 2. Increased Penalties as of 2026 Recent amendments to Korean traffic laws significantly increased penalties. Basic offense → Up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine up to KRW 20 million If an accident occurs → Injury: 1 to 15 years imprisonment → Death: Minimum 3 years or life imprisonment In serious cases, drug-impaired driving may be treated similarly to dangerous driving causing injury or death, resulting in severe sentencing. 3. Refusal to Test or Prescription Drugs Are Not Safe Defenses Police may request saliva or blood tests during enforcement. Refusal without valid reason results in the same level of punishment. Test refusal → Up to 5 years imprisonment or KRW 20 million fine Importantly, having a prescription does not exempt liability. The legal standard is impairment, not legality of the drug. Key factors include: Type of substance Dosage and timing Actual driving condition Medical advice regarding driving 4. Early Legal Strategy Is Critical Drug-impaired driving cases require more than simple admission or denial. The outcome largely depends on how the facts are structured and presented. At Decent Law Firm, we provide: Detailed analysis of medication history and medical records Pre-investigation statement strategy Sentencing mitigation and settlement planning Medical opinions and supporting evidence Early intervention can significantly impact the final outcome. 5. Legal Consultation If you are under investigation for drug-impaired driving in Korea, it is essential to establish a clear legal strategy from the outset. Decent Law Firm offers specialized criminal defense with a combined medical and legal approach.
2026-04-07 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
"Your Principal Is Guaranteed" — That's the Warning Sign
Being told that your initial investment is protected no matter what, or that returns are high but risk is zero, can feel like getting access to an exclusive opportunity others have missed. But the message from regulators and financial authorities is consistent: there is no such thing as a high-return, principal-guaranteed investment. The moment someone leads with that promise, fraud should be suspected. Cases continue to emerge in which operators raise billions of won by advertising guaranteed returns, only to collapse when the scheme can no longer sustain itself. Three Warning Signs of Principal Guarantee Fraud 1. Leading with "guaranteed principal" to lower your guard Any legitimate investment begins by disclosing the risk of loss. Fraudulent schemes do the opposite — they open with "we take responsibility if you lose" specifically to disarm the investor's skepticism. A verbal promise of principal protection, backed by no collateral and no formal guarantee, is itself a red flag. If the guarantee was only made by KakaoTalk message or in conversation — and does not appear anywhere in the written contract — that pattern is a strong indicator of fraud. 2. Repeating "high returns, total safety" without explaining how A consistent thread in victim accounts is this: "I didn't really understand how or where the money was being invested — I just believed them because they kept saying it was safe and guaranteed." When questions are met with assurances that "it's complicated but there's never been a problem" or claims of government partnerships and institutional backing — rather than a clear explanation of the investment structure, return mechanism, risks, and fees — that is a meaningful warning sign. Legitimate investment products can explain themselves. When only the slogans remain and the substance is absent, the probability of fraud is high. 3. Paying returns early, then stalling and disappearing A common tactic in these schemes is to deliver on the promised returns for the first few months. This builds confidence, encourages larger deposits, and prompts referrals to friends and family. At some point, the excuses begin: funds are temporarily locked, a listing or sale is imminent, just a little more patience is needed. Withdrawals are delayed. Then contact gradually diminishes — or stops entirely. By that point, victims have often made additional deposits rather than cutting their losses, and the total amount lost has grown substantially. If You Suspect Fraud: Preserve Evidence Now If you have already transferred money and are now uncertain whether the arrangement is legitimate, the most important immediate step is to secure evidence before anything disappears. This means preserving promotional messages, KakaoTalk and Telegram conversations, investment proposal documents, screenshots of account balances and withdrawal request histories, bank transfer records and receipts, and full copies of any contract, agreement, or notarized document. These materials are what determine, in both criminal and civil proceedings, whether the situation was an ordinary investment loss or a deliberately fraudulent structure from the outset. It is also important not to confront the other party directly with threats of legal action before consulting a lawyer. Doing so risks prompting them to destroy evidence or disappear. The more effective approach is to organize what you have, assess the legal options available, and build a response strategy before making any move. Decent Law Firm helps clients assess whether their situation constitutes an ordinary high-risk investment loss or conduct that gives rise to criminal liability, identifies the steps available to prevent further losses, and works to maximize the prospect of recovering funds already transferred. Every case is reviewed based on its specific facts.
