We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Need Compensation for an Investment Scam?
Does Any of This Sound Familiar? ✔️ Cryptocurrency / Virtual Asset Scam Patterns You were invited to a high-return crypto investment group through social media or an open chat room. After making a small initial investment, you actually received profits. Once you invested more money, withdrawals suddenly became unavailable. The person in charge disappeared, or the investment platform itself vanished. ✔️ Stock Recommendation Service Scam Patterns It started as a free stock recommendation service. You initially made profits from recommended stocks. You were encouraged to join a VIP group or paid service. After paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees, your losses continued to grow. If any of the above applies to you, there is a significant possibility that you have been the victim of investment fraud. Before blaming yourself, consider whether legal remedies may be available. Why Compensation May Be Possible — Legal Grounds Many victims ask: "I've already transferred the money. Can I still recover it?" In many cases, the answer is yes. Criminal Complaint (Fraud Investigation) Filing a criminal complaint can initiate an official investigation and enable law enforcement authorities to trace bank accounts and investigate criminal proceeds. In addition, asset-freezing measures such as preliminary attachment orders or payment suspension procedures under applicable financial fraud regulations may help prevent the dissipation of assets. Civil Damages Claim Victims may also pursue the return of their losses through civil litigation, either independently or alongside criminal proceedings. Where multiple individuals participated in the fraud, all participants may be held jointly liable under the principle of joint tort liability. This means that victims may seek recovery of the full amount of their losses from any one of the responsible parties. Furthermore, since the implementation of South Korea's Virtual Asset User Protection Act on July 19, 2024, the legal framework for responding to virtual asset-related fraud has become stronger than before. Why Legal Representation Matters Recovering losses from investment scams is difficult not because victims lack knowledge of the law, but because fraudsters deliberately conceal their tracks. Fraud organizations often: Split funds across multiple accounts Operate through multiple entities or shell companies Launder proceeds through virtual assets and overseas platforms As a result, a simple complaint or basic police report is often insufficient to uncover the full structure of the scheme. Even when a case is formally reported, investigations may end with "suspect unknown" or "insufficient evidence" unless the case is properly supported. Effective recovery efforts often require: Early evidence preservation strategies (chat records, bank transfers, platform screenshots, etc.) Experience working with virtual asset exchanges and tracing transactions Coordinated group actions involving multiple victims The ability to pursue both criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously Without an experienced virtual asset litigation team, navigating these processes can be extremely challenging. What Makes Decent Law Firm Different Decent Law Firm operates a dedicated team focused on virtual asset disputes and investment fraud cases. Attorneys who understand cryptocurrency exchanges, blockchain transactions, and digital asset investigations approach these cases from an entirely different starting point. Our Experience Includes: Cooperation with virtual asset exchanges and regulatory authorities Simultaneous criminal and civil recovery strategies Representation of groups of victims in collective actions Development of evidence preservation and recovery strategies tailored to victims In investment fraud cases, time is critical. The longer the delay, the greater the risk that assets will be dispersed and evidence will disappear. Prompt action can significantly improve the likelihood of recovery. One Thing You Should Do Right Now Preserve Your Evidence. Keep any materials you still have, including: KakaoTalk or messaging app conversations Bank transfer records Screenshots of investment platforms or applications Wallet addresses and account information Contact details of the individuals involved Even if the other party has disappeared, and even if the platform no longer exists, legal options may still be available. The sooner action is taken, the better the chances of protecting your rights and recovering your losses.
-
Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud in Korea: Can You Recover Your Money?
