-
Blogs CryptoCriminal 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 Criminal
Emergency Arrest in Korea: Why the First 48 Hours Are Critical
Once a suspect is arrested in South Korea, the police and prosecution must decide within 48 hours whether to request a detention warrant (imprisonment pending trial) or release the individual. During this brief window, critical procedures take place: 1–2 rounds of police interrogation. Search and seizure of mobile phones and residence. Formalization of criminal charges. Consultation with the prosecution regarding the necessity of detention. The initial police report created during this time often dictates the entire outcome of the case. Therefore, immediate intervention by a criminal defense lawyer to manage statements and control legal procedures is paramount. 1. The Role of the Lawyer Immediately After Arrest Decent Law Firm’s specialized criminal defense team visits the suspect immediately upon arrest. We identify the cause and circumstances of the arrest and quickly determine the best strategy: whether to construct a specific narrative or to exercise the right to remain silent. Since it is extremely difficult to retract early statements later, setting the initial direction is vital. We also review: Whether the requirements for "Emergency Arrest" were met. Whether a "Flagrant Delicament" (caught in the act) arrest was applicable. If Miranda rights were properly read during a warrant arrest. If search and seizure procedures exceeded their legal scope. We block leading questions during interrogations and protect the suspect from making distorted or self-incriminating statements. 2. Strategy to Prevent a Detention Warrant Police and prosecutors determine the necessity of detention based on flight risk, risk of destroying evidence, severity of the crime, and lack of social ties. The Decent Law Firm Criminal Defense Team rapidly secures evidence to prove the suspect's stability and reliability: Proof of stable residence, employment, and family ties. Evidence that the suspect’s role in the alleged crime was limited. Arguments that most evidence has already been secured (negating the risk of destruction). If a warrant application is expected, we prepare legal opinions for the Warrant Review Hearing (Habeas Corpus) and coach the suspect on how to answer the judge’s questions. Proper initial preparation significantly increases the chances of the warrant being dismissed. 3. What the Family Should Do Immediately Families often panic and fail to act, but their role is crucial. Locate the Suspect: Find out where they are detained and who the investigating officer is. Hire a Lawyer: Secure a criminal defense lawyer immediately. Avoid Bad Advice: Do not tell the suspect to "just tell the truth" without legal counsel; this can backfire. Gather Documents: Prepare documents proving the suspect's residence, job, and family relationships to help the lawyer build a defense against detention. 4. Decent Law Firm’s 48-Hour Response System At Decent Law Firm, we know that speed is everything in arrest cases. We operate a specialized system that focuses intensely on the first 48 hours: Immediate Visitation: To control initial statements. Procedural Check: To identify any illegalities in the arrest or search process. Warrant Defense: To prepare for the substantive review hearing immediately. The records left in the first few hours can decide the verdict. If you or a loved one is currently under arrest or facing a crisis, contact Decent Law Firm without delay. We are ready to fight for you.
2025-12-05 Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Criminal Defense for Foreign Nationals in Korea
Integrated Expertise in Investigation, Trial, and Immigration Consequences 1. Unique Challenges in Criminal Cases Involving Foreign Nationals When a foreign national becomes involved in a criminal case in Korea, the difficulty extends far beyond legal issues. Language barriers, limited cultural understanding, and unfamiliar procedures make the process significantly more complex. The Constitutional Court of Korea has affirmed that foreign nationals have the same constitutional right to a fair trial and to personal liberty. Key issues commonly arise in the following areas: Jurisdiction Korean courts may have jurisdiction even if the alleged offense occurred outside Korea (Criminal Act Articles 5–6). Interpretation Accuracy Under Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act, inadequate interpretation can restrict a defendant’s right to defense. Immigration Consequences A conviction can immediately affect visa extension, status of stay, or even lead to deportation (Immigration Control Act Article 85). 2. Protection of Rights During Investigation and Trial Foreign nationals are entitled to the same right to counsel as Korean citizens. However, due to language barriers, the lawyer’s role becomes even more critical. Right to Counsel Constitutionally protected from the earliest stage of investigation. Accurate Interpretation Precise interpretation is indispensable for a fair trial. Consular Assistance Foreign defendants may request assistance from their home country’s consulate. During trial, misinterpretation and cultural misunderstandings can affect credibility judgments. Courts must consider the unique nature of foreign national cases when evaluating evidence. 