2026-04-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Capital Markets Act Violations in Korea: Why Legal Counsel Is Essential From the Very First Investigation
Following the expansion of the FSS Special Judicial Police's independent investigative authority in 2026, an FSS inquiry is now effectively the start of a criminal investigation. In Capital Markets Act cases, unlike ordinary criminal matters, statements made and documents submitted at the earliest stage become direct evidence at trial. What Constitutes a Capital Markets Act Violation? It is easy to assume that a losing trade was simply bad luck. But the legal standards applied to capital markets conduct are highly precise. The most common categories of violation include the following. • Use of material non-public information (insider trading): trading on information obtained through one's professional role before it is publicly disclosed. • Market manipulation: artificially distorting share prices through coordinated trading activity — what is commonly referred to as a "stock operation." • Fraudulent transactions and false disclosure: deceiving investors by misrepresenting or omitting material information. • Unlicensed operations: conducting investment brokerage, investment advisory, or fund-related activities without the required authorization. These cases typically move from FSS investigation to prosecution, and are treated as serious criminal offenses that can result in pre-trial detention, custodial sentences, and significant disgorgement orders. Why a Capital Markets Act Defense Lawyer Is Necessary Capital Markets Act cases cannot be handled on the basis of general criminal law knowledge alone. They require a thorough understanding of equities, derivatives, and fund structures, as well as the ability to interpret financial data — including trading records from HTS and MTS platforms, order book and execution patterns, and account flow analysis. Investigators focus not on outcomes but on trading intent and market impact. Rebutting those assessments requires a strategy grounded in a genuine understanding of securities market practice. A single statement made in an early interview can become a central piece of evidence at trial. Deciding what to say, what documents to produce, and which points to defend requires strategic design from the very beginning — and that is precisely what a specialist lawyer must provide. A Stage-by-Stage Defense Strategy • Stage 1: FSS and Exchange Investigation At this stage, investigators request a broad range of materials including account records, call logs, and messaging history. How the direction of responses is set here determines the position taken in any subsequent prosecution. • Stage 2: Prosecution Based on the materials gathered, prosecutors assess whether a specific legal violation occurred. The central questions are whether the conduct constituted ordinary investment activity, market manipulation, or insider trading. • Stage 3: Trial At trial, trading pattern analysis, expert opinion evidence, and the adequacy of internal compliance systems all become relevant in contesting criminal intent and the scope of liability. All three stages are part of a single connected process. A consistent strategy from beginning to end is essential. How to Evaluate a Capital Markets Act Defense Lawyer Selecting a lawyer based solely on general criminal defense experience is a significant risk in Capital Markets Act cases. It is important to confirm whether the lawyer has direct experience handling insider trading, market manipulation, and false disclosure cases, and whether they have been involved in shaping strategy from the FSS investigation stage onward. Experience interpreting financial and accounting data, familiarity with corporate governance and internal decision-making structures, and the ability to manage competing interests among co-respondents are all relevant factors. Capital Markets Act cases affect not only the outcome of the criminal proceedings but also the scale of any disgorgement order, eligibility to work in the financial industry, and long-term career prospects. The choice of lawyer has direct consequences for all of these. If you have received notice of an FSS investigation or a request to appear before prosecutors, drafting a statement unilaterally or aligning positions internally without legal advice is not the right approach. The first step is to organize the facts and underlying materials, and then develop a strategy with experienced counsel. Decent Law Firm's defense team — with extensive practical experience in financial and capital markets matters — reviews each case directly. We provide a consistent and carefully considered defense strategy from the FSS investigation stage through to trial, protecting our clients' assets and rights throughout. The assumption that "it surely won't go as far as criminal charges" is often the most dangerous one. If you are concerned about a potential Capital Markets Act issue, we encourage you to seek advice before it is too late — and to get an accurate assessment of your situation and the options available to you.
