-
Blogs CryptoCrypto Referral Liability in Korea: Why the FSC Issued a Warning on Unregistered Virtual Asset Service Providers
Sharing overseas crypto exchange referral links on YouTube, Telegram, or open chat rooms may seem like simple advertising. However, in its press release dated June 24, 2026, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) stated that referral or recommendation-link activities may be viewed as assisting unregistered virtual asset business operations. The FSC also noted that referrers themselves may be subject to criminal liability depending on the circumstances. If you operate or participate in crypto referral marketing, private stablecoin exchange, or promotion of overseas crypto exchanges targeting Korean users, it is important to review whether your activities may raise issues under Korea’s Specified Financial Information Act. Key Points from the FSC Warning The FSC explained that, under the Specified Financial Information Act, any entity conducting virtual asset business targeting Korean users must be reported to the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU), unless it is one of the 28 registered virtual asset service providers. If an entity conducts virtual asset trading, exchange, transfer, custody, brokerage, or intermediary services as a business without proper reporting, this may constitute a violation of the Specified Financial Information Act. Unregistered virtual asset business activities may be punishable by imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. The FSC also noted that, after the amended Specified Financial Information Act takes effect in August 2026, those involved in unregistered illegal business activities may face additional restrictions. These may include restrictions on becoming a major shareholder of a domestic virtual asset service provider or serving as a representative or executive officer for a certain period. In this sense, the FSC press release is not merely a general user warning. It can also be understood as a signal that Korean authorities may strengthen investigations and sanctions against unregistered virtual asset service providers and those who assist their business activities. Three Types of Illegal Activity Highlighted by the FSC The FSC identified three major types of illegal virtual asset business activities recently observed in Korea. First, overseas exchanges conducting business in Korea without reporting. Even if an exchange is based overseas, Korea’s Specified Financial Information Act may apply if the exchange conducts business targeting Korean users. Factors such as Korean-language websites, KRW payment support, Korean user acquisition events, and domestic marketing activities may be considered together. Second, private stablecoin exchange businesses. Private exchange operators who buy, sell, or exchange stablecoins such as USDT for KRW may also raise legal issues. These services may target foreign students, tourists, foreign residents in Korea, or users who wish to avoid identity exposure. Even if the operator claims that the activity was merely a private exchange, it may still be viewed as an unregistered virtual asset business if repetition, fees, customer solicitation, and business structure are confirmed. Third, SNS-based referral promotion. This refers to cases where a person receives commissions from an overseas virtual asset service provider and promotes that exchange through YouTube, Telegram, open chat rooms, or similar channels. In particular, if the promotion is combined with referral links, invitation codes, fee paybacks, VIP chat rooms, or user-management activities, it may go beyond simple advertising and be viewed as user solicitation or assistance to unregistered business operations. Why Crypto Referral Marketing May Become a Criminal Issue Crypto referral programs are commonly operated in the following structure. 1. Distribution of overseas exchange referral links or invitation codes 2. Receipt of commissions based on referred users’ trading volume 3. Guidance on how to use the exchange through Telegram or open chat rooms 4. Promotion based on events, profit claims, fee discounts, or other incentives 5. Repeated promotion targeting Korean users The legal issue is whether this structure is merely advertising or whether it assists an unregistered virtual asset service provider’s business in Korea. In its press release, the FSC specifically warned against participating in referral or recommendation-link solicitation activities and stated that referrers may also be subject to criminal liability. Therefore, YouTubers, influencers, investment chat room operators, Telegram channel operators, and open chat room administrators may be investigated even if they did not directly operate the exchange. Investigators may review how the promotion was conducted, how referral fees were paid, whether there was a contractual relationship with the exchange, and how Korean users were recruited. Can Private Exchange or OTC Transactions Also Lead to Investigation? The same issue may arise in private exchange or OTC transactions. A person may believe that they were simply buying or selling crypto. However, the following circumstances may raise issues under the Specified Financial Information Act. 1. Repeated transactions with an unspecified number of users 2. Receipt of fees or exchange-rate margins for each transaction 3. Customer solicitation through Telegram, KakaoTalk, or SNS 4. Continuous exchange between KRW and stablecoins such as USDT 5. Brokerage or intermediary activity for the convenience of others The Supreme Court of Korea has also held that, unlike an ordinary exchange user, a person may be considered a virtual asset service provider if they continuously and repeatedly conduct virtual asset transactions for the benefit of an unspecified number of customers or users and receive compensation for doing so. The key issue is whether the activity was simple holding or investment, or whether it can be viewed as repeated, compensated virtual asset transactions conducted as a business. Why Ordinary Users Should Not Simply Assume They Are Safe Using an unregistered exchange or private exchange service does not automatically make a user a suspect under the Specified Financial Information Act. However, the FSC has warned that users of illegal virtual asset operators may face unexpected disadvantages. For example, the user’s funds may become mixed with criminal funds, or the user may become subject to investigation during the process of verifying counterparties and the source of funds. The following situations may make it difficult to characterize the person as a mere user. 1. Sharing referral links with acquaintances and receiving rewards 2. Repeatedly encouraging others to use an unregistered exchange 3. Introducing private exchange transactions and receiving commissions 4. Dealing with funds suspected to be connected to phishing, narcotics, fraud, or other crimes 5. Allowing one’s bank account to be used as a deposit or withdrawal channel for multiple people In such cases, authorities may review not only potential violations of the Specified Financial Information Act, but also issues under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, fraud aiding and abetting, or other money-laundering-related allegations. If You Have Already Been Contacted by Investigators If you have been contacted by the police, KoFIU, or another investigative authority, the first step is to accurately identify your role. The defense strategy will differ depending on whether you were a mere user, promoter, broker, intermediary, or private exchange operator. At the early stage of investigation, it is important to organize the following materials. · How you joined or used the exchange · Referral link or referral code usage history · Commission or fee settlement records · Telegram, KakaoTalk, or open chat room messages · Virtual asset deposit and withdrawal records · KRW bank account transaction records · Contracts or settlement records with overseas exchanges or advertisers · Whether you recruited Korean users The important point is not simply to claim that you were only a user. Before making a statement, it is necessary to analyze how investigators may view the transaction structure, revenue structure, promotion method, user recruitment, repetition, compensation, and awareness of illegality. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist Decent Law Firm has reviewed a wide range of matters involving virtual asset service provider reporting, violations of the Specified Financial Information Act, crypto referral marketing, OTC and P2P transactions, stablecoin exchange, and criminal cases involving overseas exchanges. Virtual asset investigations are not limited to crypto transaction records. Investigative authorities may review Telegram messages, referral-fee settlement structures, relationships with exchanges, KRW bank account flows, wallet address movements, advertising phrases, and user recruitment methods. Before attending an investigative interview, the following issues should be carefully reviewed. 1. Whether the activity constitutes a virtual asset business under the Specified Financial Information Act 2. Whether the alleged unregistered business activity had continuity, repetition, and compensation 3. Whether referral promotion was simple advertising or user solicitation 4. Whether private exchange activity was personal trading or business operation 5. Whether the matter may expand into money laundering or criminal proceeds allegations 6. What should and should not be stated during a police interview If you have been contacted by investigators in relation to crypto referrals, private exchange, or use of an unregistered overseas exchange, legal review before your initial statement is essential. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Group analyzes the transaction structure and investigation issues together to provide a response strategy tailored to each client’s situation. Key Takeaways The FSC press release dated June 24, 2026 is not merely a general warning about unregistered virtual asset service providers. It clearly indicates that overseas exchanges targeting Korean users, private stablecoin exchange operators, and SNS-based crypto referral promoters may all be subject to investigation under the Specified Financial Information Act.In particular, because the FSC officially mentioned that referral participants may also face criminal liability, YouTubers, influencers, channel operators, and investment chat room operators should immediately review their existing promotion structures. After being contacted by investigators, simply saying that you did not know may not be enough. The first step should be to legally assess whether your conduct may be viewed as business operation, brokerage, intermediation, or solicitation under Korean law. Source: Financial Services Commission, Press Release on Caution Against Using and Trading with Illegal Virtual Asset Operators, June 24, 2026. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Labor · Employment Disputes
