-
BlogsDeepfake 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
Quasi-Investment Advisory Businesses in Korea: Penalties Surge 3.3× — What Has Changed and What to Do Now
On April 20, 2026, the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service released the results of their 2025 inspection of quasi-investment advisory businesses. Out of 289 firms subject to document review, 105 firms were found to have committed 133 violations. Among the 49 firms selected for on-site inspections, 35 were fined a total of KRW 470 million. Compared to the previous year (22 firms, KRW 140 million), the number of enforcement actions increased by approximately 3.3 times. Notably, the regulators introduced “mystery shopper” inspections. Investigators joined paid membership services themselves to experience the actual service, allowing them to detect violations that are not easily identifiable from the outside. 1. Four Most Common Types of Violations With the advertising and disclosure rules introduced in August 2024 being fully enforced in 2025, violations have become more concentrated and clearly defined: Omission of Mandatory Disclosures Required statements such as “investment may result in loss of principal,” “no individualized investment advice,” and identification as a “quasi-investment advisory business” must be included in all advertisements. Even a single missing phrase constitutes a violation. Misleading Business Names Use of names or expressions implying affiliation with licensed institutions (e.g., “Securities,” “Financial Investment,” or references to regulatory bodies) is prohibited if it may mislead consumers. False or Unrealized Performance Claims Statements such as “expected monthly return of X%” are considered misleading if they present hypothetical or unrealized returns as typical outcomes. Loss Compensation or Profit Guarantee Statements Promises such as “full refund if losses occur” may be deemed unlawful guarantees under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and are prohibited. 2. What Changes in 2026: Targeted Inspections and Deregistration Starting in 2026, regulators will implement targeted (risk-based) inspections. Firms will be classified as high-risk based on factors such as prior violations, complaint frequency, and advertising content, with enforcement resources concentrated accordingly. More importantly, enforcement is no longer limited to administrative fines. Repeated violations may lead to ex officio deregistration, effectively forcing businesses out of the market. The previous practice of continuing operations after paying fines will no longer be viable. 3. Compliance Checklist: What You Must Review Now 📌 For Existing Operators Mandatory Disclosures Ensure all marketing channels (blogs, Kakao channels, YouTube, etc.) clearly include required disclaimers. Performance Representations Review both current and past content to confirm that all performance figures are factual, realized, and not misleading. Business Name and Branding Assess whether your brand name may cause confusion with licensed financial institutions. 📌 For New Entrants Pre-Launch Advertising Review Conduct a full legal review of all marketing language before commencing operations. Terms and Conditions Remove or revise any clauses suggesting loss compensation or guaranteed returns. Channel Governance System Establish clear internal responsibility and periodic compliance checks for each marketing channel. Regulatory Risk Is No Longer Theoretical Advertising regulations for quasi-investment advisory businesses in Korea are highly detailed, and violations can lead not only to fines but also to business suspension or deregistration. Assuming “our advertising should be fine” is one of the most common — and costly — mistakes. A single compliance review at the outset can prevent penalties amounting to tens of millions of KRW. Decent Law Firm — Corporate & Compliance Advisory Decent Law Firm’s Corporate Practice Group provides practical, risk-based advisory services for: Ongoing review of marketing and operational structures Pre-launch compliance design for new market entrants Handling administrative penalties and deregistration risks Our approach goes beyond reviewing advertising language. We assess the entire service structure and operational model to identify regulatory exposure based on how authorities actually enforce the rules. If you are currently operating in Korea or planning to enter the market, a preliminary legal review can significantly reduce regulatory risk. Share a brief outline of your business, and we will provide an initial risk assessment tailored to your situation.
