We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
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.
-
Why You Should Never Ignore Interest and Criminal Liability for Unpaid Severance Pay
If you are delaying severance payments because “the company is facing financial difficulties” or “we are still discussing payment with the former employee,” you need to review your legal obligations immediately. Once 14 days have passed after an employee's resignation, both statutory interest and potential criminal liability may begin to accrue. When Must Severance Pay Be Paid? Under Article 9 of the Korean Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act, severance pay must be paid within 14 days from the employee's date of retirement. In exceptional circumstances, the payment deadline may be extended by agreement between the employer and the employee. However, even where the payment deadline has been extended by agreement, legal liability may still arise. Moreover, an agreement extending the payment date does not automatically resolve issues relating to delay interest, which requires separate legal consideration. Interest on Unpaid Severance Pay Can Be Significant If severance pay remains unpaid beyond the 14-day statutory period, delay interest accrues from the following day at an annual rate of 20% under Article 37 of the Korean Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree. This rate is approximately four times higher than the general statutory civil interest rate of 5% per annum. Example KRW 30,000,000 (Severance Pay Principal) ↓ + KRW 6,000,000 (Delay Interest After One Year) Even if the parties agree to extend the payment deadline, delay interest is not automatically waived, and the longer the dispute continues, the greater the financial burden becomes. An extension agreement alone does not eliminate delay interest unless there is a separate legal basis supporting such waiver. Can Employers Actually Be Criminally Prosecuted? Yes. Failure to pay severance pay may constitute a criminal offense punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million under Article 44 of the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act. This is not merely an administrative violation—it may result in a criminal record. When a complaint is filed, a labor inspector from the Ministry of Employment and Labor will investigate the facts. If the employer is found to have intentionally avoided payment or lacked any genuine intention to pay, the case may be referred to prosecutors for criminal proceedings. Particularly where multiple employees at the same workplace have not received severance payments, authorities may view the conduct as intentional, increasing the likelihood of prosecution. What Should You Do Now? 1. Pay Immediately If Possible Even a partial payment may help demonstrate good faith and may be viewed favorably when assessing intent. 2. If Full Payment Is Not Possible, Execute a Written Installment Agreement Verbal agreements are difficult to prove in the event of a dispute. A properly documented written agreement can help reduce future conflicts and clarify the payment schedule. 3. Seek Legal Advice Early if a Complaint Has Been Filed or an Investigation Has Begun Statements made during a labor investigation can directly affect subsequent criminal proceedings. Establishing an appropriate legal strategy from the outset is critical. Time Is Not on the Employer's Side The longer severance pay remains unpaid, the more unfavorable the situation becomes for the employer. Interest continues to accumulate, and disputes tend to escalate. Obtaining accurate legal advice at an early stage can ultimately reduce both financial exposure and legal risk. At Decent Law Firm, we assist employers with labor investigations, criminal complaints relating to unpaid severance pay, and dispute resolution strategies. Before the situation worsens, consider obtaining legal advice as early as possible.
-
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.
-
False Naver Blog Posts Targeting Your Business in Korea: How to Request Removal
When Online Defamation Affects Your Business in Korea In South Korea, Naver remains one of the most influential online platforms for search, blogs, and reputation management. For businesses operating in Korea, what appears on Naver can directly affect customer trust, business inquiries, and brand credibility. In recent years, some businesses have discovered Naver blog posts that mention their company or brand name together with words such as “scam,” “fraud,” or “victim warning.” These posts may appear professional and persuasive, even when the underlying facts are inaccurate, misleading, or unrelated to the business itself. For foreign-owned companies or international businesses operating in Korea, this type of reputational damage can be especially difficult to detect and respond to. The content may be written in Korean, indexed on Naver, and viewed as credible by local customers before the company becomes aware of it. Under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (the “Network Act”), a business whose reputation or other rights have been infringed online may request deletion of the content or