3. Criminal Proceedings and Immigration Measures Foreign nationals face interconnected criminal and immigration consequences: Deportation Deportation may proceed immediately after a sentence is served (Immigration Control Act Article 85). Exit Ban The Minister of Justice may impose an exit ban during investigation or trial (Article 29). Protection of Foreign Victims Victims of human trafficking or similar crimes may receive special protections such as stay extensions or deferred deportation. Our Approach: Decent Law Firm’s Strategy for Foreign National Cases Decent Law Firm prioritizes understanding the client’s language, cultural background, and communication style. Effective communication is essential to identifying the facts accurately and preventing unnecessary misunderstandings in court. We analyze each case from both a criminal law perspective and an immigration perspective, recognizing that foreign national matters involve both domains simultaneously. Supported by the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of treaty obligations (Korean Constitution Article 6(2)), we ensure that international rights and treaty protections are fully considered. When necessary, we engage in international judicial cooperation, including obtaining evidence abroad and seeking recognition of foreign court decisions—tasks that require specialized cross-border experience. 4. Our Team’s Strength in International Matters Our attorneys include graduates of New York University (NYU) and the University of Michigan, with extensive experience navigating global criminal and immigration issues. We provide full-scope support from: Early-stage investigation Court representation Post-conviction immigration measures (deportation, visa revocation, overstay issues) Decent Law Firm is committed to standing by foreign nationals who face legal difficulties in an unfamiliar country—protecting their rights from the beginning to the very end.
2025-11-28 Blog -
Blogs Corporate & Biz
MBK's Tender Offer for Korea Zinc: Key Legal Insights and Implications
What is a Tender Offer? A tender offer is a system where a party acquires a significant number of shares from multiple shareholders of a listed company to obtain management control. Under Article 134 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA), tender offerors must publicly announce their offer and submit a tender offer statement to the Financial Services Commission and the stock exchange. MBK's recent tender offer for Korea Zinc serves as a notable example of how this system is applied in practice. MBK’s Tender Offer Terms and Comparison to HYBE’s SM Case MBK specified the tender offer price at 660,000 KRW per share and set the minimum purchase quantity at 6.98% of the total issued shares. This conditional tender offer ensures that the offeror can withdraw if the minimum purchase requirement is not met. In contrast, during HYBE’s tender offer for SM Entertainment, no such condition was established. Despite a significant increase in SM's stock price due to competing offers, HYBE had to purchase all shares tendered, resulting in substantial losses. Impact of Competing Offers and Stock Price Volatility Korea Zinc’s current stock price (735,000 KRW) exceeds MBK’s tender offer price (660,000 KRW), reflecting market speculation about a potential competing tender offer. If a competing offer emerges, stock prices often rise to levels comparable to or higher than the tender offer price, increasing volatility in the market. If MBK fails to meet the minimum purchase threshold or decides to withdraw due to a sharp increase in Korea Zinc’s stock price, they can legally cancel the tender offer under Article 139 of the FSCMA. However, existing shareholders would not be entitled to seek damages or penalties against MBK in such a case. Legal Effects of Tender Offer Withdrawal Should MBK’s tender offer be withdrawn or fail to meet its minimum purchase condition, the company is not obligated to proceed with the acquisition. Shareholders are left with no legal recourse to claim compensation for the failed tender offer. Conversely, if MBK raises the tender offer price through an amended filing to meet market expectations, Korea Zinc’s stock price could see further increases during the tender period. Conclusion: Caution for Individual Investors During the tender offer period (September 13, 2024 – October 4, 2024), Korea Zinc’s stock price is expected to experience significant volatility due to factors such as competing offers and adjustments to the tender price. Individual investors are advised to carefully evaluate the risks and opportunities before making investment decisions in this highly dynamic environment. MBK’s tender offer highlights critical legal and financial considerations in tender offers, providing valuable insights for future cases in the market.
