-
BlogsCriminal Liability for Crypto OTC Transactions in Korea: Proceeds of Crime Concealment & Defense Strategy
“I just sold crypto and received cash.” In practice, this explanation is no longer sufficient to avoid criminal liability in Korea. According to data released by the Korea Customs Service and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in February 2026, illegal foreign exchange transactions (“hwanchigi”) over the past five years reached KRW 11.5 trillion, with approximately 83% (KRW 9.5 trillion) involving virtual assets. In 2025 alone, suspicious transaction reports (STRs) related to money laundering hit a record high of 1.3 million cases, increasing by 300,000 compared to the previous year. A pending 2026 amendment to Korea’s Anti-Money Laundering regime is expected to expand the Travel Rule to transactions under KRW 1 million and grant the FIU authority to freeze suspicious accounts. Even small OTC crypto transactions are now actively monitored and traceable. 1. How the Act on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Applies to Crypto OTC Transactions In practice, prosecutions typically arise through the following structures: ▪ Receiving USDT from non-residents and paying KRW domestically This structure may trigger both violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. Even if it appears to be a simple exchange service, it can be treated as illegal remittance or money laundering. ▪ “Lack of knowledge” is not always a valid defense Even if the party claims they did not know the counterparty was involved in criminal activity, courts may infer knowledge based on transaction size, frequency, and the use of cash. Korean courts increasingly apply a “should have known” standard based on objective circumstances. ▪ Even intermediary roles can lead to criminal liability Individuals who only handled KRW transfers—without directly trading crypto—have been convicted as accomplices if their actions contributed to the concealment or transfer of criminal proceeds. The key issue is not the form of the transaction, but the overall structure and role within the flow of funds. 2. Penalties — Multiple Laws Apply Simultaneously Crypto OTC cases in Korea rarely involve a single charge. The following statutes are often applied in parallel: ▪ Unregistered Virtual Asset Business (VASP) – Act on Reporting and Use of Certain Financial Transaction Information → Up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine up to KRW 50 million ▪ Acquisition, possession, or disposal of criminal proceeds – Act on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds → Up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine up to KRW 30 million ▪ Unreported foreign exchange transactions – Foreign Exchange Transactions Act → Up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine up to KRW 300 million ▪ Confiscation and forfeiture → Full confiscation or preservation of assets related to criminal proceeds Because these laws can be applied cumulatively, underestimating exposure based on a single charge can lead to serious misjudgment of legal risk. 3. Real Case — KRW 580 Billion OTC Operation Leading to Indictment In a recent case, the operator of an unregistered crypto OTC business was indicted and detained for transactions totaling approximately KRW 580 billion. The case involved the laundering of KRW 23.5 billion in proceeds from crypto fraud, which were used to purchase real estate under borrowed names. Authorities imposed asset preservation measures to secure confiscation. Notably, individuals who did not directly commit fraud but participated in the money flow structure were also prosecuted. The argument that “I only facilitated transfers” was rejected by the court. 4. Defense Strategy — Varies by Investigation Stage Early response is critical in these cases, and the strategy must be tailored to each stage: ▪ Account Freeze Stage Immediate legal review is required to assess grounds for lifting the freeze and limiting asset preservation. Delays can significantly expand the scope of frozen assets. ▪ Summons (Witness/Suspect Stage) Attending an interview alone and providing unstructured answers is highly risky. Statements should be prepared in advance with counsel, focusing on transaction details and knowledge of fund origins. ▪ Submission of Transaction Records Submitting records without legal review may expose unnecessary risks. The scope, format, and explanation of submitted materials should be strategically controlled. A misstep in early statements can directly affect indictment decisions, detention, and confiscation scope. These cases often involve both administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings, requiring a dual-track defense approach. 5. Frequently Asked Questions Q. I only sold crypto and received cash. Can I still be punished? Yes. Depending on the structure, frequency, and source of funds, the transaction may be classified as illegal remittance or money laundering—even if it appears to be a simple sale. Q. I didn’t know the counterparty was involved in crime. Lack of knowledge is a key defense, but authorities often argue that you “should have known” based on objective circumstances. Early legal strategy is essential. Q. What should I do if my account is frozen? You should immediately review the legal basis and explore options for lifting the freeze. Timing is critical. Legal Guidance for Crypto OTC Cases in Korea If you have received notice of an account freeze or contact from an investigative authority, your initial response can significantly impact the outcome. Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team has extensive experience handling crypto OTC, illegal remittance, and USDT-related money laundering cases. Our approach goes beyond criminal defense—we analyze transaction structures and fund flows to build a comprehensive strategy.
