DECENT publishes an online newsletter to provide
timely insights on major case law, legislation,
and policy developments in our core practice areas.
-
Media CoverageThe recipient of the bribe was not detained, but the giver was arrested, sparking controversy over fairness in the court's decision.
Coinone is currently under investigation by the prosecution for allegations of receiving kickbacks through a broker during the listing of PICA Coin on October 22, 2020. However, while the broker (charged with bribery) has been detained, it was revealed later that the former employee (charged with receiving bribes) was not detained, sparking controversy over fairness in the Southern District Court. (omitted) Pureun “Ian” Hong, a virtual asset specialist and managing partner at Decent Law Firm, stated, "The fact that the prosecution requested an arrest warrant shows their strong suspicion of the suspect’s involvement.' He further explained, 'It is unusual for the broker (bribery) to be detained while the former employee (receiving bribes), who faces a potentially higher sentence, is not." He added, "An arrest warrant must be issued by the court for the prosecution to conduct an arrest investigation, and with the warrant denied, the prosecution has no choice but to conduct a non-detention investigation. If the prosecution finds it absolutely necessary, they could reapply for the arrest warrant, but it's unclear whether they will do so at this point." Furthermore, he explained, "The decision to detain someone is not based solely on the charge. If the broker committed bribery in multiple places, indicating more severe wrongdoing, or if there is evidence of tampering or flight risk, then it's entirely possible that a different outcome could occur compared to the former employee, Jeon."
2023-03-09 NBN NEWS -
Articles
Dubai VARA Virtual Asset Regulatory Trends
Dubai is emerging as the next global hub for virtual assets. The world’s largest virtual asset exchange, Binance, has signed an agreement with the UAE’s Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) to establish a global hub for virtual assets. In early 2022, the UAE enacted the Dubai Virtual Assets Law (Law No. 4 of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets in the Emirates of Dubai: "DVAL"), creating a legal foundation for virtual asset businesses. This law provides predictability to businesses and investors, fostering industry growth. Based on DVAL, the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) was established. VARA issues licenses for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and oversees their operations. Activities covered by VASPs include the trading, exchange, transfer, storage, and management of virtual assets. However, despite the enactment of DVAL, certain activities overlap with regulations under existing federal laws. Businesses engaged in financial services related to virtual assets, such as payment services, must comply with federal laws and acquire additional permits. Prospective operators should take this into account. VARA Licensing Process To obtain a VARA license, virtual asset businesses must go through the following four stages: Provisional Permit Preparatory Permit MVP (Minimum Viable Product) Operating Permit FMP (Full Market Product) Permit As of February 28, 2023, no FMP permits have been issued. VARA has only granted Provisional and Preparatory Permits thus far. Exchanges such as Binance, Bybit, Crypto.com, Equiti, FTX, Huobi, and OKX have proactively applied and are under review. Binance and FTX received MVP Operating Permits. However, due to recent developments, FTX’s process has been suspended. VARA’s VASP licenses involve rigorous requirements, making them challenging to obtain quickly. Key Considerations To legally operate a virtual asset business, such as an exchange in Dubai, obtaining a VARA license is mandatory. Dubai’s ambition to become a hub for the virtual asset industry extends beyond infrastructure, with proactive national policies and regulatory frameworks in place. Since national policies on virtual assets differ widely, and licensing and regulatory details vary significantly, confusion can arise. Nevertheless, businesses aiming for global markets must stay informed about regulatory trends in each country and take proactive steps to comply.
2023-02-28 -
Media Coverage
Attorney Pureun “Ian” Hong from Decent Law Firm: The existence of DAXA itself is contradictory.
During the 'NBNTV WEMIX Coinone Relisting Debate' held on the 24th, Pureun “Ian” Hong, managing partner of Decent Law Firm, stated, "DAXA was created due to a legal gap, but since there is no way to sanction member companies that do not follow decisions due to this legal void, the existence of DAXA itself can be seen as contradictory." When asked about his views on the notion that DAXA's self-regulation could be viewed as collusion, Hong explained, 'DAXA's defense regarding collusion is, “We are not a compulsory body. Even if we make decisions, each individual member exchange is not obligated to follow them. They make their own decisions by agreement, so it is not collusion.”' He further added, "Coinone's unilateral decision to relist essentially proves that point. Since DAXA’s member exchanges are not required to follow decisions, they really didn’t follow it. This contradiction arises because DAXA is a self-regulatory body, and unless a legal foundation is established, issues of communication breakdown and lack of consensus will continue to occur." Additionally, he commented, "If a new exchange enters the won market by obtaining a real-name account, it will become a competitor to the five major exchanges. While they may unite to oppose it, apart from Upbit, most of the exchanges are struggling due to the crypto winter. So, each exchange may make decisions based on its own interests." He concluded by saying, "I hope the government swiftly establishes relevant laws to help protect investors and promote a healthy market order."