2026-04-01 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Drug-Related Emergency Arrest in Korea: The First 48 Hours Determine Everything
The 48 hours immediately following a drug-related emergency arrest are when the decision on pre-trial detention — and the direction of the entire criminal process — is made. Receiving a sudden call that a family member has been arrested on drug charges can feel overwhelming. Police, detention facilities, interrogation rooms — words that once felt distant become an immediate reality. But a drug-related emergency arrest is not just a detention. It is the starting point that can determine the course of what follows. What Is an Emergency Arrest? An emergency arrest (긴급체포) allows law enforcement to detain a suspect without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. It applies when the suspected offense carries a serious statutory penalty — such as a violation of the Narcotics Control Act — and when there is a significant risk of flight or destruction of evidence, with no time to obtain a warrant. In practice, drug cases in Korea more commonly begin with an emergency arrest than with an ordinary arrest warrant. Because this procedure is an exception to the general warrant requirement, there is room to challenge the legality of the arrest if the statutory conditions were not properly met. The Most Important Number: 48 Hours An emergency arrest may last no longer than 48 hours. Within that window, investigators move quickly to secure core evidence. This includes interrogation and attempts to obtain a confession, mobile phone forensics and search of the suspect's residence, and urine and hair tests for drug detection. Based on what is gathered, the prosecutor decides whether to seek a detention warrant. If a warrant is requested, the court holds a warrant review hearing, at which the risk of flight, risk of evidence destruction, and seriousness of the offense are all weighed to determine whether pre-trial detention is warranted. The posture taken during those first 48 hours — whether legal counsel was consulted, what was said in the first interview, and what materials the family prepared — can mean the difference between being released for investigation and being held in custody. The Legality of the Arrest Must Also Be Examined Decent Law Firm's criminal defense team begins every case by reviewing whether the arrest itself was lawful. Key questions include: Was the arrest based solely on an unverified tip, without sufficient objective evidence? Did the suspect have a stable residence and employment, and had they shown a willingness to cooperate with investigators — making an emergency arrest unnecessary? Was there genuinely no time to obtain a warrant? In drug cases, the mobile phone record, financial transaction history, and the results of urine and hair tests all interact to establish the overall picture. An early statement given without careful consideration is extremely difficult to walk back later. The first few answers given in the initial interview frequently appear verbatim in court proceedings at the trial stage. What the Family Should Do Right Now Calling investigators repeatedly to make emotional appeals, or inadvertently describing the suspect's daily habits and personal circumstances in detail, only provides investigators with additional leads. What is needed now is not emotional persuasion — it is prompt legal assistance. Identify the police station where the suspect is being held and confirm the nature of the charges. Find out the schedule for the interrogation and consult a lawyer before any visit. Retaining a defense attorney with experience in criminal and drug cases — one who can be present from the very first interview — is the single most important step. Decent Law Firm's Criminal Defense Team A drug-related emergency arrest is a serious crisis for anyone involved. But the outcome can vary dramatically depending on how that crisis is managed, even when the underlying facts are the same. Decent Law Firm's criminal defense team handles the full process — from immediately after the emergency arrest, through the detention warrant hearing, and on to trial. If you or a family member is currently subject to a drug-related emergency arrest, do not spend time searching for answers alone. Contact us as soon as possible.