Current Trends in Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud Unlisted shares are shares that are not traded on a public stock exchange. In Korea, these shares are often sold through private transactions, intermediaries, or over-the-counter channels. Because pricing information is not publicly available and the transaction process is often opaque, unlisted stock investments can easily become a source of fraud. A common pattern involves inducing investors to pay large sums based on claims such as “the company will soon be listed” or “a KOSDAQ listing is imminent.” Victims often wait for years, believing that the listing has simply been delayed, and may not realize that they have been defrauded until much later. Recently, fraud schemes have become more sophisticated. Rather than selling shares that do not exist, some perpetrators sell shares that actually exist but are of little value, inducing victims to purchase them at prices dozens of times higher than their real market value. Because the shares themselves may exist, victims often find it difficult to recognize the fraud at an early stage. This article explains the laws and court precedents that may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud in Korea, as well as the legal options available for recovering investment losses. Applicable Laws Several Korean laws may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud cases, depending on the facts, the amount of damage, and the role of each participant. Category Main Issue Statutory Penalty Fraud Obtaining money or property by inducing investment through false information Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act: imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million Aggravated Fraud Fraud involving damages of KRW 500 million or more Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes: imprisonment for at least 3 years Illegal Fund-Raising Receiving investment funds without authorization while promising principal or profit guarantees Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million Violation of the Capital Markets Act Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Article 444 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Depending on the scale of the damage and the manner of involvement, multiple charges may apply at the same time. Key Factors in Determining Fraud For fraud to be established in an unlisted stock investment case, the investigative authorities must examine whether there was deception and fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that: “Unless the defendant confesses, fraudulent intent, which is a subjective element of fraud, must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial condition before and after the act, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the transaction, and the process of performance.” — Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570, December 27, 2019 In other words, even if the perpetrator claims that they genuinely believed the company would be listed, investigative authorities and courts may still find fraudulent intent based on objective facts, such as the company’s financial condition, false explanations, and how the investment funds were used. In practice, investigators often focus on the following circumstances: False listing schedule: whether the perpetrator stated a specific listing timeline despite the lack of any realistic basis. Misuse of investment funds: whether the money was used for purposes different from what was promised to investors. Impossibility of performance: whether it was impossible from the beginning to transfer the shares or perform the promised obligations. Active involvement of intermediaries: whether an introducer or broker received commissions or directly participated in persuading the investor. Fraud organizations may also attempt to avoid liability under the illegal fund-raising regulations by avoiding direct phrases such as “principal guarantee.” Instead, they may use indirect expressions such as “repurchase commitment if listing fails” or “compensation for the difference if the public offering price is lower than expected.” Under Korean court practice, these types of clauses may still be interpreted as an agreement to preserve principal or profits under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Legal Strategy for Recovering Investment Losses Filing a criminal complaint does not automatically result in the recovery of the invested funds. In many cases, both criminal and civil procedures must be considered together. A criminal complaint can be useful because it allows investigative authorities to trace the flow of funds and secure evidence through compulsory investigation. If search and seizure is conducted at an early stage, it may help identify relevant accounts and determine where the investment funds went. Civil asset preservation measures, such as provisional attachment, are also important. These procedures are designed to freeze the perpetrator’s assets before they are disposed of or transferred. In many cases, filing for provisional attachment at the same time as, or shortly after, the criminal complaint can improve the possibility of recovery. The likelihood of recovery usually depends on the following factors: Assets held by the perpetrator: real estate, bank deposits, or other identifiable assets may be subject to provisional attachment. Traceability of funds: clear bank transfer records and account flows can make recovery more realistic. Scope of accomplices: if introducers, recruiters, or account holders were involved, it may be possible to pursue claims against those whose assets can be identified. Timing of response: the earlier the response, the more legal options may remain before the perpetrator disappears or disposes of assets. In unlisted stock investment fraud cases, the question is not only whether a criminal complaint can be filed. It is equally important to determine who should be targeted, what assets may be preserved, and which legal procedures should be pursued first. Review by DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense and Fraud Response Team Unlisted stock investment fraud cases require a comprehensive legal review. The key issues include whether fraud can be established, whether accomplices can be identified, whether assets can be preserved, and how criminal and civil procedures should be coordinated. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense and fraud response team has handled unlisted stock investment fraud cases from the criminal complaint stage through asset preservation and recovery strategy. If your investment has not been returned, or if the person in charge has stopped responding, it is important to review your situation before more time passes. 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.
-
Crypto Signal Group Refunds in Korea: A Lawyer’s 4-Step Strategy (Watch for Recovery Scams)