How to File an Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application
If you have lost your job without any prior notice, for reasons that are impossible to understand, or without being given any reason at all, the frustration and sense of injustice can only truly be understood by those who have experienced it. However, if you know “this,” there is no need to panic. Korean labor law clearly provides that an employer may not dismiss an employee without just cause. A dismissal that violates this rule may constitute unfair dismissal, and through a remedy application filed with the Labor Relations Commission, you may be able to seek reinstatement or monetary compensation. In fact, thousands of employees recover their rights every year through unfair dismissal remedy applications. Does This Qualify as Unfair Dismissal? Unfair dismissal refers to a dismissal made without just cause, or a dismissal carried out without following the procedures required by law. If any of the following applies to your situation, you may have grounds to suspect unfair dismissal. - The reason for dismissal is unclear or difficult to accept If you were only told something vague, such as “due to company circumstances” or “you are not a good fit,” without any specific explanation, there may be no legitimate reason for dismissal. - You were suddenly dismissed without prior notice Under the Labor Standards Act, an employer must either give at least 30 days’ advance notice of dismissal or pay at least 30 days’ ordinary wages in lieu of notice. If the employer fails to comply with this requirement, the employer may be obligated to pay dismissal notice allowance and may also be subject to criminal penalties. - You did not receive written notice of dismissal A dismissal must be made in writing, and the written notice must specify both the reason for dismissal and the effective date of dismissal. If you were only notified verbally, the dismissal procedure itself may be unlawful. - It was a managerial dismissal, but the legal requirements were not met For a dismissal due to business reasons, the employer must satisfy strict legal requirements, including urgent managerial necessity, efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection of employees to be dismissed, and prior consultation with employee representatives. - It was a disciplinary dismissal, but no disciplinary committee procedure was followed If the employer ignored disciplinary procedures required under the rules of employment or a collective bargaining agreement, the dismissal may be found unfair due to procedural defects. Please carefully review the points above. If any of them apply, you should actively consider filing a remedy application. How Does an Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application Proceed? Where to file and the deadline An unfair dismissal remedy application is filed with the Regional Labor Relations Commission. The deadline is within three months from the date the dismissal took effect. This is an exclusion period, meaning that once the period expires, the right to file a remedy application itself is extinguished. Procedure Once the application is filed with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, the process generally proceeds in the following order: investigation by an investigator → hearing session → decision. If either party disagrees with the decision, they may file an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission within 10 days from the date they receive the remedial order or dismissal decision. If no appeal is filed within that period, the decision becomes final and binding. If a party disagrees with the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, the matter may be further challenged through administrative litigation. What remedies are available? If the remedy application is accepted, the outcome generally falls into one of two categories. Reinstatement : The employee is reinstated to their original position, and the employer must also pay wages equivalent to what the employee would have earned during the dismissal period. Monetary compensation order : If the employee does not wish to return to work, they may choose monetary compensation instead. In this case, compensation is generally calculated based on the wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. Unlike a reinstatement order, where wages equivalent to the period from dismissal until actual reinstatement may be paid, the calculation period for monetary compensation ends on the date of the decision. Therefore, the longer the proceedings continue, the greater the difference in compensation may become between the two options. What if the company proposes a settlement during the proceedings? It is not uncommon for an employer to propose a settlement while the remedy application is ongoing. The amount of settlement compensation can vary significantly depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore, if you receive a settlement proposal, it is important to have an expert review whether the proposed amount is appropriate. There are also several points that must be checked before entering into a settlement. Whether the settlement may affect your eligibility for unemployment benefits Whether the settlement terms include unfavorable clauses, such as waiver of future claims or litigation rights Whether there are still unpaid wages, severance pay, or other outstanding amounts separate from the settlement payment Before signing any settlement agreement, you must carefully review its contents. Can I Receive Unemployment Benefits After Being Unfairly Dismissed? Yes, you may be eligible. Unemployment benefits are generally available when the employee’s separation from employment is involuntary, rather than a voluntary resignation. Because unfair dismissal is a unilateral termination made against the employee’s will, it may be recognized as involuntary separation, making the employee eligible for unemployment benefits. You may also apply for unemployment benefits while the unfair dismissal remedy procedure is still ongoing. However, if the Labor Relations Commission later issues a reinstatement order, the employee’s unemployment status may be deemed to have been retroactively resolved as of the date of the reinstatement order, regardless of whether the employee actually returns to work or receives wages. As a result, there may be situations where unemployment benefits already received must be returned. This is something you should keep in mind in advance. You should also confirm in advance whether you meet the eligibility requirements, such as having at least 180 insured working days under employment insurance during the 18-month base period prior to the date of separation. You Do Not Have to Go Through This Difficult Process Alone What can go wrong if you handle it alone? In an unfair dismissal remedy case, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was justified. However, in practice, employees may still be placed at a disadvantage if they fail to secure proper evidence or make procedural mistakes. Employers often immediately appoint legal counsel or certified labor consultants to respond to the claim. This creates a significant gap in information and preparation from the very beginning. In particular, when a settlement proposal is made, it can be extremely difficult to determine on your own whether the proposed amount is reasonable or whether the settlement terms contain unfavorable provisions. You must also strategically decide which option is most beneficial for you: reinstatement, monetary compensation, or settlement. A single mistake in the early stages can completely change the outcome of the case. How Decent Law Office Can Help - Review of the dismissal circumstances and assessment of unfair dismissal We carefully analyze the circumstances of the dismissal, the stated reasons, and the procedures followed, and first assess the likelihood of obtaining relief. - Preparation of remedy application documents and representation throughout the procedure From preparing the application to responding at the hearing session, we assist you throughout the entire Labor Relations Commission process. - Settlement negotiation support We review whether the employer’s settlement proposal is appropriate and negotiate toward terms that are more favorable to our client. - Strategic selection of the best direction — reinstatement, monetary compensation, or settlement Our goal is not simply to “win.” We develop a strategy aimed at achieving the best possible outcome based on each client’s circumstances and objectives. If you have unfairly lost your job, Decent Law Office will stand with you until the end. Before it is too late, we recommend seeking legal advice first.