2026-03-31 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Algorithm Trading Scams in Korea: How to Report AI Auto-Trading Fraud
Victims who invested based on promises of "stable returns through AI auto-trading" are increasingly finding themselves unable to recover even their principal. The one thing they all have in common: the regret of not having been suspicious sooner. What These Scams Actually Look Like The common thread running through recent algorithm trading fraud cases in Korea is the use of AI, algorithmic trading, and automated systems as a front for stock or ETF investment schemes. In one documented case, operators raised over 20 billion KRW by promising "stable, loss-free returns through US stocks and ETFs" — while showing investors fabricated account balance screens with no actual trading taking place. These operations typically manipulate their own apps or websites to display fictitious profits, then demand additional deposits under the guise of taxes, fees, or withdrawal processing charges. In most cases, the underlying structure is a classic Ponzi scheme — using new investor funds to pay returns to earlier participants. Warning Signs to Watch For If the service you're using matches any of the following, treat it as a serious red flag. • Impossible guarantees — Claims of loss-free stable returns, fixed monthly gains of 10–15%, or annual returns of 600% or more. These figures are not achievable through legitimate financial products. • Zero transparency — No explanation of which assets or strategies are being used. Just repeated assurances that "the AI handles everything." • Non-standard trading infrastructure — Use of a proprietary app or website rather than a licensed brokerage platform. Deposit accounts held in individual names or virtual accounts rather than a registered corporate entity. • False authority — Fabricated or exaggerated claims of affiliation with globally recognized asset managers, academics, or financial regulators. If anything feels off, stop sending money immediately and start preserving evidence. If You've Already Been Victimized: What to Do Now If you've transferred funds and suspect fraud, the priority is evidence preservation — not confronting the operator. Step 1 — Preserve all evidence Save everything: promotional messages, KakaoTalk or Telegram conversations, promotional materials and contracts, screenshots of the app or website showing balances, returns, and withdrawal requests (do this before the site goes dark), and full records of all deposits and withdrawals. Step 2 — Report to the Financial Supervisory Service File a report with the FSS Illegal Financial Investment Reporting Center. Submissions are cross-referenced with similar cases and can trigger coordinated investigations. Step 3 — File a criminal complaint A formal complaint can be filed with the police or prosecutor's office on charges of fraud, and where applicable, violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving of Investments. When multiple victims file simultaneously, cases are often escalated to joint task force investigations. In parallel with criminal proceedings, civil remedies — including provisional seizure of the perpetrator's assets and claims for damages — should be considered to maximize the likelihood of actual recovery. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Algorithm trading fraud is structurally designed to look like a legitimate investment service, which makes it genuinely difficult to distinguish from an ordinary investment loss. Building a case requires systematically documenting what misrepresentations were made, who was involved, and at what point the fraudulent structure was in place. Decent Law Firm's Litigation Practice reconstructs the fraud architecture and the specific points of deception using contracts, messaging records, and app screenshots — and designs a coordinated strategy combining criminal prosecution with civil asset recovery. If you were promised high returns through AI auto-trading or algorithmic investment, and you're now experiencing withdrawal delays, demands for additional deposits, or complete loss of contact, don't wait. Contact Decent Law Firm's Litigation Practice today.
2026-03-27 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Crypto Futures Scam in Korea: Can Traders and Promoters Be Held Liable?
More Than Just “Signal Sharing” Crypto futures signal groups in Korea often appear to provide investment insights, but depending on their structure, they can expose participants to serious criminal liability, including violations of Korean financial laws, fraud, and aggravated economic crimes. Korean authorities are increasingly targeting not only operators but also analysts, mentors, and promoters involved in these groups. Liability is assessed based on actual involvement, meaning even those with seemingly limited roles may still be treated as accomplices. Legal Risks Under Korean Law Many cases involve unregistered investment advisory or discretionary services under Korean financial regulations. Providing specific trading instructions—such as entry/exit timing or leverage—while receiving fees or profit-sharing may constitute a violation. If combined with misleading representations, such as guaranteed returns, loss recovery promises, or fabricated performance records, fraud charges are typically added. As the financial scale of the case increases, penalties escalate significantly. In large-scale cases, Korea’s aggravated punishment framework applies, making custodial sentences a realistic outcome. Liability by Role: Operator, Analyst, Promoter These groups are usually structured with distinct roles. Operators who design and control the system and financial flow are considered primary offenders and face the most severe penalties. Analysts or mentors who provide trading guidance or influence investment decisions based on claimed expertise may also be charged as co-offenders. Promoters often assume they are safe because they “only handled marketing,” but Korean enforcement practice does not necessarily support this view. If a promoter understood the structure and continued recruiting investors, they may be treated as an accomplice or as aiding fraud. In referral-based structures, where promoters earn commissions from trading activity, their role is often viewed as part of the core business operation rather than simple advertising. Why “Referral Fees Only” Is Not a Safe Defense Many Korea-related crypto futures schemes are linked to offshore exchanges and use referral codes to generate revenue from investor trading fees. Because revenue increases with higher trading volume and risk-taking, Korean regulators may view this structure as encouraging excessive risk for profit. Even if a promoter did not directly give trading instructions, investigators will examine chat logs, promotional messages, and communication patterns. If there is evidence of aggressive marketing, exaggerated returns, or continued recruitment despite foreseeable losses, liability may still be established. However, where involvement was limited and knowledge of the structure was minimal, early clarification during the investigation stage can lead to more favorable outcomes. If You Are Involved or Under Investigation If you have participated in operating or promoting a crypto futures group related to Korea, or are currently receiving referral commissions, it is important to assess your legal exposure early. You should organize, based on objective evidence, what information you provided to investors, what you understood about the structure and risks, and the extent of your financial benefit. Korean investigations rely heavily on documented evidence. Early preparation can significantly affect the outcome. Act Before Enforcement Begins In Korea, the outcome of crypto-related fraud cases is often shaped before formal enforcement actions progress. Once authorities begin search and seizure or formal investigation, it becomes much harder to reposition your case. Decent Law Firm provides legal support in crypto-related cases in Korea, including signal group and referral-based structures, with strategies tailored to each participant’s role and level of involvement. If you are concerned about potential liability, now is the time to review your position and prepare.
