We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Minimizing Risks Related to Criminal Penalties, Fines, and Confiscation in Tax Evasion Cases
Transition Process Toward Criminal Exposure Most tax evasion cases begin at the stage of a tax audit. However, where a certain scale of underreporting and intentional misconduct is identified, the process commonly progresses from a tax audit to a criminal tax investigation conducted by specialized investigation units, and ultimately to a criminal referral to the prosecution. This is why matters initially expected to conclude with administrative penalties may later evolve into full criminal proceedings. In practice, many taxpayers fail to clearly distinguish between cases that may be resolved through administrative tax measures and those that carry genuine criminal exposure, resulting in missed opportunities for timely and appropriate strategic response. In particular, where deliberate concealment structures—such as false reporting, suppression of sales, or the use of nominee accounts or nominee corporations—are identified during the audit stage, criminal exposure should already be considered substantially realized. At this point, whether and how an early strategic response is made can significantly affect the likelihood of criminal prosecution, the possibility of non-prosecution, the scope of confiscation, and sentencing outcomes. Actual Criminal Penalties Applicable Upon a Finding of Tax Evasion Tax evasion constitutes a criminal offense under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Where intentional tax evasion is established, liability extends beyond administrative sanctions and results in criminal responsibility. Under the Act, general tax evasion is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to twice the amount of the evaded tax. Where the evaded tax amount exceeds KRW 300 million and represents at least 30% of the tax due, or exceeds KRW 500 million, enhanced penalties apply, including imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to three times the evaded tax. The applicable statutory framework and penalty levels vary depending on the amount of tax evaded. If the annual evaded tax amount ranges between KRW 500 million and KRW 1 billion, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes may apply, resulting in imprisonment of not less than three years and a fine of two to five times the evaded tax, imposed concurrently. If the annual evaded tax amount exceeds KRW 1 billion, the statute provides for life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years, together with a fine of two to five times the evaded tax. In practice, decisions regarding detention and sentencing are influenced not only by the amount of tax evaded, but also by the degree of intent, repetition or habitual conduct, and whether the evasion involved systematic or organized concealment. Treating tax evasion solely as a financial issue involving penalties or additional taxes—while overlooking criminal exposure—can result in an unexpected and substantial risk of actual imprisonment. Confiscation and Tax Surcharges: Often More Burdensome Than Criminal Sentencing In tax evasion cases, confiscation and additional tax surcharges arise independently of imprisonment and criminal fines imposed by the criminal court. Confiscation in criminal proceedings serves as a property-based sanction designed to recover economic benefits obtained through unlawful conduct, while administrative tax procedures may impose additional taxes and surcharges under the Framework Act on National Taxes and related tax statutes. Key issues in calculating confiscation include identifying the true beneficiary of the income, determining the scope of concealed income, and assessing discrepancies between nominal ownership and substantive control, particularly in cases involving nominee structures. When compounded with tax surcharges, the overall financial burden may become irrecoverable, even where the custodial sentence itself is relatively limited. In practice, confiscation and additional tax liabilities often result in more severe consequences than criminal fines alone. How Decent Law Firm Handles Tax Evasion Cases as Criminal Matters Tax evasion cases must not be addressed by separating tax procedures from criminal defense. Because statements and materials submitted during audits and investigations directly affect criminal liability, Decent Law Firm formulates defense strategies from a criminal law perspective at the earliest stage. We focus on challenging the existence of criminal intent and limiting the scope of liability, with the objective of minimizing both sentencing exposure and confiscation risk. If notice of a criminal tax investigation has already been issued, or if allegations of concealment or false reporting have arisen during a tax audit, immediate action is critical. Once the appropriate response window has passed, the risks associated with criminal penalties and confiscation in tax evasion cases may become irreversible.