2026-06-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Labor · Employment Disputes
A Practical Guide to Penalties for Unemployment Benefits Fraud
What Is Unemployment Benefits Fraud? Unemployment benefits fraud refers to receiving unemployment benefits through false or improper means despite failing to meet the eligibility requirements under the Employment Insurance Act. Article 61 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that payment of job-seeking benefits may be restricted for any person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits through false or otherwise improper means. A wider range of conduct than many people expect may constitute fraudulent receipt. Common examples include the following. Failure to Report Employment or Reemployment This refers to cases where a person has been reemployed or has started part-time work but continues to receive unemployment benefits without reporting it to the employment center. Even a single day of work must be reported. Concealing Freelance or Part-Time Income This refers to cases where a person earns income but fails to report it, thinking, “It is not formal employment.” Freelance service fees, platform work income, and similar income are all subject to reporting obligations. False Reporting of the Reason for Separation This refers to cases where a person voluntarily resigned but falsely reports the separation as a recommended resignation, termination by employer, or expiration of contract. Because this is an intentional disguise designed to satisfy the requirements for unemployment benefits, it is treated particularly seriously. Receiving Benefits While Staying Overseas This refers to cases where a person receives unemployment benefits while staying overseas for an extended period during the benefit period, despite being required to engage in job-seeking activities. Failure to Report Opening a Business This refers to cases where a person registers a business or effectively begins operating a business but fails to report it. Penalties and Fines for Unemployment Benefits Fraud If fraudulent receipt is detected, the matter does not end simply by returning the money. In addition to civil recovery, criminal punishment may also follow. ① Full Repayment + Additional Collection of Up to Five Times the Amount Under Article 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, the full amount of the fraudulently received benefits must be returned. However, this is not the end. The Ministry of Employment and Labor may additionally collect up to twice the fraudulently received amount in cases of individual fraudulent receipt, and up to five times the amount where the recipient colluded with an employer. For example, if a person fraudulently received KRW 3 million on their own, they may be required to pay up to KRW 6 million in additional collection. If the person colluded with an employer, the additional collection may reach up to KRW 15 million. ② Criminal Punishment — Imprisonment or Fine Article 116 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that a person who fraudulently receives unemployment benefits may be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. However, where the fraudulent receipt was committed in collusion with an employer, the punishment is aggravated to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. If the amount or method is serious, imprisonment may be imposed rather than a simple fine. The fact that a criminal record may remain should also not be overlooked. ③ Restriction on Future Eligibility If a person is caught fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits, their eligibility for future unemployment benefits may be restricted. This means that even if the person later becomes genuinely unemployed, they may face disadvantages in receiving benefits. How Is Fraudulent Receipt Actually Detected? Thinking “surely they won’t investigate me” is dangerous. The Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service detect fraudulent recipients through various channels. Data Matching with the National Tax Service and Four Major Social Insurance Systems This is the most common detection route. If income is reported to the National Tax Service or a four-major-insurance acquisition record appears during the unemployment benefit period, a mismatch is automatically detected. Even where the recipient was unaware, fraudulent receipt may be detected if the employer reported the person’s four-major-insurance enrollment. Reward System for Reports A reward system is in place for third parties who report fraudulent receipt of unemployment benefits. There are many cases where fraudulent receipt is detected through reports by coworkers, acquaintances, or even former employers. SNS and Card Transaction Records Investigations may begin where work-related posts are uploaded on social media during the benefit period or where business-related expenses are identified through transaction records. This route is particularly common in cases involving failure to report the opening of a business. Does Voluntary Reporting Make a Difference? If a person reports the issue voluntarily before being detected, the disadvantages may be significantly reduced. The Ministry of Employment and Labor provides benefits such as reduction or exemption of additional collection for voluntary reporters. Because additional collection may otherwise reach up to five times the fraudulently received amount, voluntary reporting may result in the matter being resolved in practice through repayment of the principal amount only. Voluntary reporting may also serve as a favorable sentencing factor when determining whether criminal punishment should be imposed. However, before making a report, it is advisable to first understand the amount to be repaid and the specific circumstances of the case. Lawyer’s Advice — If You Receive a Notice of Investigation When Can the Argument of “No Intent” Be Accepted? In unemployment benefits fraud cases, arguments such as “I did not know” or “I had no intent” are more difficult to have accepted than many people expect. Because employment centers expressly inform applicants of their reporting obligations when applying for benefits, it is difficult to deny intent merely by claiming ignorance. However, intent may be denied, or the circumstances may be reflected favorably in sentencing, in cases where the employer unilaterally enrolled the person in the four major social insurance systems, where the income from short-term part-time work was extremely small, or where there was a genuine misunderstanding about the scope of the reporting obligation. If You Receive a Summons or Investigation Notice Once you receive a notice of investigation from the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the police, responding alone can be risky. This is because your statements may directly affect the level of criminal punishment. Before attending an investigation, it is important to consult a legal professional and review the direction of your statements and whether voluntary reporting is appropriate. If you are under investigation for unemployment benefits fraud or have been contacted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, please contact Decent Law Firm before it is too late. Our labor and criminal law teams will review your case and guide you toward the best possible response.
2026-06-18 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Overseas Futures Trading Lawyer: What You Need to Know Before an Investigation Begins
Why Domestic Promotion of Overseas Futures and FX Margin Trading Can Be Problematic Trading overseas futures or FX margin products is not, in itself, completely prohibited under Korean law. The issue arises when individuals or entities provide brokerage-related services or facilitate such trading activities within Korea without the required authorization. Under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act ("Capital Markets Act"), any person engaging in the business of trading, brokerage, or intermediation of financial investment products must obtain authorization from the Financial Services Commission. Overseas futures and FX margin products are classified as derivatives under the Capital Markets Act. Depending on the manner and extent of a person's involvement, different offenses and penalties may apply. For example, legal issues may differ depending on whether a person: Assists clients in opening accounts on overseas platforms such as MT4 or MT5; Operates a trading signal or "copy-trading" community; Receives and manages client funds directly. Case Study: “I Only Helped Connect People to the Platform” Mr. A had traded overseas futures for several years and built a track record of profitable trading. As his results became known among acquaintances, several people expressed interest in participating. Mr. A began assisting them with MT5 account registration and deposit procedures. He later operated a KakaoTalk group chat and Telegram channel where he provided real-time trading signals and received monthly subscription fees from members. Mr. A believed that he was merely providing information because each customer opened and managed their own account. His position was simple: "The investment decisions were made by the customers themselves." However, he eventually received notice that he had become the subject of a Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) investigation, which later developed into a criminal investigation. Investigators concluded that Mr. A's conduct went beyond merely providing market information. They focused on the fact that he continuously communicated with members in real time and repeatedly instructed them on entry and exit points for trades in exchange for compensation. When evidence emerged suggesting direct involvement in certain members' trading accounts, the allegations became significantly more serious. Why “Providing Information Only” Can Still Lead to Violations of the Capital Markets Act This is where many people misunderstand the legal risks. As involvement becomes more substantial, the potential offenses become more serious. Investigators typically focus on factors such as the following: Commercial Nature of the Activity Did the operator repeatedly collect fees while promoting services to the general public? → Potential issue: Violation of regulations governing quasi-investment advisory businesses Interactive Communication Did the operator provide individualized trading recommendations through open chat rooms, Telegram channels, or similar platforms? → Potential issue: Unregistered investment advisory business Automated Trading Execution Did the operator use API integrations or copy-trading systems that automatically replicated trades for clients? → Potential issue: Operating an investment discretionary management business without registration Involvement in Client Funds Did client funds pass through the operator's accounts, or did the operator directly participate in the trading process? → Potential issue: Unauthorized investment brokerage business Since August 2024, Korean regulations have prohibited quasi-investment advisory businesses from operating interactive communication channels with subscribers. This is one reason why the argument that someone was "only providing information" may no longer be persuasive from the outset. Additional Charges Such as Illegal Fundraising and Fraud May Also Apply If investors were recruited using representations such as: "Guaranteed monthly returns" "No risk of principal loss" "Guaranteed profits" additional criminal liability may arise under the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. This law prohibits raising funds from an unspecified number of individuals while promising repayment of principal, interest, or other guaranteed returns without proper authorization. Where an operator attracts investors through a trading signal service or investment community while emphasizing guaranteed profits, authorities may pursue multiple charges simultaneously, including: Violations of the Capital Markets Act; Violations of laws regulating unauthorized fundraising activities; Fraud. For example, in 2025, the Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency arrested 28 individuals accused of raising approximately KRW 140 billion from more than 2,400 investors by claiming they would generate profits through FX margin trading. Authorities reportedly applied charges including fraud, illegal fundraising, and violations of the Door-to-Door Sales Act. This illustrates why overseas futures and FX margin trading cases rarely involve only a single allegation. What to Review If You Have Been Contacted by Investigators If any of the following situations apply to you, legal review before questioning may be advisable: ▪ Providing paid overseas futures or FX margin trading signals through Telegram, KakaoTalk, or similar platforms; ▪ Assisting clients with MT4, MT5, or similar platform account openings while receiving commissions or referral fees; ▪ Operating copy-trading services using clients' API keys or automated trading systems. Depending on the specific facts, authorities may allege: Violations relating to quasi-investment advisory businesses; Unregistered investment advisory activities; Unregistered investment discretionary management services; Unauthorized investment brokerage; Illegal fundraising activities; Fraud. The direction of statements made during the early stages of an investigation can significantly influence the development of the case. Understanding the legal structure of the allegations before attending an interview is therefore critical. The Digital Asset Practice Team at Decent Law Firm regularly advises individuals and businesses involved in investigations concerning unauthorized overseas futures and FX margin trading activities. If you have been contacted by investigators or have already been scheduled for questioning, it is important to understand the nature of the allegations and the overall structure of the case before appearing for an interview.