2023-02-24 NBN NEWS -
Media Coverage
Revenge for school violence like in the drama ‘The Glory’ leads to imprisonment in reality.
The Netflix drama 'The Glory,' which depicts a victim of school violence seeking brutal revenge on her bullies 18 years later, is creating a buzz. In the story, the victim, 'Dong-eun,' plans her revenge for over a decade and confronts her former tormentors, handing them a large bag and saying, 'If you don't fill this with money, I'll expose everything.' Some viewers, recalling their own experiences of school violence, have shared their desire for revenge on online communities or asked for advice on 'how to take revenge on school bullies.' However, in the real world, if a victim of school violence seeks 'private revenge' against bullies who escaped legal punishment, they could face imprisonment. Even if there is no direct assault, acts of threats or defamation could still lead to legal consequences. Experts advise against emotional responses and recommend that victims seek legal action by filing complaints with the evidence they collected at the time of the violence to ensure the bullies are held accountable within the legal framework. (omitted) In many cases, victims who were unable to take action at the time due to fear of further retaliation or indifference from adults later decide to seek an apology after time has passed. However, pursuing revenge out of emotion may lead to being sued for various charges. Pureun “Ian” Hong, an attorney at Decent Law Firm, stated, "Many people choose to expose their experiences of school violence online, but this could result in punishment for defamation through factual disclosure. While the victims may feel wronged, they should prioritize legal action such as filing a criminal complaint. If someone is currently experiencing school violence, they should collect evidence, such as CCTV footage or photos in cases of assault, or screenshots of social media messages or recordings in cases of threats. If that’s not possible, testimony from friends who witnessed the violence can also serve as effective evidence."
2023-02-24 biz.chosun -
Media Coverage
Illegal cryptocurrency listings and price manipulation cases continue to be uncovered.
The cryptocurrency industry is facing challenges as recent cases of bribery related to cryptocurrency listings and organized price manipulation have come to light. According to the prosecution and the virtual asset industry on the 24th, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor's Office, Financial Investigation Division 1 (Chief Prosecutor Lee Seung-hyung), is currently investigating and has arrested listing broker Mr. Ko on charges of bribery (embezzlement) for allegedly offering billions of won to Coinone, a domestic cryptocurrency exchange, in exchange for listing several domestically issued coins, including P Coin. (omitted) Pureun “Ian” Hong, managing partner at Decent Law Firm, stated, "Currently, financial institutions such as banks and securities firms are classified as financial companies under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, which subjects employees to harsher penalties if they receive money or valuables. It is necessary to include cryptocurrency exchanges in this category to impose stricter penalties."
2023-02-24 biz.chosun -
Media Coverage
Unprecedented academic assessment score leak incident.
An unprecedented incident occurred where the scores of approximately 270,000 high school juniors who took the national academic assessment last year were leaked, prompting a police investigation. Experts have warned that even if someone did not personally hack and leak the data, they could still face punishment for transferring it to others. (omitted) Hyeonsu “Elliot” Jin, the managing partner of Decent Law Firm, explained, "According to Article 39 of the Personal Information Protection Act, if an information subject suffers damages due to the personal information processor’s violation of this law, the information subject can claim compensation for damages from the personal information processor." He added, "The students whose data was leaked, as the information subjects, can file a civil lawsuit for damages against the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education, the personal information processor, on the grounds of negligent management leading to the leak of personal information." (omitted) Hyeonsu “Elliot” Jin stated, "The initial distributor could be sentenced to up to three years in prison or fined up to 5 million won under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Code for breaching confidentiality, or face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won for obstruction of official duties by deception."
2023-02-23 biz.chosun
