-
BlogsCustody Review in Korea: Lawyer Fees and Release Within 48 Hours
1. What Is a Custody Review (구속적부심사)? When a family member or close contact is suddenly detained, most people are unsure what to do next. However, even after detention, there is a legal procedure in Korea that allows you to request release through the court—this is called a custody review (구속적부심사). A custody review is a process where the court re-examines whether the detention is lawful and necessary. Even if a detention warrant has already been issued, the detainee may be released if the grounds for detention are insufficient or excessive. The procedure moves very quickly: Filing deadline: Within 7 days from the date of detention Court hearing: Within 48 hours after filing Decision: Typically within 24 hours after the hearing The request can be filed not only by the detainee, but also by a spouse, immediate family member, or attorney. 2. Why Hiring a Lawyer Is Critical A custody review is effectively a one-time opportunity. In principle, it cannot be refiled, which means the initial strategy is crucial. In practice, cases handled with legal representation show a significantly higher likelihood of release compared to those without. This is because an experienced criminal defense lawyer will: Analyze and challenge the legal basis for detention Rebut concerns about flight risk or evidence tampering Present strong personal circumstances (residence, employment, family ties) Structure persuasive arguments tailored to the court’s decision-making Given the extremely limited preparation window of 48 hours, professional legal support can directly impact the outcome. 3. Lawyer Fees for Custody Review Legal fees for a custody review vary depending on the complexity of the case and the experience of the lawyer. In general: Starting from approximately KRW 3 million Can exceed KRW 10 million for complex or serious cases However, more important than the cost is the lawyer’s ability to respond immediately. In custody review cases, speed and coordination often matter more than the fee itself. 4. What to Look for When Choosing a Lawyer In urgent detention situations, the right lawyer can make a decisive difference. You should focus on the following: • Immediate client access (detention visit) A lawyer must meet the detainee as soon as possible to understand the case details, prior statements, and investigation status. Early intervention prevents unfavorable statements from being solidified. • Hearing preparation Court hearings are often brief—sometimes just 10 to 20 minutes. The detainee must be prepared in advance on how to respond clearly and calmly. Without preparation, nervous or inconsistent answers may negatively affect the outcome. • Evidence and document preparation Key supporting documents—such as proof of residence, employment certificates, family records, medical documents, and written statements—must be gathered within 48 hours. Identifying and organizing these effectively requires legal experience. 5. What You Should Do Immediately After Detention If someone close to you has been detained, you should promptly check the following: Whether the 7-day filing window has passed Whether the stated grounds for detention are excessive or inaccurate Whether a lawyer can be appointed immediately for rapid response Delays at this stage can significantly reduce the chances of release. Decent Law Firm – Criminal Defense Team A custody review is a race against time. The outcome depends on how quickly and strategically the case is handled. Decent Law Firm provides: Emergency detention visits Preparation and filing of custody review petitions Full representation at court hearings Detention is not the end—it is the beginning of legal response. The 48-hour window is critical. Acting quickly can make all the difference.
2026-04-27 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Cryptocurrency Delisting by Korean Exchanges: What Projects Should Check First
1. Practical Risks of Delisting for Crypto Projects A trading support termination (delisting) by a Korean cryptocurrency exchange is a critical event that can affect both the sustainability of the project and the protection of its investors. Recently, as major Korean exchanges have increasingly designated tokens as “investment caution” and proceeded with delistings, legal disputes initiated by project teams have also been on the rise. From a practical standpoint, delisting is far more than simply losing access to one exchange. Once trading support is terminated, liquidity drops sharply, often leading to a significant decline in asset value. At the same time, investor confidence deteriorates, which can delay or even derail fundraising efforts and strategic partnerships. In many cases, community disengagement follows, threatening the sustainability of the entire ecosystem. 2. Key Legal Issue: Transparency and Predictability of the Process In practice, the main legal challenge is not just the delisting decision itself, but the process leading up to it. Projects frequently raise concerns that exchanges do not provide clear or measurable criteria for maintaining listings after an “investment caution” designation. Even when projects submit requested materials and explanations, some report receiving delisting notices without detailed feedback or meaningful communication. While exchanges are generally granted broad discretion in listing and delisting decisions, that discretion is not unlimited. If the decision-making process appears arbitrary or inconsistent with contractual terms and exchange policies, it may give rise to legal disputes. Ultimately, the key legal questions are whether the procedure was properly followed and whether the decision was reasonable. 3. Legal Remedy: Injunction to Suspend Delisting In response to delisting notices, project teams are increasingly moving beyond public statements and considering formal legal action. One of the primary legal tools is an injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the delisting decision. This allows the project to request that the court temporarily halt the delisting until a final judgment is made. If granted, trading support may continue during the litigation period. However, Korean courts tend to recognize the broad discretion of exchanges in selecting and maintaining listed assets. As a result, injunctions are typically granted only when there are clear procedural defects or evidence of abuse of discretion. This makes it essential for projects to rely on well-organized evidence and legal arguments, rather than general claims or public pressure. 4. Essential Checklist After Receiving a Delisting Notice Upon receiving a delisting notice, projects should immediately organize key materials to establish a legal basis for their position. These include: Listing agreements and trading support contracts Exchange terms of service and listing/maintenance/delisting policies Records of prior “investment caution” designations and responses Documentation of business progress and roadmap execution Compliance efforts, technical development, and security measures Investor protection policies and actions taken Having these materials prepared is crucial not only for negotiations with the exchange but also for any legal proceedings, including injunction filings. 5. Three Critical Points to Review Immediately Delisting cases are highly time-sensitive. Projects should focus on the following: Procedural validity: Was the delisting decision made in accordance with contractual terms and exchange rules? Communication process: Were the exchange’s requirements clearly communicated, and did the project respond adequately? Timing for legal action: Is there sufficient time to file for an injunction before the delisting takes effect? These factors will determine whether negotiation or legal action is the more effective strategy. 6. Early Strategy Determines the Outcome Cryptocurrency delisting disputes require both legal expertise and a deep understanding of the technical and regulatory landscape. Decent Law Firm has advised numerous crypto projects on listing-related legal opinions, regulatory compliance under Korean law (including AML and reporting obligations), and dispute resolution. Our approach focuses on aligning legal strategy with the operational realities of blockchain projects. If your project has received a delisting notice and is facing business or reputational risks, an early legal assessment can significantly impact the outcome. Organizing key facts and seeking timely advice is critical.
2026-04-24 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Criminal 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
