We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Practical Response Guide for Telegram Dating Scam Cases
Why Early Action Matters in Telegram Dating Scams Telegram dating scams typically follow a clear pattern: trust-building → financial requests → sudden disappearance. The problem is that once the victim begins to question the relationship or attempts to disengage, perpetrators often delete accounts, conversations, and profiles immediately. If evidence is not secured at this stage, it may become significantly more difficult during the criminal complaint process to prove deceptive conduct and unlawful acquisition of funds. Many victims delay action, thinking, “I should wait a little longer,” but this hesitation often reduces the chances of recovery. If you are spending your days overwhelmed by anxiety or self-blame because of this incident, those emotions are completely understandable. However, this type of crime does not resolve itself over time. It is not a matter that can be taken lightly, and failure to act early may push the case into an irreversible stage. Immediate Actions Victims Must Take If a Telegram dating scam is suspected, the following steps should be taken without delay: Capture screenshots of the entire Telegram conversation, the other party’s profile, ID, and nickname before any deletion Organize bank transfer records, crypto TxIDs, and exchange deposit/withdrawal histories Separately record the account holder’s name, wallet addresses, referral codes, or links used by the perpetrator Preserve photos and videos used by the other party in their original file format Maintain communication with the other party for a limited period solely for evidence preservation, while ensuring no additional losses occur This stage is not about emotional closure—it is about evidence preservation. The faster the response, the higher the likelihood of identifying the perpetrator and tracing the flow of funds. How to Prepare a Police Complaint That Leads to Meaningful Investigation Telegram-based dating scams rarely lead to substantive investigations if reported as mere complaints or civil petitions. A formal criminal complaint based on fraud under Article 347(1) of the Korean Criminal Act is required. A criminal complaint is a legally effective declaration requesting punishment of the offender. Key points in preparing such a complaint include: Clearly identifying what representations or materials were used to deceive the victim, and at what point Structurally explaining how emotional intimacy was linked to financial demands Where cryptocurrency is involved, presenting the possibility of exchange cooperation and account or wallet tracing Compiling circumstances that support the inference that the perpetrator intended to defraud from the outset, such as: Repeated use of similar methods Use of false identities Immediate disappearance after receiving funds In cases involving romantic relationships, the consistency and specificity of the victim’s statements often determine the direction of both investigation and trial. While explaining emotional harm is important, the core focus must be on clear, chronological, and consistent descriptions of the deceptive acts, the transfer of funds, and objective circumstances supporting fraudulent intent. Inconsistencies in statements may undermine recognition of deceptive conduct, a key element of fraud (Supreme Court of Korea, October 13, 1989, Case No. 89Do525). How Decent Law Firm Assists – Telegram Dating Scam Response Strategy Decent Law Firm does not limit its involvement to simple reporting. We design victim-focused, end-to-end criminal response strategies. Analyze the scam structure and legally reconstruct deceptive elements Organize Telegram records, crypto transfer paths, and bank account flows to establish an evidence submission strategy Provide structured support for complaint drafting and statement direction from the police investigation stage Offer realistic assessments of perpetrator identification and asset recovery potential For those whose daily lives have been shaken and emotionally devastated by this incident, legal action can offer tangible help. Telegram dating scams are not burdens that should be carried alone. In these cases, speed and precision in response are the most critical choices.
-
Promoting Bybit Coin Referrals Is Now Risky — Illegality Concerns Are Real
1. Why Coin Referrals Are Becoming a Serious Legal Issue In recent virtual asset–related investigations, referral structures such as Bybit coin referrals have been repeatedly scrutinized. This trend stems from the clear stance taken by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The FIU has consistently emphasized that it is, in principle, illegal for unreported virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to solicit, broker, or intermediate transactions for Korean residents, or to support KRW-based payments. At present, only 27 operators have completed official registration in Korea. If domestic or overseas platforms not included on this list operate Korean-language websites, provide KRW deposits or withdrawals, or conduct promotions targeting Korean users, they face a substantial risk of violating the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “Specified Financial Information Act”). This standard applies equally to overseas exchanges if they target Korean residents. The core issue, however, lies in the lack of a clearly defined boundary as to what constitutes “virtual asset service provider activity.” Because enforcement authorities assess factors such as repetition, fee structures, and the scope of customers on a comprehensive basis, the line between mere personal use and business activity remains blurred. In this environment, investigative risks are rapidly expanding—and coin referral structures have increasingly come under scrutiny. 2. What Bybit’s Recent Announcement Signifies Bybit’s recent official compliance announcement carries significant implications. The exchange made clear its intention to strengthen a global compliance framework aligned with local regulations and to allow marketing, promotion, and user solicitation only in jurisdictions where regulatory requirements are satisfied. With respect to Korea, Bybit explicitly addressed the risks associated with unregistered marketing and intermediary activities, including brokerage-like conduct. It prohibited referral and commission-based structures that specifically target Korean users. Bybit further stated that it is restricting referral and commission-based promotional activities aimed at Korea, and that if such activities are identified, partnership termination and commission clawbacks may follow. This indicates that even overseas exchanges now recognize Korean-targeted referral schemes, such as Bybit coin referrals, as a clear regulatory risk and are beginning to draw firm boundaries. 