2026-06-17 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Need Compensation for an Investment Scam?
Does Any of This Sound Familiar? ✔️ Cryptocurrency / Virtual Asset Scam Patterns You were invited to a high-return crypto investment group through social media or an open chat room. After making a small initial investment, you actually received profits. Once you invested more money, withdrawals suddenly became unavailable. The person in charge disappeared, or the investment platform itself vanished. ✔️ Stock Recommendation Service Scam Patterns It started as a free stock recommendation service. You initially made profits from recommended stocks. You were encouraged to join a VIP group or paid service. After paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees, your losses continued to grow. If any of the above applies to you, there is a significant possibility that you have been the victim of investment fraud. Before blaming yourself, consider whether legal remedies may be available. Why Compensation May Be Possible — Legal Grounds Many victims ask: "I've already transferred the money. Can I still recover it?" In many cases, the answer is yes. Criminal Complaint (Fraud Investigation) Filing a criminal complaint can initiate an official investigation and enable law enforcement authorities to trace bank accounts and investigate criminal proceeds. In addition, asset-freezing measures such as preliminary attachment orders or payment suspension procedures under applicable financial fraud regulations may help prevent the dissipation of assets. Civil Damages Claim Victims may also pursue the return of their losses through civil litigation, either independently or alongside criminal proceedings. Where multiple individuals participated in the fraud, all participants may be held jointly liable under the principle of joint tort liability. This means that victims may seek recovery of the full amount of their losses from any one of the responsible parties. Furthermore, since the implementation of South Korea's Virtual Asset User Protection Act on July 19, 2024, the legal framework for responding to virtual asset-related fraud has become stronger than before. Why Legal Representation Matters Recovering losses from investment scams is difficult not because victims lack knowledge of the law, but because fraudsters deliberately conceal their tracks. Fraud organizations often: Split funds across multiple accounts Operate through multiple entities or shell companies Launder proceeds through virtual assets and overseas platforms As a result, a simple complaint or basic police report is often insufficient to uncover the full structure of the scheme. Even when a case is formally reported, investigations may end with "suspect unknown" or "insufficient evidence" unless the case is properly supported. Effective recovery efforts often require: Early evidence preservation strategies (chat records, bank transfers, platform screenshots, etc.) Experience working with virtual asset exchanges and tracing transactions Coordinated group actions involving multiple victims The ability to pursue both criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously Without an experienced virtual asset litigation team, navigating these processes can be extremely challenging. What Makes Decent Law Firm Different Decent Law Firm operates a dedicated team focused on virtual asset disputes and investment fraud cases. Attorneys who understand cryptocurrency exchanges, blockchain transactions, and digital asset investigations approach these cases from an entirely different starting point. Our Experience Includes: Cooperation with virtual asset exchanges and regulatory authorities Simultaneous criminal and civil recovery strategies Representation of groups of victims in collective actions Development of evidence preservation and recovery strategies tailored to victims In investment fraud cases, time is critical. The longer the delay, the greater the risk that assets will be dispersed and evidence will disappear. Prompt action can significantly improve the likelihood of recovery. One Thing You Should Do Right Now Preserve Your Evidence. Keep any materials you still have, including: KakaoTalk or messaging app conversations Bank transfer records Screenshots of investment platforms or applications Wallet addresses and account information Contact details of the individuals involved Even if the other party has disappeared, and even if the platform no longer exists, legal options may still be available. The sooner action is taken, the better the chances of protecting your rights and recovering your losses.
2026-06-16 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Accomplice Liability in Drug Cases Involving Privacy Coins: Dark Coins, Crypto Payments, and Investigation Risks in Korea
Why Are Privacy Coins Used in Online Drug Transactions? Monero (XMR), Zcash (ZEC), and similar assets are commonly referred to as privacy coins or “dark coins.” Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, where transaction records are generally visible on public blockchains, Monero is designed to make it difficult to identify the sender, recipient, and transaction amount through technologies such as ring signatures and stealth addresses. For this reason, Monero and other privacy-focused assets are sometimes used in online drug transactions, including transactions arranged through Telegram, dark web forums, and social media platforms. However, the fact that a transaction is difficult to trace does not mean that it is beyond the reach of law enforcement. Korean investigative authorities do not rely solely on on-chain transaction data. They may also review Telegram messages, mobile device forensic data, statements from sellers and buyers, exchange records, fiat conversion history, and other evidence to identify those involved in the transaction. In other words, privacy coins may make an investigation more complex, but they do not make an investigation impossible. Key Korean Laws That May Apply In drug-related cases involving privacy coins, multiple laws may apply depending on the person’s role and level of involvement. Legal Basis Main Conduct Covered Possible Penalty Narcotics Control Act, Article 60(1)2 Sale, brokerage, receipt, possession, or use of certain psychotropic substances, including substances classified under Schedules B or C Imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Narcotics Control Act, Article 58(1)3 Manufacturing, import/export, sale, brokerage, receipt, or possession for such purposes of Schedule A psychotropic substances Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information Operating a virtual asset business without the required VASP registration Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Concealing or disguising proceeds from drug-related crimes Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million Even if a person did not directly sell or possess drugs, liability may still arise if they connected buyers and sellers, facilitated payment flows, exchanged virtual assets, or helped conceal criminal proceeds. In addition, if a person operates an over-the-counter (OTC) virtual asset service without proper registration and the service is used to process drug-related funds, separate issues may arise under Korea’s anti-money laundering and virtual asset regulations. The applicable law and potential penalty will depend on the type of substance involved, the exact conduct, whether the conduct was repeated, whether any compensation was received, and whether the person knew or should have known the criminal nature of the transaction. Crypto-Related Drug Investigations Are Expanding in Korea Drug transactions in Korea are increasingly moving from offline channels to online platforms such as Telegram, dark web marketplaces, and social media. According to media reports citing Korean police data, from January to April 2026, 9.2% of all drug offenders were reported to have used virtual assets. This was higher than the annual figure of 8.4% recorded in the previous year. The proportion of online drug offenders has also continued to rise. Media reports indicate that the figure increased from 24.0% in 2021 to 42.0% during the January–April 2026 period. Korean authorities are also strengthening their investigative infrastructure. In 2026, the Ministry of Science and ICT and the Korean National Police Agency began promoting a project to develop an integrated investigation system linking dark web activity, virtual asset transaction tracing, and online drug advertisement monitoring. The police have also established dedicated virtual asset investigation teams in major regional police agencies, including Seoul, Busan, Incheon, Gyeonggi Nambu, and Gyeongnam. As a result, crypto-related drug investigations in Korea are no longer limited to the question of whether a coin transaction can be traced on-chain. Investigators may analyze online communications, wallet and exchange records, fiat conversion records, device forensics, transaction patterns, and statements from co-suspects together. Using a Privacy Coin Does Not Prevent Accomplice Liability In a Korean drug investigation, the key issue is not simply the payment method. The more important question is how the person was involved in the drug transaction. The Narcotics Control Act does not only punish direct sales. It may also punish inducement, solicitation, brokerage, receipt, possession, use, importation, and manufacturing, depending on the substance and conduct involved. For example, methamphetamine is generally treated as a Schedule B psychotropic substance under Korean law. If a person sells, brokers, receives, possesses, or uses methamphetamine, Article 60(1)2 of the Narcotics Control