We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
PRACTICES
More-
Cross-border · Dispute Resolution
International Laws & Regulations, Overseas Company Incorporation, Global Expansion (FLIP), International Investment, International Contracts
-
Entertainment
Exclusive Contracts, Contract Termination, Copyright, Publishing, Overseas Expansion
-
Sports
Broadcasting Agreements, Player Contracts, Esports, Sports Agents, International Competitions
Blogs
More-
Korea’s Suspicious Account Transaction Freeze System: What Scam Victims and Account Holders Need to Know
Since June 30, 2026, financial institutions in Korea have been able to promptly restrict transactions involving accounts suspected of being used in emerging phishing schemes, including no-show scams and romance scams. Victims should report the incident before the funds are transferred elsewhere. At the same time, an account holder whose account has been frozen despite receiving legitimate payment must be prepared to prove the underlying transaction with objective evidence. What Is the Suspicious Account Transaction Freeze System? Korea’s 「Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Losses」 provides procedures for freezing accounts used in voice phishing schemes and refunding eligible victims. However, fraudulent schemes disguised as ordinary transactions involving goods or services have generally fallen outside the scope of the conventional voice phishing refund framework. This created practical difficulties in promptly restricting accounts used in scams presented as product purchases, investments, or service transactions. To address this issue, the Financial Services Commission, the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit, and the National Police Agency introduced a system on June 30, 2026, allowing suspicious accounts linked to emerging phishing schemes to be temporarily restricted through existing customer due diligence procedures. Once an account is identified as potentially connected to such a scheme, the financial institution may classify the account holder as subject to enhanced customer due diligence under the 「Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information」 and restrict incoming and outgoing transactions. What Types of Scams May Be Covered? The system may apply to various forms of emerging phishing fraud, including the following. ▪️No-Show Scams A fraudster impersonates a public institution or corporate buyer, promises a large order, and instructs the victim to purchase goods or materials from a designated supplier. ▪️Romance Scams A fraudster builds a personal relationship through social media or messaging applications and later requests money for investments, business expenses, customs charges, medical costs, or similar reasons. ▪️Investment Scams A fraudster promises profits from stocks, virtual assets, overseas futures, or other investments, receives funds from the victim, and then blocks withdrawals or demands additional payments. However, an account is not automatically frozen simply because money was transferred and a dispute later arose. Authorities must distinguish between an ordinary contractual dispute and conduct involving deception through telecommunications and circumstances indicating possible fraud. Financial institutions and the police may review transaction records, communications, the method used by the suspected offender, and whether the promised goods or services were actually provided. How Does the Transaction Freeze Process Work? 1. Victim Report and Temporary Action by the Financial Institution A person who suspects that they have been targeted by an emerging phishing scam should immediately report the matter by calling 112 or visiting a nearby police station in Korea. A financial institution may take temporary action when it identifies a suspicious transaction through its fraud detection system or receives a report from the victim or the police. The account may therefore be temporarily restricted before the authorities have conclusively determined whether the case involves conventional voice phishing or another form of emerging phishing fraud. 2. Police Review of the Fraud Type The National Police Agency’s Integrated Response Center for Telecommunications Financial Fraud reviews whether the transaction involved a genuine sale of goods or services and examines the specific method used by the suspected offender. When the case is classified as conventional voice phishing, the existing account freeze and victim refund procedures under the telecommunications financial fraud legislation may apply. When the case is classified as an emerging phishing scheme, the relevant account may instead be placed under enhanced customer due diligence procedures. 3. Temporary Transaction Freeze for Seven Business Days Once the account is identified as being connected to an emerging phishing scheme, the financial institution may temporarily restrict both incoming and outgoing transactions. The Korea Financial Intelligence Unit then reviews the transaction history and the relationship between the victim and the account holder within seven business days of receiving the report. 