2026-03-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Pharmaceutical Law Violations in Korea: What Pharma Companies & Distributors Must Review Now
Why You Need to Review Compliance Now Regulatory scrutiny over pharmaceutical rebate practices in Korea is intensifying. What is notable is that enforcement is no longer limited to individual misconduct but is increasingly focused on the overall transaction structure of a company. Authorities are examining how sales, contracts, and financial flows are designed and whether those structures, in substance, incentivize prescriptions or product adoption. Pharmaceutical companies and distributors operating in Korea are subject not only to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but also to the Medical Service Act, national health insurance regulations, and fair trade laws. This layered regulatory framework creates a situation where a single transaction can raise multiple legal issues at once. In this environment, superficial compliance systems or loosely implemented internal controls can become a risk factor rather than a safeguard. If internal processes appear formal but lack substance, they may be interpreted as evidence of systematic or intentional violations. As a result, companies must move beyond field-level caution and instead reassess their entire structure, including contracts, expense allocation, and internal approval systems, from a regulatory perspective. Key Risk Areas for B2B Pharmaceutical Businesses One of the most common issues arises from rebate structures tied to prescription volume or product adoption. Even when benefits are provided under the label of marketing support, education, or promotional activities, they may still be treated as illegal rebates if there is a clear connection to sales performance. Another major risk involves consulting or marketing agreements that lack substantive deliverables. Payments made as advisory fees, research funding, or academic sponsorships may be questioned if there is no meaningful output such as reports, meeting records, or measurable contributions. In such cases, authorities may view the arrangement as a disguised incentive rather than a legitimate contract. Additionally, inflated or fictitious expenses present a significant exposure. Creating artificial costs through fabricated service contracts or exaggerated advertising fees to fund rebates can lead not only to pharmaceutical law violations but also to tax-related issues. These cases often trigger broader investigations that combine regulatory enforcement with financial scrutiny. Legal and Business Consequences Violations of Korean pharmaceutical regulations can lead to both criminal liability and administrative sanctions. In serious cases, executives and employees may face imprisonment or fines, and the company itself may also be penalized under joint liability provisions. Where misconduct is repeated or structurally embedded, enforcement trends indicate that actual custodial sentences are increasingly being considered. Administrative measures can have an even more immediate impact on business operations. These may include suspension of sales, significant monetary penalties, and reimbursement or clawback actions under national health insurance rules. Beyond formal sanctions, companies often experience secondary consequences such as loss of business partners, exclusion from procurement opportunities, and deterioration in financial credibility. In practice, these combined effects can threaten the long-term viability of the business. What Must Be Reviewed Immediately At this stage, companies should first examine whether their contract and expense structures are genuinely tied to real services and outcomes. Agreements labeled as consulting, services, or academic support must be supported by clear documentation and tangible deliverables. If such arrangements are directly or indirectly linked to prescription or sales performance, they are likely to be scrutinized as potential rebate schemes. It is equally important to review internal sales processes and approval systems. Companies need to ensure that promotional expenses and support payments are approved based on clear and consistent criteria, and that the decision-making process is fully traceable. If the approval structure cannot be explained or reconstructed, the organization itself may be exposed to allegations of intentional or negligent involvement. Finally, compliance frameworks must be practical and enforceable. Basic measures such as training sessions or written acknowledgments are no longer sufficient. Effective compliance requires integrating anti-rebate principles into KPI design, incentive structures, and ongoing monitoring systems. The ability to detect irregular transactions early and correct them internally is one of the most important factors in reducing regulatory risk. The Outcome Is Often Determined Before the Investigation Begins In many cases, the outcome of pharmaceutical compliance issues in Korea is effectively determined before a formal investigation is initiated. Once authorities conduct a search or begin an inquiry, they rely heavily on existing records, including contract structures, financial flows, and documented internal decisions. At that point, it becomes extremely difficult to modify or reframe the underlying structure. For this reason, proactive review and restructuring are critical. The key question is whether the company’s current transaction framework can withstand regulatory scrutiny from an objective third-party perspective. If there is any uncertainty, it is advisable to conduct a compliance review before the risk escalates into an investigation.