Act may apply, which provides for imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million. If the case involves importation or manufacturing of methamphetamine, a more serious provision may apply. Under Article 58(1)6 of the Narcotics Control Act, manufacturing or importing/exporting certain Schedule B psychotropic substances may be punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years. This means that the applicable charge can vary significantly depending on whether the conduct involved simple use, possession, sale, brokerage, aiding and abetting, importation, or manufacturing. Therefore, if you are contacted by Korean law enforcement, the first question should not be “Which coin was used?” but rather “What specific charge is being investigated?” Why “I Only Introduced the Parties” May Not Be Enough In many cases, suspects say: “I did not sell the drugs myself.” “I never touched the drugs.” “I only shared a Telegram link.” “I only helped connect two people.” However, Korean drug laws do not only target the final seller. If a person connects a buyer and a seller, directs someone to a sales channel, shares sales posts, helps arrange payment, or receives a commission after the transaction, the conduct may be viewed as brokerage or aiding and abetting. The following circumstances may increase legal risk: Repeatedly sharing Telegram channel links Connecting potential buyers to sellers Receiving a commission after a transaction Receiving the commission in Monero or another virtual asset Maintaining repeated contact with buyers or sellers Being named in a statement by an arrested seller or buyer In particular, receiving compensation in a privacy coin may be interpreted as an attempt to avoid detection. As a result, saying “I only introduced the parties” may sometimes help explain limited involvement, but it can also be used as evidence that the person knowingly participated in the transaction structure. What Evidence Do Korean Investigators Review? In privacy coin drug cases, Korean investigators generally do not rely on blockchain data alone. They may review the following types of evidence. First, they may review Telegram, KakaoTalk, Discord, or other messaging records. Even if the server is located overseas, messages, deleted data, files, images, contact information, and login records may be recovered through forensic analysis if a mobile phone or computer is seized. Second, they may rely on statements from co-suspects. If a seller or buyer is arrested first, the person may identify intermediaries, brokers, or payment facilitators during questioning. In that situation, even someone who was not present at the actual transaction may become a suspect. Third, they may review virtual asset and exchange records. Even if the privacy coin itself is difficult to trace, exchange registration records, deposit and withdrawal history, fiat conversion records, and transactions involving other virtual assets may still be reviewed. Fourth, they may assess repetition and compensation. A one-time message may be viewed differently from repeated introductions, repeated sharing of sales channels, or commission-based involvement. Whether the person received payment can significantly affect how the conduct is characterized. Before attending an interview, it is important to distinguish between what the investigators may already have and what the person’s actual role was. What to Check Before Attending a Police Interview If you are contacted by Korean law enforcement, it may be risky to immediately state, “I did not know,” or “I did not sell anything.” Early statements are later compared with police interview records, seized digital evidence, forensic results, and statements from co-suspects. If your statement changes or conflicts with other evidence, even limited involvement may be interpreted more unfavorably. Before attending an interview, you should check: The specific charge listed in the summons or notice Whether you are being treated as a suspect or a witness Whether your phone, computer, or other device has been seized The scope of Telegram, KakaoTalk, Discord, or other message records Whether any virtual asset wallet or exchange account was used Whether any seller or buyer has already been arrested Whether any commission or payment was received Whether there is evidence of repeated introductions or referrals Depending on these facts, the case may remain a witness interview, or it may develop into a full criminal investigation involving brokerage, aiding and abetting, or other drug-related charges. Once an interview date is scheduled, it is important to prepare a clear and consistent statement strategy in advance. Early Legal Response Matters in Privacy Coin Drug Investigations Using Monero or another privacy coin does not mean that a person is safe from investigation. Korean authorities are increasingly analyzing online drug transactions through Telegram records, virtual asset transaction structures, exchange and fiat conversion records, forensic evidence, and statements from co-suspects. In drug cases, the applicable law and penalty can vary significantly depending on whether the allegation involves use, possession, sale, brokerage, aiding and abetting, importation, or manufacturing. How you explain your role in the transaction, whether you received compensation, and how you respond to digital evidence and co-suspect statements may affect the direction of the case. Decent Law Firm’s criminal defense team assists clients in drug investigations involving virtual assets, digital forensic issues, and alleged accomplice liability. If you have received a police summons in Korea in connection with Monero, privacy coins, Telegram drug transactions, or virtual asset payments, it is important to review your situation before attending the interview. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-15 Naver Blog -
Blogs Labor · Employment Disputes
Why You Should Never Ignore Interest and Criminal Liability for Unpaid Severance Pay
If you are delaying severance payments because “the company is facing financial difficulties” or “we are still discussing payment with the former employee,” you need to review your legal obligations immediately. Once 14 days have passed after an employee's resignation, both statutory interest and potential criminal liability may begin to accrue. When Must Severance Pay Be Paid? Under Article 9 of the Korean Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act, severance pay must be paid within 14 days from the employee's date of retirement. In exceptional circumstances, the payment deadline may be extended by agreement between the employer and the employee. However, even where the payment deadline has been extended by agreement, legal liability may still arise. Moreover, an agreement extending the payment date does not automatically resolve issues relating to delay interest, which requires separate legal consideration. Interest on Unpaid Severance Pay Can Be Significant If severance pay remains unpaid beyond the 14-day statutory period, delay interest accrues from the following day at an annual rate of 20% under Article 37 of the Korean Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree. This rate is approximately four times higher than the general statutory civil interest rate of 5% per annum. Example KRW 30,000,000 (Severance Pay Principal) ↓ + KRW 6,000,000 (Delay Interest After One Year) Even if the parties agree to extend the payment deadline, delay interest is not automatically waived, and the longer the dispute continues, the greater the financial burden becomes. An extension agreement alone does not eliminate delay interest unless there is a separate legal basis supporting such waiver. Can Employers Actually Be Criminally Prosecuted? Yes. Failure to pay severance pay may constitute a criminal offense punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million under Article 44 of the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act. This is not merely an administrative violation—it may result in a criminal record. When a complaint is filed, a labor inspector from the Ministry of Employment and Labor will investigate the facts. If the employer is found to have intentionally avoided payment or lacked any genuine intention to pay, the case may be referred to prosecutors for criminal proceedings. Particularly where multiple employees at the same workplace have not received severance payments, authorities may view the conduct as intentional, increasing the likelihood of prosecution. What Should You Do Now? 1. Pay Immediately If Possible Even a partial payment may help demonstrate good faith and may be viewed favorably when assessing intent. 2. If Full Payment Is Not Possible, Execute a Written Installment Agreement Verbal agreements are difficult to prove in the event of a dispute. A properly documented written agreement can help reduce future conflicts and clarify the payment schedule. 3. Seek Legal Advice Early if a Complaint Has Been Filed or an Investigation Has Begun Statements made during a labor investigation can directly affect subsequent criminal proceedings. Establishing an appropriate legal strategy from the outset is critical. Time Is Not on the Employer's Side The longer severance pay remains unpaid, the more unfavorable the situation becomes for the employer. Interest continues to accumulate, and disputes tend to escalate. Obtaining accurate legal advice at an early stage can ultimately reduce both financial exposure and legal risk. At Decent Law Firm, we assist employers with labor investigations, criminal complaints relating to unpaid severance pay, and dispute resolution strategies. Before the situation worsens, consider obtaining legal advice as early as possible.