Why is it so hard to get a refund from crypto signal groups? Many “signal groups” on Telegram or KakaoTalk advertise “principal guaranteed” or “monthly returns of X%.” However, their terms usually include broad disclaimers such as “all investment decisions are the user’s responsibility.” They also label their signals as “for reference only,” which is often used to avoid liability. In practice, some of these operations may involve: Unlicensed investment advisory services Profit-sharing structures that may trigger regulatory violations Potential issues under Korean laws on fraud, quasi-receipt of funds, or capital markets regulations For this reason, crypto signal group disputes are not just civil refund claims—they often involve criminal law considerations as well. Before pursuing a refund, check this first From our experience at Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team, the key factor is not how much you invested, but how you were induced to join and how the service was structured. That makes early evidence collection critical. Capture ads and onboarding materials Save screenshots showing phrases like “guaranteed returns” or “risk-free investment,” including the platform (YouTube, Instagram, blogs, etc.). Secure payment records and refund terms Keep receipts, transfer records, account holder details (individual vs. company), and any written refund policies. Preserve communication and signal history Archive Telegram/KakaoTalk chats, signal logs, and any coercive language such as “just trust and follow.” Practical legal approach for recovery In practice, refund cases are not handled in a single step but through a structured sequence of actions. First, you need to clearly document your intent to terminate the service and request a refund. This should be done through channels such as chat, email, or text message, and should include when you joined, what service you received, what losses occurred, and why you are requesting a refund. Keeping screenshots and backups of this communication is essential. Next, rather than relying on informal complaints, it is often effective to send a formal legal notice through a lawyer. This document outlines misleading elements such as guaranteed returns, identifies potential legal violations, and sets a clear deadline and method for repayment. A properly structured legal notice often changes how the operator responds. At the same time, it is important to review whether the case involves criminal or regulatory issues such as fraud, illegal fundraising, or unlicensed advisory services. Filing complaints with investigative authorities or financial regulators can create additional pressure and may influence settlement negotiations. However, this step should be carefully aligned with the overall recovery strategy. If the operator refuses to refund or becomes unresponsive, the case may proceed to civil enforcement measures such as payment orders, damages claims, or asset freezing (including bank accounts, real estate, or crypto assets). Where multiple victims are involved, it may also be necessary to evaluate whether a coordinated group approach is more effective than individual claims. Beware of “recovery services” — secondary scams After suffering losses, victims are often approached by so-called recovery agencies claiming: “100% refund guaranteed” “Full refund if we lose” Be cautious if: Upfront fees are required The lawyer’s identity cannot be verified The service is not structured as a proper legal engagement These are common signs of secondary fraud. At Decent Law Firm, all matters are handled directly by licensed attorneys, with transparent communication throughout the case. What to prepare before consulting a lawyer To receive a meaningful assessment, prepare: Screenshots of advertisements and chat history showing how you joined Payment and transaction records Terms of service or refund policies Records of your refund request and their responses During the initial consultation, we assess: Refund viability Strength of evidence Optimal legal strategy (civil + criminal coordination) Crypto signal group disputes are time-sensitive and evidence-driven. The earlier you act, the higher the chances of recovery. If you are unsure whether your case qualifies for a refund or what steps to take next, consulting a legal professional early can make a significant difference.
-
Deepfake Crime in Korea: Can You File a Complaint Without Evidence? A Complete Legal Guide
According to recent statistics on digital sexual crime support cases in Korea, deepfake-related offenses—such as manipulated images and synthetic videos—continue to rise, with a significant concentration among victims in their teens and twenties. Korean law enforcement authorities are treating deepfake crimes as a top enforcement priority, leading to faster investigations and stricter penalties. The critical issue, however, is how you respond immediately after discovering the damage. Many victims attempt to delete the content first, but in practice, evidence preservation must come before removal to secure a meaningful investigation. What to Do Before Deleting Deepfake Content — Preserve Evidence First If you discover a deepfake image or video, do not rush to delete it. Instead, you should first secure key evidence. Capture screenshots that clearly show the URL, upload date, and account ID. Save all conversations with the suspected offender, and if possible, obtain statements from third parties who witnessed the content or its distribution. Even if the content has already been deleted, it is still possible to proceed. Due to the nature of digital crimes, complete deletion is difficult, and data can often be recovered through server logs and digital forensics. In some cases, the act of deletion itself may serve as evidence of intent. If you request deletion or report the case without proper evidence collection, you may unintentionally reduce the available investigative leads. Legal Consequences — More Serious Than You Might Expect Deepfake crimes in Korea are not treated as minor offenses. They are prosecuted under laws governing sexual crimes, and penalties can be severe. Creating a deepfake video can result in up to five years of imprisonment or a substantial fine. Distributing such content may lead to up to seven years in prison. If the act is committed for profit, the sentence may increase to a minimum of three years of imprisonment. Habitual offenders may face even harsher penalties. Importantly, even possession or viewing of such content can be punishable, meaning that liability can extend beyond the original creator or distributor. Legal Procedure — A “Three-Track” Strategy Is Most Effective Handling a deepfake case typically requires more than a single legal action. In practice, the most effective approach is to proceed with three tracks simultaneously. First, you can file a criminal complaint with a local police station or a cybercrime investigation unit. The investigation generally follows a process of account tracing, search and seizure, and digital forensic analysis. Second, you should request content removal and blocking through relevant authorities to prevent further distribution. Third, you may pursue a civil lawsuit for damages to recover compensation for emotional distress and financial loss. For platforms like Telegram, where anonymity is high, early evidence collection becomes even more critical, as identifying the perpetrator may take longer. Frequently Asked Questions Can I file a complaint without screenshots? Yes. An investigation can begin based on the victim’s statement and circumstantial evidence. However, any additional materials—such as URLs, chat records, or witness statements—can significantly improve the speed and effectiveness of the investigation. What if I don’t know who the perpetrator is? This does not prevent you from filing a complaint. Investigative authorities can identify anonymous users through account data, IP logs, and transaction records. What if the perpetrator requests a settlement? You should not respond immediately. Statements made during settlement negotiations can affect both criminal proceedings and civil claims. It is important to consult with a lawyer before making any decisions. If You Are a Victim — Timing and Strategy Matter Deepfake crimes spread rapidly, while evidence can disappear just as quickly. That is why preserving evidence first and establishing a proper legal strategy early on is essential. At Decent Law Firm, we provide comprehensive legal support for deepfake-related cases—from initial evidence preservation and complaint filing to criminal defense strategy and civil damage claims. Our approach goes beyond simple document preparation; we focus on building a strategy that leads to real investigative and legal outcomes. If you are facing an urgent situation, you do not need to have everything prepared. A brief summary of the facts is enough to begin. We will guide you step by step on what to do first and how to proceed effectively under Korean law.