3. Structures That Law Enforcement Authorities Actually Focus On In practice, referral activities are rarely assessed in isolation. Instead, they are evaluated in conjunction with other transactional structures. For example, when repetitive P2P or OTC transactions are conducted through Telegram or open chat rooms, and a fee structure exists alongside repeated trades, such activity is likely to be classified as “transactions conducted for business purposes.” In several cases, this has led to violations of the Specified Financial Information Act. Similarly, currency exchange structures exploiting the so-called “Kimchi premium” may pose relatively low risk if limited to simple arbitrage. However, when combined with false invoices or quid pro quo remittances, they can give rise to violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Specified Financial Information Act, and even obstruction of business charges. Within this context, inducing users to open accounts on unregistered overseas exchanges and receiving transaction-volume–linked commissions—such as in Bybit coin referral schemes—may be deemed to involve elements of brokerage, intermediation, or agency, making them potential targets of investigation. Although standalone precedent is limited, cases in which such conduct is combined with investment solicitation or deceptive practices frequently escalate into criminal matters. A single act that was previously taken lightly can be interpreted as a critical link in a serious criminal scheme—this risk should never be underestimated. 4. Decent Law Firm’s Support in Virtual Asset Investigations In Bybit coin referral–related cases, outcomes often hinge on what is properly organized and clarified at the earliest stage. If factors such as transaction frequency and repetition, the existence of a commission structure, the scope of counterparties, awareness of fund sources, and one’s actual role are not systematically analyzed, even a minor matter can expand into allegations of participation in a serious criminal offense. For those facing uncertainty and anxiety at this stage, practical and experience-based legal assistance is essential. Decent Law Firm analyzes key issues by integrating FSC and FIU materials and guidelines, investigative practices, and recent case law, carefully assessing whether a client may be deemed a virtual asset service provider and whether the matter could be linked to other criminal offenses. We provide comprehensive support—from interview and statement strategies at the investigation stage, through warrant proceedings, to substantiation and defense at trial—going beyond advisory services to help design the overall structure of the investigation response. If you have received a request for appearance or are facing a search and seizure, this moment is critical. If you are concerned about issues related to Bybit coin referrals, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Task Force will stand with you throughout the process.
-
Essential Reading for Victims of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams
Typical Types of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams Recently, cryptocurrency loan scams have become increasingly sophisticated, carefully disguised to appear like legitimate financial transactions. At first glance, they may look no different from lawful crypto-backed loan services. Common methods include the following: Luring investors with promises of high returns and low-interest crypto-backed loans Explaining a structure where a loan is executed after depositing USDT, while in reality no loan is ever provided Demanding advance payments under the guise of loan fees or security deposits Using fake loan websites that impersonate well-known exchanges or platforms The key point is that although these schemes take the form of a “loan,” their substance is to deceive victims into transferring cryptocurrency to a specific wallet and then misappropriate it. Missing this fundamental nature can completely derail the direction of any legal response. Key Legal Issues at Stake The most important legal criterion in cryptocurrency loan scams is whether fraud under Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act is established. Even if the transaction is labeled as a loan, fraud is constituted if the perpetrator deceives the victim and thereby obtains property or a financial benefit. Investigative authorities and courts typically examine the following elements when determining whether fraud has occurred: Whether there was a deceptive act toward the victim Whether the victim was induced into a mistake due to that deception Whether there was a disposition by the victim based on that mistake (i.e., transfer of cryptocurrency) Whether the perpetrator acquired property or a financial benefit Whether there is a causal relationship between the deceptive act and the victim’s financial loss If there are multiple victims or repeated offenses, enhanced punishment may apply, such as habitual fraud under Article 351 of the Criminal Act or aggravated penalties under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. If a criminal organization was formed or joined, additional liability may arise under Article 114 of the Criminal Act. What matters is not the form, but the actual structure of the scheme. Only by proving this process can a victim move beyond the status of a “cryptocurrency scam victim.” Risk Factors Commonly Overlooked by Victims One of the most common misconceptions among victims is the belief that “because it is structured as a loan, it is different from an investment scam.” However, even if the scheme outwardly takes the form of a loan, fraud is established if, from the outset, the perpetrator had no intention or ability to provide a loan and instead deceived the victim to misappropriate cryptocurrency. This is not merely a civil breach of contract, but a criminal offense subject to punishment. Victims often give up on taking action for reasons such as: Assuming recovery is impossible because overseas platforms or wallets are involved Missing the appropriate time to report due to delays The problem is that the longer reporting is delayed, the more difficult it becomes to trace cryptocurrency wallets, freeze scam-related accounts, track criminal proceeds, and identify those involved. A misjudgment at this stage can effectively eliminate any realistic chance of recovery. Decent Law Firm’s Approach and Direction of Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat cryptocurrency loan scams as simple criminal complaints. The core issue lies in the underlying fraud structure. Our approach includes: Analyzing the flow of cryptocurrency and the structure of the scam Developing a strategic approach at the criminal complaint stage Conducting a realistic assessment of the possibility of tracing and recovering virtual assets Determining whether to pursue civil proceedings in parallel, if necessary Cryptocurrency-related cases require a fundamentally different approach from ordinary fraud cases. The later the response, the more sharply the chances of recovery decline. If you are trapped in repeated anxiety and uncertainty over this issue, there is no need to lose time making decisions on your own. At the same time, you must clearly recognize that taking this matter lightly can lead to irreversible consequences. Because cryptocurrency loan scams are cases in which early action directly determines the outcome, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice at the earliest possible stage.