4. Additional Freeze of Up to 60 Business Days When the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit determines that the restriction should remain in place, the financial institution may continue the freeze for an additional 30 business days after the initial seven-business-day period. At the request of the police, the restriction may be extended once for another 30 business days. During this period, the police may investigate the account’s connection to the suspected crime and trace the movement of funds. An Account Freeze Does Not Automatically Guarantee a Refund A suspicious account transaction freeze is intended to prevent funds from being transferred out of an account believed to have been used in a fraudulent scheme. It does not mean that the victim is automatically entitled to an immediate or full refund. In conventional voice phishing cases, the statutory process for extinguishing the account balance and refunding eligible victims may apply. By contrast, a transaction freeze involving an emerging phishing scheme relies on customer due diligence measures under Korea’s financial transaction reporting legislation. It therefore operates differently from the statutory refund process applicable to conventional voice phishing cases. The method and likelihood of recovery may depend on factors including: ▪️The amount remaining in the account ▪️The number of victims ▪️The nature of the suspected fraud ▪️The outcome of the criminal investigation ▪️Whether the account holder or another participant received or transferred the funds Depending on the circumstances, the victim may need to file a criminal complaint and separately consider a civil claim for unjust enrichment or damages against the account holder or the persons who participated in the fraud. Evidence Victims Should Preserve Delays in reporting may allow the funds to be transferred through multiple accounts, converted into cash, or exchanged for virtual assets. Rather than continuing to negotiate with the suspected offender, the victim should first consider reporting the matter and requesting that the relevant account be restricted. Important evidence may include: ▪️Bank transfer receipts, transfer dates, account numbers, and account holder names ▪️Text messages and conversations through KakaoTalk, Telegram, or other messaging services ▪️Screenshots of investment or trading platforms ▪️Requests for additional deposits, fees, or taxes ▪️Contracts, purchase orders, quotations, and business registration information ▪️Telephone numbers, social media accounts, and original files provided by the suspected offender Leaving a chatroom or replacing a mobile phone may make it difficult to preserve the original evidence. Victims should retain not only screenshots but also exported chat records, attachments, and original electronic files where possible. What If a Legitimate Business Account Is Frozen? A business may receive genuine payment for goods or services but still have its account reported as suspicious because the payment is connected to a broader fraudulent fund flow. Even when the underlying transaction was legitimate, restrictions on a business account may significantly affect payroll, supplier payments, and ordinary business operations. The account holder may raise an objection with the relevant financial institution or contact the National Police Agency’s Integrated Response Center for Telecommunications Financial Fraud at 1394. If the police determine that the account is unlikely to be connected to criminal activity, they may request that the financial institution lift the transaction restriction. A general statement that the payment came from a legitimate transaction may not be sufficient. The account holder should provide objective evidence demonstrating the commercial basis for receiving the funds. Relevant materials may include: ▪️Contracts and purchase orders ▪️Tax invoices, receipts, and payment records ▪️Delivery and receipt records ▪️Evidence showing that services were actually performed ▪️Communications with the customer or counterparty ▪️Records showing how the received funds were used ▪️Evidence explaining repeated or similar transactions If the account, debit card, password, or another means of account access was transferred or rented to another person, the matter may go beyond a simple transaction freeze and raise issues under Korea’s Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Similarly, withdrawing cash or transferring funds while knowing that the money was connected to a fraudulent scheme may result in an investigation for aiding and abetting fraud. The account holder should therefore organize the facts and supporting evidence from the earliest stage. Key Points for Responding to a Suspicious Account Freeze Victims of emerging phishing scams should report the incident promptly and preserve all transaction records and communications before the funds are transferred elsewhere. A person or business whose account has been frozen despite receiving legitimate payment should demonstrate the substance of the transaction and the lawful basis for receiving the funds through contracts, invoices, delivery records, and other objective evidence. Decent Law Firm assists clients with criminal complaints arising from emerging phishing scams, reviews potential avenues for recovering transferred funds, and advises account holders on objections to transaction freezes and related criminal investigations. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any individual matter.