2024-09-22 X (Twitter) -
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) -
Blogs Crypto
Risks of Domestic Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions
Definition of Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions Cryptocurrency OTC (Over-the-Counter) transactions involve the exchange of fiat currency, such as Korean won (KRW), into USDT (Tether) on a continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven basis. How It Works An OTC broker receives requests from specific organizations and facilitates transactions by: Receiving fiat currency (KRW) from individual customers into their account. Depositing the equivalent USDT from their holdings into the customer’s cryptocurrency exchange account as designated by the organization. Charging a commission fee, typically around 5% of the transaction amount. Violation of the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) Cryptocurrency OTC operators may be at risk of violating the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) in South Korea. If a business engages in repeated brokerage of cryptocurrency transactions for profit without proper registration, it constitutes a violation of the Special Act. The risks escalate significantly if the transactions involve illicit funds, such as those related to phishing schemes, drug money, or gambling proceeds. Special Act Article 7(1): Any business operating cryptocurrency transactions must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). Special Act Article 17(1): Failure to comply may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million KRW. Legal Precedent and Penalties Recent court rulings in South Korea have affirmed that individuals engaging in continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven cryptocurrency brokerage are classified as Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) under the Special Act. In a notable case, the court imposed a 1 year and 6 months prison sentence based on the frequency and scale of transactions. This decision underscores the gravity of conducting cryptocurrency brokerage without proper registration. Key Takeaways Businesses conducting cryptocurrency transactions as a commercial activity must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit to comply with the Special Act. Violations can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Given the potential misuse of cryptocurrencies in criminal activities such as phishing and money laundering, stricter regulatory measures are necessary to ensure compliance and safeguard the financial system.
2024-09-12 X (Twitter) -
Blogs Crypto
Supreme Court Ruling: Legal Characteristics and Specificity of Virtual Assets in South Korea
The Supreme Court of South Korea has defined virtual assets as "digital representations of economic value that are not controlled by the state but are granted value through blockchain or other encrypted distributed ledgers, qualifying as property benefits" (referencing Supreme Court Decision 2021Do9855, November 11, 2021). The Court emphasized the distinct characteristics of virtual assets, such as the ability to verify only the addresses of electronic wallets without identifying the user's personal information, and the distributed recording of transaction histories, which set them apart from traditional assets. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that virtual assets are not subject to the same level of regulation as legal tender and involve inherent risks in transactions. Consequently, the Court concluded that virtual assets do not warrant the same level of legal protection as legal tender under criminal law.
2024-09-10 X (Twitter) -
Blogs Crypto HOT
The Need to Allow Virtual Asset Trading for Corporations and Foreigners
Current Situation of Virtual Asset Trading in Korea In Korea, virtual asset trading requires the use of real-name accounts linked to banks, following Know Your Customer (KYC) verification. Customers must deposit Korean won (KRW) into these accounts to trade virtual assets on exchanges. However, the current system imposes significant restrictions: Only one bank can be linked to a single exchange, preventing customers from using other banks for KRW deposits and withdrawals. Corporations and foreigners are prohibited from opening accounts on virtual asset exchanges, even though they can open bank accounts. This restriction is guided by financial authority policies but lacks clear legal justification. Legal Framework Supporting Corporate and Foreigner Accounts Under Korea's Act on Reporting and Use of Specified Financial Transaction Information (Specific Financial Information Act): Articles 5-2 (Customer Due Diligence) and 5-3 (Information Provision Obligations) presuppose that corporations and foreigners can open accounts for virtual asset transactions. Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are classified as "financial institutions," but there is no legal basis for excluding corporations and foreign customers from opening accounts. This disparity between legal provisions and financial authority guidelines has created a practical bottleneck for businesses operating in Korea’s globally significant virtual asset market. Implications of the Ban Practical Challenges for Businesses Korean companies engaged in global virtual asset projects require corporate accounts for operational purposes. Due to the prohibition, many corporations manage virtual asset funds through personal accounts of representatives or financial officers. This practice: Blurs the distinction between personal and corporate funds. Increases the risk of embezzlement and other legal liabilities within the organization. Absence of Legal Justification While the Specific Financial Information Act supports the inclusion of corporations and foreigners as virtual asset customers, the prohibition by financial authorities: Lacks a clear legal foundation. Contradicts the intent of existing regulations designed to enhance transparency and compliance. Potential Negative Outcomes The ban drives corporations to seek alternative, less transparent methods of managing virtual assets. By not addressing the issues arising from this prohibition, financial authorities risk encouraging greater illegal activity, such as money laundering, rather than mitigating it. Recommendations Policy Revision Instead of an outright prohibition, financial authorities should adopt policies that address specific concerns, such as anti-money laundering (AML) and investor protection. Strengthen compliance requirements for corporate and foreign accounts rather than banning them altogether. Clear Regulatory Guidelines Establish transparent and consistent rules for corporations and foreigners wishing to engage in virtual asset trading. Enhanced Monitoring and Reporting Implement robust monitoring mechanisms to prevent misuse while ensuring legitimate corporate and foreign users can access virtual asset markets. Conclusion Banning corporate and foreign accounts for virtual asset trading does not address the root causes of potential risks and instead creates new problems, including internal legal liabilities and financial inefficiencies. Korea’s global role in the virtual asset market demands proactive and legally grounded solutions that balance compliance with economic innovation. The focus should shift from prohibition to regulation, ensuring the market's integrity while enabling fair access for all participants.