-
Legal Counsel for Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud Investigations
Police Investigation Stage: Key Issues, Defense Strategy, and Attorney’s Fees Not all disputes arising from cryptocurrency investments lead to criminal prosecution. Under Korean criminal law, fraud is established only where there is clear evidence that the accused had intent to deceive from the outset. Mere investment losses or business failure do not, by themselves, constitute criminal fraud. In investigative practice, authorities tend to focus on cases involving patterns such as: Investment solicitations disguised as private sales, Guarantees of principal or fixed high returns, or Repeated promises of unrealistically high profits. However, where actual investment execution took place and losses resulted from changes in market conditions, such cases may be more appropriately classified as civil disputes involving breach of contract, rather than criminal offenses. Ultimately, police investigations into alleged cryptocurrency investment fraud revolve around two core issues: Whether there was intent to deceive at the time of solicitation, and How the invested funds were actually used. Rights of a Suspect During a Police Investigation A police investigation is not a procedural formality. It is a decisive stage that often determines whether a case proceeds to indictment and how subsequent criminal proceedings unfold. A suspect is guaranteed the right to remain silent under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act. There is no obligation to answer every question, particularly where the facts are unclear or where an answer may be unfavorable. Investigative authorities are legally required to inform suspects of this right. In addition, a suspect has the right to assistance of counsel (Article 243-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). A defense attorney may assist from the pre-investigation stage, organize the direction of statements, attend police questioning, and intervene where questioning becomes improper or coercive. In cryptocurrency-related cases—where transaction structures, wallet movements, and technical elements are complex—the involvement of counsel during questioning often plays a decisive role. Where arrest or detention occurs, the suspect may request judicial review of its legality. Overnight interrogations and excessively long questioning sessions are strictly restricted by law. Preparing for a Cryptocurrency Fraud Police Investigation The most important step prior to appearing for questioning is a systematic organization of the facts. Key materials may include: Cryptocurrency transaction histories, Investment agreements or offering documents, Communication records with investors, and Documentation tracing the flow and use of funds. Consistency in statements is critical. Providing spontaneous answers while memories are unclear may result in inconsistencies that later work against the suspect during prosecution or trial. Because written interrogation records are frequently treated as key evidence in court, any inaccuracies must be corrected immediately at the investigation stage. If investigators attempt to induce unfavorable statements or apply undue pressure, the suspect should exercise the right to remain silent and seek immediate assistance from counsel. Defense Strategy in Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud Cases Defense in cryptocurrency investment fraud cases must be based on structure and evidence, not emotion or unsubstantiated assertions. First, it is essential to demonstrate that actual investments were executed and that there was a genuine possibility of profit. This directly undermines allegations of deceptive conduct. Second, evidence showing the absence of intent to misappropriate funds—such as partial profit distributions, operating expenses, or documented investment use—serves as a key factor in rebutting criminal intent. Third, emphasizing the inherent volatility of cryptocurrency markets helps clarify that losses resulted from market risk rather than fraudulent conduct, reinforcing that the matter concerns civil liability rather than criminal responsibility. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere failure to return investment funds does not, by itself, establish criminal fraud. Why Early Legal Involvement Matters Once a police investigation begins on suspicion of cryptocurrency investment fraud, the criminal process is already underway. At this stage, early legal judgment and strategic involvement often determine whether a case proceeds to prosecution or concludes at the investigative level. Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Practice Team designs defense strategies that go beyond abstract legal theory, taking into account investigative structure, fund flow analysis, and the technical characteristics of digital assets. If you have received a police summons, it is critical to consult with legal counsel before appearing for questioning. In cryptocurrency investment fraud cases, the investigation stage often determines the final outcome.