2026-06-11 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Criminal Risks for MetaTrader-Based Overseas Futures Signal and Copy Trading Operators in Korea
Growing Scrutiny of MetaTrader-Based Overseas Futures Signal Businesses MetaTrader 4 and 5 are trading platforms commonly used for overseas futures, FX trading, and CFDs, or contracts for difference. The MetaTrader platform itself is not illegal. The legal risk arises from how the business is operated. In Korea, issues may arise where an operator uses MetaTrader to run a trading signal room, copy trading service, or investment consulting business, while also directing users to a specific overseas broker and receiving referral commissions based on users’ trading volume. In such cases, Korean investigative authorities may examine whether the business structure constitutes fraud under the Korean Criminal Act or a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, commonly referred to as the Capital Markets Act. Applicable Laws Allegation Applicable Law Statutory Penalty Inducing investment through deception Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Fraud Imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million, based on the current provision as of the publication date Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Conducting unauthorized investment brokerage business Articles 11 and 444(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Paid one-on-one or interactive signal services beyond the scope of quasi-investment advisory business Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Improper business conduct by a quasi-investment advisory business operator Article 101-2 of the Capital Markets Act and related provisions Administrative sanctions, including administrative fines, inspections, and possible cancellation of registration The statutory penalty for fraud under the current Korean Criminal Act is imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. However, the actual penalty range in a specific case may vary depending on the timing of the alleged conduct, the applicable version of the law, and whether multiple offenses are found to be in concurrence. Fraud and violations of the Capital Markets Act are separate offenses with different legal elements and protected interests. Where both allegations are raised, the overall criminal exposure may increase depending on the scale of damage, business period, amount of referral revenue, and the specific role of the operator. Fraud Issues Under the Korean Criminal Act For fraud to be established in an investment-related case, there must generally be deception, mistake, a disposition of property, financial gain, and a causal relationship between these elements. In MetaTrader-based signal or copy trading cases, investigative authorities may focus on whether the operator had the actual ability and intent to generate the profits represented to customers. 1. Ability to Generate Profits Investigators may review the operator’s investment experience, trading record, risk management ability, and the explanations given to customers to determine whether the operator had an objective basis for the profits described. If the operator claimed to be an expert despite limited investment experience, or used expressions such as “stable returns,” “principal guaranteed,” or “no-loss trading,” those statements may become important factors in assessing whether the customer was misled. Overseas futures, FX, and CFDs are high-risk derivative products with significant volatility and potential for loss. Therefore, statements implying fixed or stable profits may be viewed unfavorably if they are inconsistent with the actual trading structure and risk profile. 2. Intent to Act in the Customer’s Interest Another key issue is whether the operator genuinely intended to pursue the customer’s investment interest. If the operator’s referral commission increased according to the customer’s trading frequency or trading volume, regardless of whether the customer made a profit or loss, investigators may question whether the operator prioritized referral income over the customer’s investment outcome. For example, if a customer states that they would not have invested had they known that substantial trading fees and referral commissions would be generated, the failure to disclose that fee structure may be considered a form of deception by omission. Issues Under the Capital Markets Act 1. Scope of Quasi-Investment Advisory Business Under Article 101 of the Capital Markets Act, a quasi-investment advisory business generally refers to a business that provides non-individualized investment advice on financial investment products to an unspecified number of clients for consideration, through publications, communications, broadcasts, or similar means. Paid investment advice provided through interactive channels such as KakaoTalk, Telegram, or open chat rooms may go beyond the permissible scope of quasi-investment advisory business and may be regulated as investment advisory business. A quasi-investment advisory business registration alone does not generally allow the operator to provide specific one-on-one instructions to individual users, such as entry points, liquidation timing, stop-loss levels, or take-profit levels. Such conduct may raise issues of unregistered investment advisory business under Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act. 2. Possible Unregistered Discretionary Investment Management Business In a copy trading structure, if the operator uses a customer’s account, API access, or trading authority to substantially control the management of the customer’s assets, the business may be examined as a possible unregistered discretionary investment management business. Discretionary investment management generally involves managing a client’s assets by making investment decisions on behalf of the client. If the operator goes beyond simply providing market information and effectively controls trading decisions and execution, the conduct may fall within the scope of regulated financial investment business. 3. Possible Unauthorized Investment Brokerage Business If the operator actively directs users to a specific overseas broker, assists with account opening, deposits, or trade execution, and receives commissions in connection with that activity, the structure may raise issues of unauthorized investment brokerage business under Articles 11 and 444(1) of the Capital Markets Act. Simply posting a link or introducing a broker does not automatically amount to investment brokerage. However, if the operator provides account-opening guidance, deposit instructions, trading education, product-specific recommendations, and receives referral commissions, Korean authorities may review the overall business structure to determine whether the operator was effectively engaging in regulated financial investment business. Practical Response During an Investigation In these cases, investigative authorities tend to focus on the operator’s ability, intent, disclosure practices, and the actual structure of referral compensation. Because statements made during the early stages of an investigation may later become important evidence in court, it is important to review the legal structure of the business as soon as the operator is contacted by the police or another investigative authority. Key issues to review include: Whether customers were properly informed of the risks of margin trading, leverage, forced liquidation, and fee structures Whether expressions such as “guaranteed profit,” “stable return,” or “principal guaranteed” were used Whether the current business model falls within the permissible scope of a quasi-investment advisory business How the referral commission structure is connected to customers’ trading volume, trading frequency, or investment performance DECENT Law Office’s Digital Asset and Financial Investment Team advises on criminal and regulatory matters involving MetaTrader-based overseas futures signal services, copy trading structures, referral commission models, and related Capital Markets Act issues. If you have received a criminal complaint, a police summons, or notice of a preliminary investigation, or if you wish to review whether your current business structure is legally appropriate under Korean law, it is important to first examine the specific facts and operational details of the business.
2026-06-10 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Failure to Take Required Measures After a Traffic Accident in Korea: Legal Structure and How to Respond to a Police Investigation
What Does “Failure to Take Measures After an Accident” Mean? When a traffic accident occurs in Korea, the driver has an immediate legal duty to take certain measures. Under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, if a traffic accident causes injury, death, or property damage, the driver must immediately stop the vehicle, take necessary measures such as assisting injured persons, and provide personal information to the victim, including the driver’s name, phone number, and address. Leaving the scene without taking these required measures may constitute a criminal offense. This is commonly referred to in Korea as “failure to take measures after an accident” and should not be viewed as a simple administrative violation. Depending on the scale of the accident and whether anyone was injured, different laws may apply, and the potential penalties can vary significantly. Applicable Laws and Potential Penalties The main legal provisions that may apply are as follows. Type of Case Applicable Law Potential Penalty Failure to take measures after property damage Road Traffic Act, Articles 54(1) and 148 Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 15 million Failure to take measures after injury Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3(1)2 Imprisonment for at least 1 year or a fine between KRW 5 million and KRW 30 million Failure to take measures after death Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3(1)1 Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years Even if there appears to be no personal injury at the scene, criminal liability may still become an issue. In practice, the applicable charge may change if the victim later claims injury, or if CCTV footage, dashcam footage, or other evidence is secured after the incident. For this reason, drivers should be cautious about assuming that a minor collision cannot lead to a criminal investigation. Key Principles from Korean Supreme Court Decisions 1. The Duty to Take Measures May Arise Regardless of Fault The Korean Supreme Court has held that the duty to provide assistance and report an accident may apply to the driver involved in the accident, regardless of whether the driver was at fault for causing the accident. In other words, even if the other party was primarily responsible for the accident, the driver may still be required to stop and take necessary measures if the situation calls for victim assistance or restoration of traffic safety. This means that “it was not my fault” is not, by itself, a sufficient answer to a failure-to-take-measures allegation. 2. Awareness of the Accident Is an Important Issue A violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act is treated as an intentional offense. The Supreme Court has held that, for this offense to be established, the driver must have been aware that a person was injured or killed, or that property was damaged. Therefore, if the driver genuinely did not recognize that an accident had occurred, the legal analysis may change. This is often an important issue during the investigation stage. However, whether the driver was aware of the accident is not determined solely by the driver’s statement. Investigators may consider the impact level, vehicle damage, dashcam footage, CCTV footage, the victim’s reaction, and the driver’s conduct after the incident. Main Issues in a Police Investigation In failure-to-take-measures cases, the police and prosecutors usually focus on the following points. First, they examine whether the driver recognized the accident. This may involve reviewing dashcam footage, CCTV footage, the extent of impact, damage to the vehicle, and the surrounding circumstances. Second, they examine whether assistance or other measures were necessary. In some cases, the issue is whether the victim clearly indicated that no assistance was needed, or whether it was objectively clear immediately after the accident that emergency assistance was unnecessary. Third, they determine which charge should apply. A Road Traffic Act violation and a hit-and-run injury case under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes have different legal requirements and very different penalty levels. Because of these differences, the defense strategy should be based on the exact charge being investigated, the available evidence, and the driver’s conduct immediately after the accident. DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense Team Failure-to-take-measures cases require a careful review of the accident circumstances, the victim’s alleged injury, the timing of the driver’s departure, and any steps taken after the incident. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense team assists clients from the early stage of traffic-related criminal investigations, including preparation for police questioning and submission of written legal opinions to the investigative authorities. If you have been contacted by the police in Korea after a traffic accident, or if you are unsure what charge is being investigated, it is important to review your situation before attending an interview or confirming an investigation schedule.