-
Claim for Damages Against a Domestic Cryptocurrency Exchange
If a cryptocurrency exchange failed to suspend transactions or halt trading despite being informed of a hack involving the issuing foundation of a listed token, resulting in investor losses, what liabilities could the exchange face? Breach of Duty of Care Cryptocurrency exchanges have a duty to protect investors by taking appropriate measures during incidents such as hacking. If an exchange was aware of a hacking incident but failed to suspend trading, this could be considered a breach of its duty of care. Relevant precedents also support this viewpoint. Breach of Contract If an exchange promised to replace an affected token with a new token at a 1:1 ratio but failed to fulfill this commitment, resulting in significant losses for token holders, the exchange may be held liable for breaching its contractual obligations. Unlawful Acts and Liability for Damages Exchanges are obligated to take proper measures to protect investors. If they neglect these responsibilities, their actions could constitute an unlawful act, making them liable for damages under applicable laws. Korean cryptocurrency exchanges are expected to prioritize investor protection. Failure to meet this standard could lead to legal claims for compensation.
-
Risks of Domestic Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions
Definition of Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions Cryptocurrency OTC (Over-the-Counter) transactions involve the exchange of fiat currency, such as Korean won (KRW), into USDT (Tether) on a continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven basis. How It Works An OTC broker receives requests from specific organizations and facilitates transactions by: Receiving fiat currency (KRW) from individual customers into their account. Depositing the equivalent USDT from their holdings into the customer’s cryptocurrency exchange account as designated by the organization. Charging a commission fee, typically around 5% of the transaction amount. Violation of the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) Cryptocurrency OTC operators may be at risk of violating the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) in South Korea. If a business engages in repeated brokerage of cryptocurrency transactions for profit without proper registration, it constitutes a violation of the Special Act. The risks escalate significantly if the transactions involve illicit funds, such as those related to phishing schemes, drug money, or gambling proceeds. Special Act Article 7(1): Any business operating cryptocurrency transactions must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). Special Act Article 17(1): Failure to comply may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million KRW. Legal Precedent and Penalties Recent court rulings in South Korea have affirmed that individuals engaging in continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven cryptocurrency brokerage are classified as Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) under the Special Act. In a notable case, the court imposed a 1 year and 6 months prison sentence based on the frequency and scale of transactions. This decision underscores the gravity of conducting cryptocurrency brokerage without proper registration. Key Takeaways Businesses conducting cryptocurrency transactions as a commercial activity must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit to comply with the Special Act. Violations can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Given the potential misuse of cryptocurrencies in criminal activities such as phishing and money laundering, stricter regulatory measures are necessary to ensure compliance and safeguard the financial system.
-
Supreme Court Ruling: Legal Characteristics and Specificity of Virtual Assets in South Korea
The Supreme Court of South Korea has defined virtual assets as "digital representations of economic value that are not controlled by the state but are granted value through blockchain or other encrypted distributed ledgers, qualifying as property benefits" (referencing Supreme Court Decision 2021Do9855, November 11, 2021). The Court emphasized the distinct characteristics of virtual assets, such as the ability to verify only the addresses of electronic wallets without identifying the user's personal information, and the distributed recording of transaction histories, which set them apart from traditional assets. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that virtual assets are not subject to the same level of regulation as legal tender and involve inherent risks in transactions. Consequently, the Court concluded that virtual assets do not warrant the same level of legal protection as legal tender under criminal law.