-
How to File a Criminal Complaint for Workplace Harassment and Manage Legal Risks
Workplace Harassment: When Does It Escalate to Criminal Charges? Workplace harassment, in and of itself, is not subject to criminal punishment. However, if the conduct constituting harassment also satisfies the elements of crimes under the Criminal Act—such as assault, intimidation, insult, or defamation—criminal charges may be filed (Criminal Act Articles 260, 307, and 311). Many cases are resolved through internal reporting procedures, investigations, and personnel measures within the company. The issue arises when internal procedures fail to function effectively, or when the reporting itself results in retaliation. Where a superior in a position of dominance repeatedly engages in verbal abuse, publicly humiliates an employee, or where exclusion and isolation persist over an extended period, the matter goes beyond a mere internal workplace conflict. If psychological harm accumulates to the point that daily life or continued employment becomes difficult, and the harassment conduct satisfies the elements of a criminal offense, criminal prosecution may be considered. In such cases, civil claims for damages may also be pursued (Supreme Court Decision, November 25, 2021, Case No. 2020Da270503). The point at which one considers how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment should not be when emotions erupt, but when it is possible to calmly assess whether the objective legal requirements are met. For those enduring anxiety and fear alone, this article aims to clarify that there is a clearly defined area in which the law can provide protection. Types of Workplace Harassment That May Lead to Criminal Charges In practice, workplace harassment cases that escalate to criminal complaints tend to follow identifiable patterns. If repeated verbal abuse constitutes the offense of insult (Criminal Act Article 311), or if facts—true or false—are publicly alleged in a manner that damages another’s reputation (Criminal Act Article 307), criminal charges may be sufficiently supported. By contrast, private errands unrelated to work or excessive workloads may not, by themselves, meet the threshold for criminal punishment. However, if such conduct is accompanied by assault or threats, offenses such as coercion (Criminal Act Article 324) may be examined. Deliberately excluding an individual from meetings or work-related communications, or publicly labeling someone as a “problem employee” in front of others, also constitutes a serious matter. In particular, if retaliatory actions—such as disadvantages in personnel decisions, downgraded evaluations, or involuntary transfers—follow after harassment is reported, the legal gravity of the case increases significantly. Workplace harassment does not require repetition as an absolute condition. Even a single act may be recognized if it constitutes a serious infringement of personal dignity. Nevertheless, for criminal prosecution, each offense must satisfy its specific statutory elements. In cases of insult or defamation, requirements such as publicity and factual allegations must be met (Criminal Act Articles 307 and 311). Criminal Complaint Procedure and Key Pre-Filing Considerations In workplace harassment cases, accuracy in preparation and sequencing matters more than the procedure itself. The overall process typically proceeds as follows: Collection of Evidence and Organization of Facts Secure objective materials such as recordings, messenger conversations, emails, internal notices, and witness statements. Organize the incidents chronologically by date, location, and conduct. Review of Internal Reporting Options Under Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act, employees may report workplace harassment to the employer, who is obligated to investigate and take appropriate measures. Internal reporting is a legal right, and retaliatory treatment against the reporter is prohibited. Filing a Criminal Complaint with the Competent Investigative Authority The complaint should be drafted around the elements of applicable criminal offenses (e.g., assault, threats, insult, defamation), while also describing the broader context of workplace harassment. Investigation of the Complainant, Witnesses, and the Accused Consistency and precision in statements during interviews with investigators are critical points of evaluation. Review of Disposition and Consideration of Follow-Up Measures Depending on the outcome of the investigation, additional complaints, civil damages claims, or parallel labor law procedures may be considered. Emotional expressions or exaggerated descriptions during this process can undermine credibility. Moreover, if a complaint is dismissed, filing a complaint without an objective factual basis may expose the complainant to risks of defamation claims or counter-charges. Deciding how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment is never a matter to be taken lightly. A poorly prepared complaint can lead to further legal disputes, and this risk must be clearly understood. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm approaches workplace harassment cases not as emotional conflicts, but as matters of legal structure. We conduct advance reviews of whether criminal complaint requirements are met and design feasible strategies based on the quality and arrangement of evidence. We also work in collaboration with labor law specialists who are former certified labor attorneys, refining expressions that could be interpreted unfavorably during statements, and responding to criminal, labor, and civil issues in an integrated manner rather than treating them separately. The outcome of workplace harassment cases depends heavily on the initial response. The consequences of taking this issue lightly are far from insignificant. This is precisely why a structured response is necessary. Before it is too late, we strongly encourage discussing your available options with a qualified professional.