2026-06-09 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Criminal Risks and Terms of Service Issues for Crypto Investment Information Providers in Korea
Criminal Risks in Operating Crypto Investment Information Services As the virtual asset market continues to grow, services such as crypto trading signal rooms, paid investment information memberships, and crypto advisory-style services have become increasingly common in Korea. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny over paid investment information services has been increasing. According to the Financial Supervisory Service’s 2024 inspection results for quasi-investment advisory businesses, violations were found in 112 out of 745 businesses reviewed, including cases involving unregistered investment advisory activities. While these figures do not directly relate only to virtual asset cases, they show that Korean regulators are paying closer attention to paid investment information services in general. In practice, disputes that begin as refund complaints may escalate into criminal complaints involving fraud, violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or violations of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information. In these cases, terms of service, contracts, refund policies, and user communications often become key evidence. This article explains the major legal issues that may arise and why terms of service should be reviewed carefully before a dispute develops into a criminal investigation. Key Laws That May Apply Issue Main Legal Point Potential Penalty Fraud Obtaining property or financial benefit through deception Under the current Criminal Act, imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. The applicable law may vary depending on when the alleged conduct occurred. Capital Markets Act Violation Unregistered investment advisory activities may become an issue where the service involves security tokens or is combined with financial investment product advisory services Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Specified Financial Transaction Information Act Violation Operating as an unregistered virtual asset service provider Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million E-commerce Law Violation Improper restriction of cancellation, withdrawal, or refund rights Administrative fines, corrective orders, or other administrative measures Administrative sanctions and criminal penalties may proceed separately. Depending on the facts, the same business conduct may give rise to more than one legal issue. Why Terms of Service Become Evidence in Criminal Investigations When a refund dispute turns into a criminal complaint, investigators often review the terms of service and user agreements at an early stage. Terms of service can show what kind of service the business claimed to provide, how it explained investment risk and refund conditions, and whether the actual operation matched what was written in the documents. In particular, investigators may compare the terms of service with the actual sales process, user communications, and service operation in the following areas. 1. Fraud and Deceptive Conduct For fraud allegations, investigators do not look only at whether the user suffered a loss. They examine what the business told the user, whether the possibility of loss was clearly explained, whether any statements implied guaranteed profits, and whether the written terms matched the actual service. If the terms of service clearly state that investment losses may occur and that the service does not guarantee profits, and if similar explanations were repeatedly given during consultations or user communications, these records may help dispute allegations of deception. On the other hand, if the terms contain disclaimers but the actual sales process included statements similar to “guaranteed profits,” “loss recovery,” or “risk-free trading,” the inconsistency between the written terms and the actual operation may become unfavorable evidence. 2. Capital Markets Act Issues Capital Markets Act issues do not automatically arise in every crypto investment information case. However, if the relevant virtual asset may be treated as a security token or if the service is connected with stock, derivatives, or other financial investment product advisory services, the operation may be reviewed under the Capital Markets Act. For example, even if the terms describe the service as “general information provided to an unspecified number of users,” the actual operation may still become problematic if it involved one-on-one recommendations, bidirectional paid chat rooms, or personalized investment judgments. In that situation, the terms of service may be compared against how the service was actually operated. 3. Virtual Asset Service Provider Issues Under the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, a business may be required to register as a virtual asset service provider if it is not merely providing information but is also involved in virtual asset transactions, brokerage, transfer, custody, or management. Even if the terms of service define the business as an information service, the actual operation may be reviewed differently if the company handled user assets, executed trades, assisted repeated transfers, or received fees for transaction-related services. Supreme Court Guidance on Virtual Asset Service Provider Status In a case involving the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a person may generally be regarded as a virtual asset service provider if they continuously and repeatedly conduct virtual asset transactions for the benefit of unspecified customers or users and receive compensation for doing so. This means that the actual substance of the service matters. If the business repeatedly participates in transactions and receives fees, it may be difficult to rely only on written terms stating that the service is limited to information provision. Key Issues to Review at the Early Investigation Stage For operators of crypto investment information services, the early stage of an investigation is critical. The following issues should be reviewed first. First, the consistency between the terms of service and actual operation should be checked. This includes the scope of service, refund conditions, risk disclosure language, and how the service was actually provided to users. Second, businesses should review whether any terms, advertisements, landing pages, chat messages, or sales scripts could be interpreted as guaranteeing profits or compensating losses. Since the 2024 amendments to the Capital Markets Act, restrictions on quasi-investment advisory businesses have been strengthened, including rules related to bidirectional channels and misleading profit-guarantee advertisements. Third, the communication channel should be reviewed. Whether the service was operated as a one-way information channel or as a bidirectional advisory channel may affect the legal assessment. Fourth, the initial statement to investigators should be prepared carefully. If the operator explains the terms inaccurately or gives statements that do not match the actual operation, it may become more difficult to defend the case later. DECENT Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team Cases involving crypto investment information services often involve multiple legal issues at the same time, including fraud, the Capital Markets Act, the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, and e-commerce regulations. DECENT Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team assists clients from the early investigation stage by reviewing terms of service, service operation records, user communications, refund policies, and the legal issues relevant to each allegation. If you have been contacted by Korean investigative authorities, or if a refund dispute may escalate into a criminal complaint, it is important to review your response strategy before the first statement is given. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-05 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud in Korea: Can You Recover Your Money?