2026-04-23 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Crypto API Trading in Korea: Unfair Trading Risks & Regulatory Response Guide
On April 13, 2026, the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) officially disclosed cases of unfair trading involving crypto API transactions. With approximately 30% of total crypto trading volume now executed via APIs, regulatory scrutiny is increasingly focused on this segment. A common misconception is that using an automated trading program limits personal liability. However, even if trades are executed by an algorithm, legal responsibility remains with the individual who configured and operated the system. Key Unfair Trading Patterns Identified by Korean Regulators The cases identified by the FSS reflect classic market manipulation behaviors that may lead to criminal liability under Korean law. Repeated Small-Volume Trades Executing frequent buy and sell orders in small amounts to artificially inflate trading volume. Spoofing (Order Placement and Cancellation) Placing buy orders and repeatedly canceling them to create a false impression of strong market demand. Wash Trading Across Multiple Accounts Using multiple accounts to trade with oneself in order to simulate market activity or influence price movement. Layering with High-Price Orders Continuously placing buy orders at higher prices to drive the market price upward toward a target level. Importantly, under Korean Supreme Court standards, liability may arise even without actual price impact—mere potential to manipulate the market can be sufficient. This means that even pre-built or third-party trading algorithms may expose users to legal risks if such patterns are executed. Legal Risks Often Overlooked by API Trading Users The Financial Supervisory Service has made it clear that automation does not eliminate accountability. In practice, liability may arise in the following situations: Using trading scripts or bot code obtained from online communities or social media API key leakage allowing third parties to execute unlawful trades under your account Participating—knowingly or unknowingly—in coordinated trading patterns that influence market prices Under the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, penalties can be severe. Depending on the scale of illicit gains, sanctions may include long-term imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of such violations. How to Respond if Contacted by the FSS Crypto exchanges in Korea operate automated surveillance systems to detect abnormal trading activity. These findings are reported to the Financial Supervisory Service, and once flagged, a regulatory review may begin. If you are contacted, it is critical to understand that this is not a routine inquiry but the early stage of a formal investigation. ✔️ Request for Transaction Records Do not submit materials without prior legal review. Over-disclosure may broaden the scope of suspicion. ✔️ Request for Appearance or Interview You should attend with legal counsel and prepare a clear, consistent explanation of your trading strategy and system configuration. ✔️ Account Freeze An account freeze is typically a signal that the matter has escalated to a criminal investigation phase. Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings may proceed in parallel. How Decent Law Firm Approaches These Cases Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team handles cases involving API trading, market manipulation allegations, and violations of Korean crypto regulations. Our approach goes beyond standard defense. We analyze transaction data to identify risk patterns, distinguish between automated execution and user intent, and structure a defense strategy that clearly defines the scope of liability. We also ensure consistency from the earliest stage—especially in document submission and initial statements—so that legal risks do not escalate unnecessarily. If you have been contacted by regulators or are concerned about potential exposure, early-stage legal review is critical. Even if your situation is not fully organized, an initial assessment can significantly impact the outcome.
2026-04-22 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Deepfake Crime in Korea: Can You File a Complaint Without Evidence? A Complete Legal Guide
According to recent statistics on digital sexual crime support cases in Korea, deepfake-related offenses—such as manipulated images and synthetic videos—continue to rise, with a significant concentration among victims in their teens and twenties. Korean law enforcement authorities are treating deepfake crimes as a top enforcement priority, leading to faster investigations and stricter penalties. The critical issue, however, is how you respond immediately after discovering the damage. Many victims attempt to delete the content first, but in practice, evidence preservation must come before removal to secure a meaningful investigation. What to Do Before Deleting Deepfake Content — Preserve Evidence First If you discover a deepfake image or video, do not rush to delete it. Instead, you should first secure key evidence. Capture screenshots that clearly show the URL, upload date, and account ID. Save all conversations with the suspected offender, and if possible, obtain statements from third parties who witnessed the content or its distribution. Even if the content has already been deleted, it is still possible to proceed. Due to the nature of digital crimes, complete deletion is difficult, and data can often be recovered through server logs and digital forensics. In some cases, the act of deletion itself may serve as evidence of intent. If you request deletion or report the case without proper evidence collection, you may unintentionally reduce the available investigative leads. Legal Consequences — More Serious Than You Might Expect Deepfake crimes in Korea are not treated as minor offenses. They are prosecuted under laws governing sexual crimes, and penalties can be severe. Creating a deepfake video can result in up to five years of imprisonment or a substantial fine. Distributing such content may lead to up to seven years in prison. If the act is committed for profit, the sentence may increase to a minimum of three years of imprisonment. Habitual offenders may face even harsher penalties. Importantly, even possession or viewing of such content can be punishable, meaning that liability can extend beyond the original creator or distributor. Legal Procedure — A “Three-Track” Strategy Is Most Effective Handling a deepfake case typically requires more than a single legal action. In practice, the most effective approach is to proceed with three tracks simultaneously. First, you can file a criminal complaint with a local police station or a cybercrime investigation unit. The investigation generally follows a process of account tracing, search and seizure, and digital forensic analysis. Second, you should request content removal and blocking through relevant authorities to prevent further distribution. Third, you may pursue a civil lawsuit for damages to recover compensation for emotional distress and financial loss. For platforms like Telegram, where anonymity is high, early evidence collection becomes even more critical, as identifying the perpetrator may take longer. Frequently Asked Questions Can I file a complaint without screenshots? Yes. An investigation can begin based on the victim’s statement and circumstantial evidence. However, any additional materials—such as URLs, chat records, or witness statements—can significantly improve the speed and effectiveness of the investigation. What if I don’t know who the perpetrator is? This does not prevent you from filing a complaint. Investigative authorities can identify anonymous users through account data, IP logs, and transaction records. What if the perpetrator requests a settlement? You should not respond immediately. Statements made during settlement negotiations can affect both criminal proceedings and civil claims. It is important to consult with a lawyer before making any decisions. If You Are a Victim — Timing and Strategy Matter Deepfake crimes spread rapidly, while evidence can disappear just as quickly. That is why preserving evidence first and establishing a proper legal strategy early on is essential. At Decent Law Firm, we provide comprehensive legal support for deepfake-related cases—from initial evidence preservation and complaint filing to criminal defense strategy and civil damage claims. Our approach goes beyond simple document preparation; we focus on building a strategy that leads to real investigative and legal outcomes. If you are facing an urgent situation, you do not need to have everything prepared. A brief summary of the facts is enough to begin. We will guide you step by step on what to do first and how to proceed effectively under Korean law.
2026-04-21 Naver Blog -
Blogs
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