-
The CATFI Rug Pull Case and Unfair Trading Under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act
Meme coins often attract investors because they can be launched relatively quickly and may experience sharp price increases within a short period. Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, facilitate trades through smart contracts and automated protocols rather than a centralized order-matching system. Once a token has been issued, trading can begin by creating a liquidity pool without going through the formal listing review typically required by a centralized exchange. This structure can attract investors seeking early exposure to newly launched tokens. At the same time, there has been growing concern over so-called rug pulls, in which project operators use false or misleading information to drive up the price of a token and then sell their holdings all at once. In May 2026, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office indicted individuals involved in the issuance of the meme coin CATFI on charges including violations of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants circulated false positive announcements, manipulated the token’s trading activity, and obtained unlawful profits. The case was the first in which prosecutors applied the Act’s provisions on fraudulent unfair trading. This article examines the laws that may apply to rug pulls and the key legal issues arising from such cases. Laws That May Apply to Rug Pull Schemes A rug pull is not a separately defined criminal offense under Korean law. Depending on how the scheme was structured, several provisions may apply. Where false disclosures, artificial trading activity, or market manipulation are involved, Article 10 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, which prohibits unfair trading practices, may become relevant. Category Main Conduct Relevant Provision Use of material non-public information A virtual asset service provider, issuer, or other relevant party uses undisclosed material information for trading Article 10(1) Market manipulation through matched or wash trades Parties coordinate transactions in advance or conduct trades without a genuine transfer of economic ownership Article 10(2) Market manipulation through actual trades Trades are carried out to induce others to buy or sell by artificially moving the market price Article 10(3) Fraudulent unfair trading A person uses fraudulent means, schemes, or deceptive practices, or makes false statements about material facts Article 10(4) If the parties behind a rug pull used multiple wallets to trade among themselves and artificially inflate transaction volume, Article 10(2) may apply. If investors were attracted through false lock-up announcements, fabricated social media engagement, or other misleading representations, Article 10(4) may also become relevant. A violation of these provisions may result in imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to three to five times the profit obtained or loss avoided through the violation under Article 19(1). Where the unlawful profit or avoided loss is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion, the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for at least three years. Where the amount is KRW 5 billion or more, the punishment may be life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least five years under Article 19(3). Separate from criminal penalties, the Financial Services Commission may also impose an administrative surcharge in connection with unfair trading conduct. Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings are legally distinct and may be pursued through separate procedures. The CATFI Case and the Legal Test for a Rug Pull According to the prosecution, the individuals involved in CATFI divided their holdings across multiple wallets and announced a lock-up plan on social media even though the promised restrictions were not actually observed. An influencer allegedly presented himself as an independent third party with no connection to the issuing group and encouraged investors to purchase the token. The defendants were also accused of using multiple wallets to create the appearance of active trading and rising demand. Once purchases by ordinary investors increased, they sold their holdings in a large-scale disposal. The token reportedly increased in value by approximately 1,001 times within 26 hours of issuance. Around 6,000 individuals purchased the token, and 256 investors were found to have suffered losses totaling approximately KRW 900 million. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants used approximately KRW 10 million in initial funds and obtained roughly KRW 400 million in sale proceeds. At the first trial hearing held on June 30, 2026, the defendants admitted the charges. Prosecutors requested a sentence of four years and six months for the influencer alleged to have led the scheme. However, a sharp decline in a token’s price or the failure of a project does not automatically establish a criminal rug pull. Virtual asset investments inherently involve price volatility. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a genuine business failure and a scheme designed from the outset to deceive investors and extract funds. In practice, investigators may examine whether: ▪️ The parties had planned to sell their holdings before the token was issued or concealed the true amount held by the project team ▪️ Lock-up or token-burning plans were falsely announced, or holdings were distributed across multiple wallets to disguise common ownership ▪️ Trading volume and price movements were artificially created, followed by the closure of social media channels or online communities immediately after the sale Key Legal Issues and Response Options 🔹Criminal Liability of Influencers and Marketing Personnel A person does not avoid criminal liability simply because they did not personally issue the token. An influencer, marketing agency, or account operator may be investigated as a principal offender or an accomplice if they coordinated with the issuing group, published false information, or recommended the token while falsely presenting themselves as an independent third party. Relevant evidence may include: ▪️ Records showing that tokens were transferred to the promoter before the marketing campaign ▪️ Messages concerning the sharing of sale proceeds or trading profits ▪️ Records showing that promotional content was published despite knowledge that the information was false These materials may be important in determining whether the person merely provided advertising services or knowingly participated in the scheme. 