Current Trends in Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud Unlisted shares are shares that are not traded on a public stock exchange. In Korea, these shares are often sold through private transactions, intermediaries, or over-the-counter channels. Because pricing information is not publicly available and the transaction process is often opaque, unlisted stock investments can easily become a source of fraud. A common pattern involves inducing investors to pay large sums based on claims such as “the company will soon be listed” or “a KOSDAQ listing is imminent.” Victims often wait for years, believing that the listing has simply been delayed, and may not realize that they have been defrauded until much later. Recently, fraud schemes have become more sophisticated. Rather than selling shares that do not exist, some perpetrators sell shares that actually exist but are of little value, inducing victims to purchase them at prices dozens of times higher than their real market value. Because the shares themselves may exist, victims often find it difficult to recognize the fraud at an early stage. This article explains the laws and court precedents that may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud in Korea, as well as the legal options available for recovering investment losses. Applicable Laws Several Korean laws may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud cases, depending on the facts, the amount of damage, and the role of each participant. Category Main Issue Statutory Penalty Fraud Obtaining money or property by inducing investment through false information Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act: imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million Aggravated Fraud Fraud involving damages of KRW 500 million or more Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes: imprisonment for at least 3 years Illegal Fund-Raising Receiving investment funds without authorization while promising principal or profit guarantees Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million Violation of the Capital Markets Act Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Article 444 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Depending on the scale of the damage and the manner of involvement, multiple charges may apply at the same time. Key Factors in Determining Fraud For fraud to be established in an unlisted stock investment case, the investigative authorities must examine whether there was deception and fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that: “Unless the defendant confesses, fraudulent intent, which is a subjective element of fraud, must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial condition before and after the act, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the transaction, and the process of performance.” — Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570, December 27, 2019 In other words, even if the perpetrator claims that they genuinely believed the company would be listed, investigative authorities and courts may still find fraudulent intent based on objective facts, such as the company’s financial condition, false explanations, and how the investment funds were used. In practice, investigators often focus on the following circumstances: False listing schedule: whether the perpetrator stated a specific listing timeline despite the lack of any realistic basis. Misuse of investment funds: whether the money was used for purposes different from what was promised to investors. Impossibility of performance: whether it was impossible from the beginning to transfer the shares or perform the promised obligations. Active involvement of intermediaries: whether an introducer or broker received commissions or directly participated in persuading the investor. Fraud organizations may also attempt to avoid liability under the illegal fund-raising regulations by avoiding direct phrases such as “principal guarantee.” Instead, they may use indirect expressions such as “repurchase commitment if listing fails” or “compensation for the difference if the public offering price is lower than expected.” Under Korean court practice, these types of clauses may still be interpreted as an agreement to preserve principal or profits under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Legal Strategy for Recovering Investment Losses Filing a criminal complaint does not automatically result in the recovery of the invested funds. In many cases, both criminal and civil procedures must be considered together. A criminal complaint can be useful because it allows investigative authorities to trace the flow of funds and secure evidence through compulsory investigation. If search and seizure is conducted at an early stage, it may help identify relevant accounts and determine where the investment funds went. Civil asset preservation measures, such as provisional attachment, are also important. These procedures are designed to freeze the perpetrator’s assets before they are disposed of or transferred. In many cases, filing for provisional attachment at the same time as, or shortly after, the criminal complaint can improve the possibility of recovery. The likelihood of recovery usually depends on the following factors: Assets held by the perpetrator: real estate, bank deposits, or other identifiable assets may be subject to provisional attachment. Traceability of funds: clear bank transfer records and account flows can make recovery more realistic. Scope of accomplices: if introducers, recruiters, or account holders were involved, it may be possible to pursue claims against those whose assets can be identified. Timing of response: the earlier the response, the more legal options may remain before the perpetrator disappears or disposes of assets. In unlisted stock investment fraud cases, the question is not only whether a criminal complaint can be filed. It is equally important to determine who should be targeted, what assets may be preserved, and which legal procedures should be pursued first. Review by DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense and Fraud Response Team Unlisted stock investment fraud cases require a comprehensive legal review. The key issues include whether fraud can be established, whether accomplices can be identified, whether assets can be preserved, and how criminal and civil procedures should be coordinated. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense and fraud response team has handled unlisted stock investment fraud cases from the criminal complaint stage through asset preservation and recovery strategy. If your investment has not been returned, or if the person in charge has stopped responding, it is important to review your situation before more time passes. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-02 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
First-Time Drug Offense in Korea: When Are Deferred Prosecution and Suspended Sentence Possible?
Legal Issues in First-Time Drug Offense Cases In Korean drug offense cases, being a first-time offender can be a favorable factor. However, it does not automatically lead to deferred prosecution or a suspended sentence. Prosecutors and courts consider a range of factors, including the type of drug involved, the nature of the conduct, the number of uses, whether the case involved distribution or sale, and how the suspect responds during the investigation. This article explains when deferred prosecution and suspended sentences may be possible in first-time drug offense cases in Korea, and why early response during the investigation stage can significantly affect the outcome. Penalties Depending on the Type of Conduct The Narcotics Control Act of Korea classifies drug offenses based on the type of substance and the nature of the conduct. Even within the same drug-related case, the level of punishment can vary greatly depending on what the person is alleged to have done. Simple use or possession is generally assessed based on the type of drug, number of uses, whether there is a pattern of repeated use, and whether the person has any prior drug-related record. Involvement in transfer, delivery, or sale may be viewed more seriously than simple use. In these cases, how the substance was delivered, whether there was payment, and the person’s level of involvement become important issues. Drug sales or brokerage for profit are usually treated as more serious offenses. Depending on the substance and the degree of involvement, heavy statutory penalties may apply. For marijuana-related conduct, Article 61 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that certain acts involving marijuana may be punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. Although simple use or possession is generally treated less severely than sale, brokerage, or distribution-related conduct, the final outcome may still vary depending on the drug type, frequency of use, evidence of habitual use, and the suspect’s attitude during the investigation. When a First-Time Offender May Still Face Imprisonment Even if it is a first offense, imprisonment may still be imposed where aggravating circumstances are present. For example, the court may take a stricter view where the case involves repeated use of highly addictive substances, transfer or sale to another person, denial of the allegations despite clear evidence, concealment of evidence, or another criminal charge being prosecuted together with the drug offense. In these circumstances, the court may choose imprisonment over a suspended sentence. This is why it is important to clearly present favorable circumstances from the earliest stage of the case. A first-time offender status alone is rarely enough. The defense must show why the case should be treated as an isolated incident and why the risk of reoffending is low. When the Case May End Without Trial: Deferred Prosecution Deferred prosecution is a discretionary decision by the prosecutor. It means that the prosecutor recognizes the alleged offense but decides not to indict the suspect. Under Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors have discretion in deciding whether to bring charges. In practice, several factors are considered together. Deferred prosecution may be more likely where the suspect has no prior drug-related record, the conduct was limited to short-term use, the case involved personal use only, there was no transfer, recommendation, sale, or distribution to others, the suspect admits the facts and cooperates with the investigation, and there is a clear willingness to receive treatment or prevent recurrence. Family support, employment, stable residence, and other social ties may also be relevant because they can help show a lower risk of reoffending. However, even if these factors exist, deferred prosecution is never guaranteed. What matters is how concretely these circumstances are explained and supported with materials during the investigation stage. When the Case Goes to Trial: Suspended Sentence If the prosecutor files charges, a suspended sentence may still be possible. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act allows the court to suspend the execution of a sentence for a period of one to five years where the sentence is imprisonment or imprisonment without labor for up to three years, or a fine of up to KRW 5 million, and where there are circumstances favorable to the defendant. In drug cases, courts consider both favorable and unfavorable factors. These may include whether the defendant has prior drug-related convictions, the number of offenses, the type and addictiveness of the substance, the level of reflection, whether the defendant has received counseling or treatment, family or community support, age, occupation, and overall living environment. A sincere apology alone is usually not enough. Courts tend to look for concrete signs of rehabilitation, such as treatment records, counseling participation, a prevention plan, and evidence that the defendant has stable social support. The court makes its decision by weighing all relevant circumstances. No single factor is determinative, but the overall presentation of the case can strongly influence the result. Why Early Response During the Investigation Stage Matters In first-time drug offense cases, the dividing line between imprisonment, suspended sentence, and deferred prosecution is often shaped during the investigation stage. Statements made during police or prosecutor questioning, the scope of admission, timing of cooperation, willingness to receive treatment, and the materials submitted to the authorities can all affect the direction of the case. Preparing only after questioning has already taken place may limit the available defense strategy. In many cases, it is more effective to review the facts, organize the expected issues, and prepare supporting materials before appearing for questioning. Treatment records, counseling records, family support statements, employment records, and a concrete plan to prevent recurrence can be important materials in showing rehabilitation potential. If You Have Been Contacted by Korean Investigators For a first-time drug offense in Korea, deferred prosecution or a suspended sentence is not automatic. The outcome often depends on how the case is handled from the beginning. The drug crime defense team at DECENT Law Firm assists clients from the early investigation stage through trial, including case analysis, preparation for questioning, legal opinion submissions, and sentencing strategy. If you have been contacted by Korean investigators or have received a summons for questioning, it is important to review your situation before attending the interview. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-01 Naver Blog