2024-06-19 X (Twitter) -
Blogs Corporate & Biz
Validity of Share Nominee Trust Agreements for Startups
What is a Share Nominee Trust Agreement? A share nominee trust agreement is a contract between the actual shareholder (trustor) and the nominal shareholder (trustee), where the external shareholding structure differs from the internal shareholding arrangement. Why Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Created? Legal Restrictions: When ownership of shares is prohibited by law or other regulations. Privacy Reasons: To conceal share ownership for practical purposes. Industry Practices: To avoid potential management disputes by consolidating shares under one name while actual ownership is divided among multiple stakeholders. Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Illegal? No, such agreements are not inherently illegal. Contracts are governed by the principle of freedom of contract, and there are no specific provisions penalizing share nominee trust agreements under the law. Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Valid? The answer depends on the perspective: Internal Relationship (Trustor vs. Trustee): The agreement is valid. The trustee is bound by the contractual obligations outlined in the agreement, and the trustor can hold the trustee accountable for breaches. External Relationship (Trustee vs. Company): According to the Supreme Court, only the shareholder listed in the company’s shareholder registry is considered the legitimate shareholder. This means the nominee is recognized as the official shareholder in dealings with the company. Importance of a Well-Drafted Share Nominee Trust Agreement For startups, situations may arise where equity is divided among stakeholders but listed under the name of the founder or another nominee. In such cases, the drafting of the share nominee trust agreement is critical. The agreement must clearly define the rights and responsibilities of each party to avoid potential disputes. Key Provisions to Include in a Share Nominee Trust Agreement Clear Identification of Parties: Clearly define the trustor and trustee. Transfer Restrictions: Specify limitations on the transfer of shares. Shareholder Registry: Include clauses regarding the nominee’s entry in the shareholder registry. Liability and Damages: Outline provisions for compensation in the event of a breach. Termination of Agreement: Define the conditions and procedures for contract termination. Practical Note: The effectiveness of the agreement depends on its substantive content rather than its title or formal structure. Each provision must be carefully reviewed for legal enforceability. Relevant Case Law Supreme Court Decision 2013. 2. 14. (2011Da109708) Supreme Court En Banc Decision 2017. 3. 23. (2015Da248342) These rulings underscore the importance of properly drafted agreements and the distinction between internal and external validity in share nominee trust arrangements.
2024-06-17 X (Twitter) -
Blogs
How to Draft a Contract, and Why You Need a Lawyer's Review
Contracts can be formed as "consensual contracts," meaning they are valid as long as there is mutual agreement between the parties (congruence of intentions). In other words, verbal agreements are still considered contracts, and a written contract is not always necessary for a contract to be established. If every contract in the world were honored as promised, there would be no need for written contracts. Unfortunately, because some people do not keep their promises, it is necessary to draft a contract before proceeding with any matter. The presence of a contract makes a significant difference when taking legal action against those who fail to uphold their promises. In litigation, a contract serves as a golden ticket. A contract is a dispositive document that includes the agreed-upon terms between the parties and their confirming seals or signatures. During a trial, the contract is the most crucial piece of evidence, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the judge cannot make a decision that deviates from the content of the contract. Many people underestimate the importance of contracts. Actions such as proceeding without a contract due to "industry practices," relying on "trust," using a "standard contract," or signing a contract presented by the other party without review are all risky behaviors.
2024-06-14