🔹Options for Investor Recovery Article 10(6) of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides that a person who violates the unfair trading provisions may be liable for losses caused to users by the violation. Accordingly, investors may consider a civil claim for damages separately from any criminal complaint or prosecution. In practice, however, recovery may be difficult where the issuer operated through anonymous wallets. Identifying the responsible parties and proving a causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the investment loss can require a detailed review of both blockchain records and online promotional materials. Investors should therefore preserve relevant evidence as early as possible, including wallet addresses, transaction hashes, purchase records, social media posts, and announcements concerning lock-ups, listings, or partnerships. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice The CATFI case demonstrates that even where a meme coin is traded through a DEX, false announcements, coordinated trading, and artificial price movements may lead to liability under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act. It also shows that affected investors may need to consider both criminal proceedings and civil claims for damages. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice reviews on-chain transaction structures and blockchain fund flows in connection with rug pulls, market manipulation, criminal complaints, investigations, and civil damages claims. Where an investment loss appears to involve a rug pull or other unfair trading conduct, legal advice should be obtained at an early stage, beginning with the preservation and review of evidence. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
-
Crypto 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Toxic Clauses in Investment Agreements: Key Red Flags Startup Founders Must Check
The outcome of an investment deal is often determined by the information gap between a founder reviewing their first investment agreement and an investor who has negotiated dozens of them before. Common Investment Documents: SPA, SHA, and Term Sheet When startups raise investment, they usually encounter three core legal documents. ▪️Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) The SPA is the primary agreement governing the investor’s acquisition of newly issued shares. It typically covers investment amount, valuation, closing conditions, representations and warranties, and other key transaction terms. ▪️Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) The SHA regulates the relationship among shareholders after the investment closes. This document often contains the provisions that most directly affect a founder’s control over the company and future exit strategy, including voting rights, board control, transfer restrictions, drag-along rights, and veto rights. ▪️Term Sheet The term sheet summarizes the core investment terms before the definitive agreements are signed. Although parts of a term sheet may be non-binding, it often becomes the framework for the final contracts. In practice, negotiating leverage decreases significantly once the term sheet is signed. Four Toxic Clauses Founders Frequently Overlook ▪️Liquidation Preference Liquidation preference gives investors the right to recover their investment — sometimes more than their original investment — before founders receive any proceeds in an acquisition, merger, or liquidation event. The economic impact depends heavily on: The multiple (1x, 2x, etc.) Whether the preference is participating or non-participating In some cases, founders may receive little to no proceeds even after a successful exit if the liquidation structure heavily favors investors. ▪️Anti-Dilution Protection Anti-dilution clauses protect investors if future financing rounds occur at a lower valuation. The most aggressive version is the “Full Ratchet” mechanism, which can severely dilute founder ownership. More balanced structures typically use a “Weighted Average” adjustment method instead. Founders should carefully review: Trigger conditions Calculation formula Scope of protected securities ▪️Drag-Along Rights Drag-along provisions allow majority shareholders or investors to force minority shareholders to sell their shares under the same terms during a company sale. Without carefully drafted protections, founders may be forced into an exit they do not support. Key issues to negotiate include: Minimum approval thresholds Minimum sale price Founder consent rights Protection against unfavorable deal structures ▪️Reserved Matters and Investor Veto Rights Reserved matters clauses require investor approval for certain company decisions. While some level of oversight is standard, overly broad veto rights can significantly restrict day-to-day management and strategic flexibility. These provisions sometimes extend beyond major corporate actions and into operational matters such as: Hiring decisions Annual budgets Business expansion New product launches Overly expansive veto rights can effectively undermine founder control. Founder Protection Clauses That Should Not Be Missing Reviewing toxic clauses is only part of the process. Equally important is ensuring that the agreement includes provisions protecting the founder’s long-term position. ▪️Tag-Along Rights Tag-along rights allow founders or minority shareholders to participate in a share sale initiated by major investors or controlling shareholders under the same terms and conditions. This prevents founders from being left behind in a partial exit transaction. ▪️Reasonable Non-Compete Restrictions Non-compete clauses are common, particularly when investors are concerned about founder departures. However, the scope must remain reasonable in: Duration Geographic coverage Industry definition Overly broad restrictions can make it difficult for founders to launch future ventures or continue working in their own field. ▪️Flexible Use of Investment Funds Some investment agreements impose rigid limitations on how capital can be spent. Excessively narrow restrictions may prevent startups from pivoting or adapting to market conditions. Maintaining flexibility in operational spending categories is often critical for early-stage companies. Why Startup Founders Should Involve a Lawyer Early Investment agreement review is not simply about proofreading a contract. A startup investment lawyer should help with: Identifying and negotiating toxic clauses Structuring founder protection provisions Anticipating future fundraising and exit scenarios Preparing negotiation strategies against investor revisions Balancing governance and operational flexibility Most importantly, legal review should begin at the Term Sheet stage. Once a founder signs a term sheet, investors often treat the agreed terms as commercially settled, making it far more difficult to renegotiate key provisions later in the process. In many startup investments, the best time to negotiate is before signing anything — not after.