2026-03-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
FSS Special Judicial Police Investigations: Why You Need a Lawyer Before the First Interview
When an FSS Inquiry Becomes a Criminal Investigation From April 2026, the Financial Supervisory Service's Special Judicial Police (특사경) gained the authority to initiate independent investigations without first going through the Securities and Futures Commission or obtaining a formal prosecutorial referral. In practical terms, this means that a search and seizure, communications inquiry, or other coercive investigative measure can now follow directly from an FSS inquiry — with far less warning than before. Previously, there was a buffer period between the FSS identifying a potential violation and formal criminal proceedings beginning. That window allowed companies time to review the facts internally, develop a response strategy, and retain counsel. Under the new framework, that buffer has effectively disappeared. Your First Statement Can Become the Basis for a Search Warrant Under the new investigative model, statements made and documents submitted during an FSS inquiry can become the foundation for a search and seizure warrant — and for the prosecution's case that follows. The scope of materials that may be seized is broader than most people expect: office servers, employees' mobile phones, laptops, messaging records, transaction histories, and disclosure-related documents are all potential targets. In cases involving alleged violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA), investigators will focus heavily on internal communications and decision-making processes to establish intent and coordination. How questions are answered in the inquiry room can directly influence whether intent or conspiracy is inferred. The first statement given is extremely difficult to walk back. Getting it right from the start is not just advisable — it is critical. Why Legal Counsel Is Needed From Day One Capital markets cases turn not on facts alone but on how those facts are legally characterized. The same conduct may be an ordinary investment decision, insider trading, or market manipulation depending on the legal framework applied — and the consequences vary dramatically. Early legal involvement makes a concrete difference in the following areas: Defining the scope of answers and the direction of the account before the first interview Responding appropriately to questions that embed legal conclusions Preventing unnecessary admissions or speculative statements Managing the scope of document production and anticipating search and seizure risk Under the new investigative framework, the approach of waiting to respond until after the inquiry is over is itself a risk. By the time the first interview concludes, the direction of the investigation may already be set. When Should You Call a Lawyer? In an environment where investigation and prosecution are effectively merged, response speed is defensive strength. The earlier in the process counsel is retained, the better the likely outcome. Stage 1: When the possibility of an inquiry is identified internally Stage 2: Upon receiving official notice of an FSS investigation Stage 3: Before attending the first interview ⚠️ A first statement given without preparation can lock in a disadvantageous position that carries through to prosecution and trial. At minimum, a response strategy should be in place before any interview is attended. Decent Law Firm's Financial Crime Team Decent Law Firm's financial crime team provides integrated defense across the full arc of FSCMA and financial crime cases — from FSS inquiry through prosecution to trial. In an environment where the first one or two statements can determine the outcome of a case, we focus on three things: blocking unnecessary admissions, constructing a consistent and legally sound account, and preparing proactively for the possibility of search and seizure. If you have received notice of an FSS investigation, or if a potential FSCMA issue is on your radar, please contact us. We will design a defense strategy built around your specific situation.
2026-03-24 Naver Blog