2026-04-21 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Startup Investment Contracts: Key Clauses Every Founder Must Review
You've probably heard it before: "Always have your term sheet reviewed before signing." Yet in practice, founders sign under pressure all the time — tight on cash, eager not to upset the investor, telling themselves they'll sort out the details later. It's one of the most common and costly mistakes in early-stage fundraising. Today's investment agreements are no longer simple documents. Milestone-based funding, KPIs, valuation adjustments, anti-dilution provisions, and redemption rights are all interconnected — and if you don't understand how they work together, you can lose meaningful equity and control without ever realizing it. This guide breaks down the trends we're seeing in Korean startup investment contracts right now, and what founders need to watch out for before they sign. 1. Why the Structure of Investment Contracts Has Changed Not long ago, founders could negotiate reasonably well by focusing on one question: how much equity for how much money? That's no longer enough. Modern investment agreements tie together valuation, milestone-based disbursements, anti-dilution mechanisms, redemption and repurchase rights, preferred share structures, drag-along rights, and rights of first refusal — all within a single document. Looking at any one clause in isolation is where founders get into trouble. As the funding environment has become more cautious, investors are building in more downside protection. That means founders need to be equally deliberate about guarding against excessive dilution and loss of operational control. Understanding how these contracts are structured before you sit down to negotiate can make a significant difference in the outcome. 2. Milestone-Based Funding: When Capital Doesn't Come All at Once One of the most notable shifts in recent Korean investment contracts is the move toward milestone-based disbursements. Rather than transferring the full investment amount upfront, investors release funds in tranches as the company hits pre-agreed targets. A typical structure might look like this: KRW 300 million at signing, an additional KRW 200 million upon reaching a monthly revenue target, and a final KRW 200 million tied to a product launch milestone. Before agreeing to this structure, founders should clarify three things. First, are the milestones defined precisely enough to be objectively measured? Vague language is a breeding ground for disputes. Second, what happens if a milestone is partially met — does disbursement pause entirely, or is there a proportional release? Third, who has the authority to determine whether a milestone has been achieved, and by what standard? The question isn't just whether the milestones sound reasonable on paper. It's whether your team can realistically hit them given your current resources, market conditions, and execution capacity. 3. KPI Definitions: Where Disputes Are Born As milestone structures have become more common, the question of which KPIs govern those milestones has become equally important. Founders are increasingly seeing metrics like MRR/ARR, retention rates, repeat visit rates, and conversion rates written into contracts — not just headline numbers like downloads or registered users. What matters more than the metric itself is how it's measured and over what time period. Take a seemingly straightforward target like "monthly revenue of KRW 100 million." Is that a one-time achievement, or does it need to be sustained for three consecutive months? Are refunds and discounts excluded from the calculation? Which data source governs — your internal accounting records or the settlement reports from your payment processor? These details should be spelled out explicitly in the contract. Ambiguity here is not a minor issue — it's where investor-founder disputes actually start. 4. Valuation, Dilution, and Anti-Dilution: What's Behind the Number Valuation is naturally where founders focus their attention. But the headline number matters far less than what happens to ownership percentages in subsequent funding rounds. Anti-dilution provisions protect existing investors when a later round closes at a lower valuation than the current one. The two most common mechanisms — full ratchet and weighted average — produce very different outcomes for founders. Full ratchet adjustments can significantly increase dilution; weighted average formulas tend to be more founder-friendly. Knowing which applies to your contract is essential. Refixing clauses deserve equal attention. These allow the per-share price to be retroactively adjusted if certain performance conditions aren't met. On the surface, your equity stake looks fixed. In practice, falling short of targets can trigger additional dilution you didn't plan for. A high valuation is worth celebrating — but only after you understand the dilution and adjustment mechanisms attached to it. 5. Penalties for Missed Milestones: Repurchase, Redemption, and Termination Wherever milestone structures exist, penalty provisions follow. Founders need to understand exactly what happens if targets aren't met. ✔️ Repurchase clauses require the founder to buy back the investor's shares if a milestone is missed. The key variable is price: is it the original investment amount, or does it include interest? ✔️ Redeemable Convertible Preferred Shares (RCPS) give investors the right to demand repayment under certain conditions, or to adjust the conversion ratio in their favor to protect their returns. ✔️ Contract termination clauses define how the agreement is unwound entirely if things go wrong, including how already-disbursed funds are settled. From a founder's perspective, the critical question is whether a missed milestone leaves the company any room to maneuver — or whether it creates an immediate liquidity crisis with no exit. You may not be able to eliminate these protections entirely, but their severity and scope are almost always negotiable. Before You Sign: Three Things to Check First Are the milestones and KPIs genuinely achievable given your team's current capacity and market conditions? What dilution and adjustment mechanisms are attached to the valuation, and how do they interact? And if milestones are missed, how severe are the penalties — and where are the limits? Getting clear on these three structural questions before you enter negotiations will put you in a materially stronger position. If any clause raises a red flag, or if the overall structure feels difficult to parse, we recommend reviewing the full contract rather than relying on a clause-by-clause reading. The risks in these agreements are often in how the provisions connect, not in any single term read in isolation. Decent Law Firm's Corporate Practice Team works with founders on investment contract reviews with a focus on practical risk — equity structure, dilution exposure, and penalty provisions. If you're approaching a closing, send us the key terms and we'll give you a clear, efficient assessment of where the real risks lie.