temporary blocking of access to the content. Applicable Law ▪️Article 44-2 of the Network Act: Deletion Requests and Temporary Measures Article 44-2(1) of the Network Act provides that a person whose rights, including privacy or reputation, have been infringed through information distributed via an information and communications network may request the relevant service provider to delete the information or publish a rebuttal. Under Article 44-2(2), once such a request is received, the service provider must take necessary measures, such as deletion or temporary blocking, without delay and notify both the requester and the person who posted the content. Where it is difficult to determine whether a rights infringement has occurred, or where a dispute between the parties is expected, Article 44-2(4) allows the service provider to temporarily block access to the content. The duration of such temporary measures may not exceed 30 days. ▪️Criminal Liability for Online Defamation If an online post contains false statements of fact that damage another person’s or company’s reputation, Article 70(2) of the Network Act may apply. The statutory penalty is imprisonment for up to seven years, disqualification for up to ten years, or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. Even if the statements are true, Article 70(1) may still apply if the post was made with intent to defame. In that case, the statutory penalty is imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. Category Legal Basis Possible Penalty Defamation by false statements of fact Network Act, Article 70(2) Up to 7 years’ imprisonment or KRW 50 million fine Defamation by true statements of fact Network Act, Article 70(1) Up to 3 years’ imprisonment or KRW 30 million fine Civil damages Civil Act, Article 750 Compensation for financial and reputational harm Criminal liability depends on the specific content, context, and intent behind the post. However, a business may still pursue platform-level removal or temporary blocking even where the criminal threshold is not yet clear. Key Legal Issues ▪️Scope of Defamation Under Article 44-2 The standard for requesting deletion or temporary blocking under Article 44-2 is broader than the standard for criminal defamation under Article 70 of the Network Act or Article 307 of the Criminal Act. In practice, the key issue is whether the online post infringes the company’s rights, including its reputation. It is not always necessary to prove criminal intent at the initial platform reporting stage. For example, if a Naver blog post places a company’s brand name next to terms such as “scam” or “fraud,” while the actual content concerns an unrelated impersonator or third party, the overall impression created for ordinary readers may still be misleading. In some cases, this may support a removal or temporary blocking request. Evidence of reputational harm is also important. Businesses should preserve records showing the impact of the post, such as customer complaints, cancelled inquiries, KakaoTalk messages, emails, screenshots, call logs, and changes in online search results. ▪️What Happens If the Poster Files an Objection If the person who posted the content files an objection, the temporary blocking may remain in effect for 30 days from the date the objection is received. After that period, the post may be restored. In that situation, the affected business may consider filing a defamation mediation request with the Korea Communications Standards Commission’s Internet Harm Relief Center. If mediation is successful, the settlement may have an effect similar to a civil settlement agreement. The Limits of Platform Reporting Alone Filing a removal request through Naver’s Rights Protection Center is an important first step, but it may not fully resolve the problem. If the poster files an objection, the content may be restored. If similar posts are uploaded again under different accounts or URLs, each post must usually be addressed separately. Where harmful posts are being published repeatedly or systematically, platform reporting alone may not be enough. In such cases, a formal letter of demand issued in the name of a Korean law firm, together with potential criminal complaints or civil damages claims, may be more effective. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist Responding to false or misleading online content in Korea requires more than simply submitting a platform report. Businesses must consider the wording of the removal request, the legal basis for rights infringement, the preservation of evidence, and the possibility of further civil or criminal action. Decent Law Firm assists businesses with each stage of this process, including removal requests, formal letters of demand, Korea Communications Standards Commission proceedings, criminal complaints, and civil damages claims where appropriate. If you have identified Naver blog posts or other online content that may be harming your business in Korea, please share the relevant URLs and a brief explanation of the impact. We will review the matter and advise on the most appropriate course of action. ※ This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any specific matter.