2026-04-20 Naver Blog -
Blogs
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
Setting Up an SPC in Korea as a Foreign Investor — What You Need to Know
■ Why Are More Foreign Investors Using SPCs in Korea? As global capital continues to flow into Korean real estate, infrastructure, digital assets, and private equity, the use of Special Purpose Companies (SPCs) with foreign shareholders has grown significantly. Whether you are a foreign investor looking to enter the Korean market, or a Korean investor structuring offshore exposure through an overseas SPC, these vehicles have become a practical standard in cross-border investment. An SPC is essentially a project-specific legal entity designed to isolate risk and create a clean capital structure. Used correctly, it is one of the most effective tools available for managing liability, tax exposure, and exit planning across multiple jurisdictions. That said, many investors focus almost entirely on the incorporation process and overlook the regulatory, tax, and dispute risks that come with the structure — often until something goes wrong. ■ The Foreign Investment Promotion Act: What Foreign SPC Shareholders Need to Know When a foreign national establishes or participates in an SPC in Korea, the primary legal framework that applies is the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (FIPA). Here is what matters in practice. If a foreign investor acquires 10% or more of the voting shares in a Korean company — including an SPC — or exercises substantive influence through board appointments even below that threshold, the investment is classified as foreign investment under FIPA. The entity then becomes a registered foreign-invested company, subject to specific reporting obligations and post-establishment management requirements. It is also worth noting that FIPA looks beyond the immediate shareholder on record. Regulators use the concept of the Ultimate Controlling Parent (UCP) to identify who is actually behind the SPC. A layered ownership structure does not shield investors from this scrutiny. This means the question of whether your SPC will be treated as a foreign-invested company or a standard domestic entity needs to be answered — and designed for — before incorporation, not after. ■ Four Things to Check Before Setting Up a Foreign SPC First, define the legal character of the SPC clearly. Whether it is a holding company, a project company for a specific development, or an asset securitization vehicle determines which regulatory frameworks apply. In some cases, the actual funding and decision-making structure may bring the entity within the scope of collective investment or discretionary investment regulations — regardless of how it is labeled. Second, assess your FIPA reporting and registration obligations. Depending on your ownership percentage, voting rights structure, and ultimate controlling entity, your SPC may qualify as a foreign-invested company with corresponding benefits — such as tax incentives and location support — and obligations, including ongoing reporting and change notifications. Third, look at the tax picture across all relevant jurisdictions simultaneously. Structuring purely around headline tax rates is no longer sufficient. South Korea's tax authority, along with its treaty partners, applies substance requirements and BEPS principles aggressively. A structure that looks tax-efficient on paper can be unwound at audit if the SPC lacks genuine economic substance in its jurisdiction of incorporation. Fourth, put the shareholder arrangements in writing. SPCs are by nature multi-party platforms. Without a properly drafted shareholders agreement covering voting rights, dividend policy, transfer restrictions, exit mechanisms, and dispute resolution — including a clear choice of governing law and arbitration venue — even straightforward disagreements can escalate into complex cross-border litigation. ■ You Should Seek Legal Advice If Any of These Apply You are a foreign investor planning to establish or participate in a Korean SPC You are a Korean investor structuring overseas investment through a foreign SPC You are uncertain whether your current structure triggers FIPA registration requirements Your shareholder arrangements are based on a handshake understanding or a non-binding MOU You have received inquiries or document requests from a tax authority or financial regulator When issues arise in cross-border SPC structures, they rarely stay contained to one jurisdiction. Regulatory scrutiny, tax reassessment, and shareholder disputes can surface simultaneously across multiple countries. Early legal review is significantly less costly than managing a dispute after the fact. ■ How Decent Law Firm Can Help Decent Law Firm's International Legal and Virtual Asset Team advises on the full lifecycle of SPC structures involving foreign investors — from initial structuring and jurisdiction selection, to FIPA compliance, shareholder agreement drafting, tax risk assessment, and dispute resolution. If you are considering establishing an SPC in Korea, participating as a foreign shareholder in an existing structure, or simply want to know whether your current setup is legally sound, we are happy to help you work through it.