-
AI Crypto Scam: What to Do If You Cannot Withdraw Your Funds
As interest in artificial intelligence continues to grow, crypto scammers are increasingly using “AI-powered investment platforms” and “AI trading systems” to attract investors. These scams often appear sophisticated. They may provide polished whitepapers, fake AI trading dashboards, technical presentations, and fabricated success stories to create the illusion of legitimacy. At first, small withdrawals may work normally. However, once a larger amount is invested, victims frequently encounter withdrawal restrictions and repeated requests for additional payments. For foreign investors living in or interested in Korea, understanding these patterns early can make a significant difference in preserving evidence and responding effectively. What Is an AI Crypto Scam? An AI crypto scam is a type of cryptocurrency fraud where scammers falsely claim to operate AI-based trading technology, automated investment systems, or advanced blockchain algorithms in order to obtain investor funds. Unlike older crypto scams that relied mainly on unrealistic profit promises, AI-related scams tend to look far more convincing because they use technical language and complex-looking systems that ordinary investors cannot easily verify. Common examples include: “AI automated trading” platforms Fake AI investment algorithms AI-powered coin analysis systems Fabricated development teams and partnerships Telegram or KakaoTalk investment groups promoting “AI-selected coins” In many cases, the underlying technology either does not exist at all or consists only of publicly available open-source tools presented as proprietary AI technology. Common Types of AI Crypto Scam Schemes Fake AI Technology and Whitepapers Scammers often publish professional-looking whitepapers filled with technical terminology, charts, and fake development roadmaps. Before investing, investors should carefully review: Whether the developers are real people LinkedIn profiles and professional history GitHub repositories and development activity Whether partnerships and investors actually exist Many fraudulent projects use fabricated team members or copied technical materials. Presale Investment Fraud Another common scheme involves selling tokens before a supposed exchange listing. Victims are told they are receiving a “special presale opportunity” before the token is listed on major exchanges such as Upbit or Binance. Typical warning signs include: Guaranteed future listings Promises of “100x returns” VIP insider investment opportunities Claims of limited early-access token allocations In reality, many projects disappear entirely after collecting investor funds. Fake Exchanges and AI Trading Platforms Some scammers direct victims to private trading apps or fake exchanges operated entirely by the fraud group. The structure often follows the same pattern: Small withdrawals are allowed initially Investors are encouraged to deposit larger amounts Withdrawals become restricted Additional fees are demanded Communication suddenly stops Requests to install unofficial apps or use unknown platforms should be treated with extreme caution. Signs That You May Already Be a Victim If any of the following situations apply, additional transfers should be stopped immediately. Requests for Taxes or Verification Fees One of the most common scam tactics is demanding advance payment before withdrawals are processed. Victims may be told they must pay: Taxes Wallet activation fees AML verification costs Security deposits International transfer charges Legitimate exchanges generally do not require separate personal transfers in order to release withdrawal funds. Financial Authority Impersonation Some scammers pretend to represent regulators, compliance teams, or financial institutions. They may falsely claim that: Your account has been flagged for money laundering Additional compliance checks are required Korean financial authorities are reviewing the transaction A temporary security payment must be made These are frequently used to pressure victims into sending more money. Continuous Withdrawal Delays Scammers often use technical excuses to delay withdrawals, including: Wallet maintenance Node synchronization problems Security upgrades Hacking attempts International approval delays Repeated postponements are a major warning sign. Sudden Loss of Communication Victims often report that customer service suddenly disappears after additional payments are refused. In many cases: Telegram administrators block users Support responses become automated Account managers disappear entirely Websites or apps suddenly shut down What To Do If You Are a Victim of an AI Crypto Scam 1. Stop Sending Additional Money No matter what explanation is provided, additional payments should not be made. Scammers frequently exploit victims psychologically by claiming that “one final payment” will unlock the withdrawal process. In practice, additional deposits usually lead only to larger losses. 2. Contact Your Bank Immediately If the transfer was recent, contact your bank as quickly as possible and explain that the transaction may involve fraud. Unlike voice phishing cases, crypto-related fraud may not always qualify for immediate account suspension under Korean law. However, early reporting can still help preserve transaction records and improve response options. Obtaining a police incident confirmation document may also assist in certain cases. 3. Preserve All Evidence The following materials should be saved immediately: Whitepapers and advertisements Wallet addresses and transaction records Screenshots of the platform Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email conversations Voice recordings and investment solicitations Contracts or investment documents Because fraudulent platforms can disappear without warning, early evidence preservation is critical. 4. Report the Case and Seek Legal Advice AI crypto scams may involve multiple legal issues, including: Fraud Illegal fundraising schemes Financial regulatory violations Money laundering-related offenses Electronic financial transaction violations Many scams also involve overseas entities, cross-border fund transfers, and anonymous crypto wallets, making early strategic response especially important. The longer the delay, the more difficult asset tracing and evidence collection may become. Early Response Can Make a Difference AI crypto scams are not simply failed investments. In many cases, they involve organized fraudulent operations designed to systematically prevent withdrawals and extract additional payments from victims. If withdrawals have been blocked or communication has stopped, it is important to review the situation carefully and respond quickly. Decent Law Firm’s digital asset and crypto disputes team advises clients on crypto investment fraud, asset tracing, criminal complaints, and cross-border legal response strategies related to cryptocurrency scams in Korea. Even with limited initial materials, it may still be possible to assess the structure of the case and discuss available legal options.