2026-04-14 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Korea FSS Cracks Down on Finfluencers: What KOLs Need to Know About Legal Risk
Korea's Financial Regulator Is Now Actively Targeting Finfluencers Korea's Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has confirmed illegal activity across five YouTube channels offering paid stock recommendations and automated trading programs, and has announced it will refer the operators for criminal investigation. The finfluencer and KOL market in Korea has effectively entered a period of full regulatory scrutiny. Four of the five channels identified were found to have provided investment advice and recommendations without registering as quasi-investment advisory businesses, in potential violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA). Three of them charged tiered subscription fees ranging from approximately $2 to $450 per month for stock analysis and picks, while a fourth recommended entry and exit timing for leveraged U.S. ETFs. A fifth operator was flagged for selling an automated stock trading program without the required investment discretionary business license. The FSS has stated it will refer unregistered financial investment operators for criminal investigation and has indicated that front-running and other market manipulation activities will be pursued by its special judicial police unit. Legal Risks by Service Type ① Quasi-Investment Advisory Registration Risk (Paid Recommendations & Tip Services) If you operate a paid stock tip channel or recommendation service and collect regular subscription fees or tiered membership dues, your business may be subject to quasi-investment advisory registration requirements under the FSCMA. Describing your content as "information sharing" does not provide legal protection — regulators assess how the service actually functions. ② Unlicensed Investment Discretionary Business Risk (Automated Trading Bots & Signals) If your automated trading bot or signal service effectively executes or directs trades on behalf of subscribers, it may fall within the scope of investment discretionary business, which requires a formal license. As this latest crackdown demonstrates, operating without the required license carries serious criminal exposure. ③ Front-Running and Undisclosed Advertising Risk Recommending products or securities while in an undisclosed paid or sponsored relationship may violate both advertising disclosure laws and FSCMA investment solicitation rules. Recommending securities you already hold with the intent to sell after the price rises can constitute market manipulation, and the FSS has made clear it intends to pursue these cases aggressively. If Any of These Apply to You, Your Business May Already Be at Risk You should seek legal advice immediately if any of the following describe your situation. You operate a paid stock recommendation or tip service You sell or license an automated trading bot or signal subscription You have affiliate or sponsorship relationships with ETF, crypto, or platform providers but your disclosure practices are unclear You have seen a recent increase in refund requests or customer complaints You have received any inquiry or document request from a financial regulator or investigative authority Once a referral for criminal investigation is initiated, the consequences — channel suspension, account freezes, and criminal liability — can materialize simultaneously. A brief legal review now can prevent a far larger problem later. 5 Things You Should Review Right Now First, clarify the legal classification of your business. Whether your service constitutes simple information provision, quasi-investment advisory, or investment discretionary business has significant legal consequences — and the answer depends on how your service actually operates, not how it is labeled. Second, review your Terms of Service, disclaimer language, and product descriptions for compliance with the FSCMA, the E-Commerce Act, and the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions. A generic disclaimer stating that users are responsible for their own investment decisions is not sufficient protection. Third, establish internal guidelines for advertising, sponsorship, and affiliate disclosures. Conflict of interest disclosure standards and revenue-sharing transparency should be defined at the content planning stage, not added as an afterthought. Fourth, if you operate a paid community on Telegram, KakaoTalk, or Discord, document the permitted scope of content, as well as your refund and cancellation process. Clear internal rules significantly reduce the risk of disputes and regulatory complaints. Fifth, build pre-launch legal review into your routine before releasing new services, changing your fee structure, or entering into significant partnerships. Decent Law Firm's Virtual Asset Team Is Here to Help Finfluencer and KOL businesses sit at the intersection of content regulation, marketing law, community management, investment advisory rules, and platform compliance. Managing these risks requires a perspective that spans financial regulation, capital markets law, platform liability, and criminal exposure — general contract review alone is not enough. Decent Law Firm's Virtual Asset Team provides tailored legal services covering business structure assessment, compliant model design, Terms of Service and advertising guideline review, and dispute and investigation response. If you are uncertain whether your current business structure is legally sound, contact Decent Law Firm today.
2026-04-13 Naver Blog