-
Front-Running in Korean Stocks: Where Does It Become Illegal? (A Complete Guide for Foreign Investors, Listed Company Executives, and Finance Professionals in Korea)
If you've been investing in Korean stocks, or working in Korea's financial industry, you've probably heard the term "front-running" (선행매매) come up more and more lately. It's not just an issue for stock YouTubers or chat-room operators. Listed company executives, fund managers, analysts, and even ordinary retail investors can find themselves caught up in it — whether as victims or, in some cases, unwitting participants. The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) recently identified illegal activity across five YouTube channels and announced it would refer cases to prosecutors. The message is clear: the era of looking the other way is over. Here's what you need to know. 1. What Is Front-Running, Exactly? Front-running means trading on information that isn't yet public — getting in before everyone else does, and profiting when the news breaks. In the Korean market, it typically shows up in three ways. The first is the stock influencer model. A YouTuber or paid trading-room operator quietly buys shares in a stock, then recommends it publicly to subscribers. Once the price jumps, they sell. Subscribers who bought on the recommendation are left holding losses. The second is the corporate insider model. An executive or employee of a listed company learns about positive news — strong earnings, a major contract, an M&A deal — before it's disclosed, and buys shares in advance. Selling before bad news goes public to avoid losses falls into the same category. The third is the financial professional model. An analyst, fund manager, or trader uses advance knowledge of large institutional orders, upcoming research reports, or trading strategies to place personal trades ahead of the market. Under Korea's Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA), all three can constitute illegal use of material non-public information, market manipulation, or fraudulent trading — carrying criminal penalties, fines, and disgorgement of profits. 2. What Does "Illegal" Actually Mean Here? Regulators look at three things together: the nature of the information (was it material and non-public?), the person's relationship to that information (did they have it through their job or position?), and the timing of the trade. Critically, it doesn't matter whether the trade was ultimately profitable. Using the information to trade — full stop — is the issue. Some specific situations that have drawn enforcement action in Korea include paid subscription services where operators recommended stocks they already owned, auto-trading bots sold without the required investment discretionary license, and YouTube channels providing ongoing investment advice without registering as an investment advisory business (유사투자자문업). One thing worth noting for foreign investors: Korean regulators have been actively cooperating with overseas financial authorities. Cross-border cases are no longer treated as out of reach. 3. If You're a Retail Investor: Protect Yourself The two risks individual investors face are being victimized and, less obviously, being mistaken for a participant. Paid trading rooms (리딩방) on KakaoTalk, Telegram, or Discord can look legitimate on the surface. An operator might post screenshots showing they're "buying along with you" — but in practice, they bought earlier, at a lower price, and are waiting for your money to push the price up before they exit. Warning signs include offers to share profits if you hand over account access, hints about "tomorrow's pick" designed to get you in early, and channels that charge tiered monthly fees (anything from a few thousand won to hundreds of thousands) for stock tips. If you've suffered losses through one of these schemes, the standard path in Korea is: file a complaint with the FSS (금감원 민원), assess the viability of a civil damages claim, and if the facts support it, file a criminal complaint (고소·고발). 4. If You Work at a Listed Company or Financial Firm Front-running isn't just a personal liability issue — it becomes a corporate governance failure the moment a senior employee is involved. For listed companies, a single suspicious trade by an executive can crater market trust and share price, and regulators have been clear that internal control systems will be scrutinized alongside the individual. Strengthened disclosure rules around insider transactions mean "we dealt with it internally" is no longer a viable response. For securities firms, asset managers, and other financial institutions, the exposure is higher because information access is higher. Analysts, PMs, traders, and sales staff are structurally positioned to know things before the market does — and that's precisely why the compliance burden is heavy. One enforcement action can trigger licensing risk, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny across the entire firm. 5. The Minimum Your Company Should Have in Place Whether you're a small listed company or a mid-sized asset manager, the logic of "we're too small to be a target" is exactly how firms end up making headlines. On internal policy, you need a written definition of material non-public information, clear procedures for how it's handled, mandatory account disclosure and trade reporting requirements for employees and related parties, and blackout periods around disclosure events. On training and attestation, key departments — finance, strategy, IR, research, sales — should receive regular compliance training. New hires and newly promoted staff should sign attestations acknowledging their obligations. On monitoring, periodic review of employee and related-party trading patterns, and sampling of trades around disclosure events, is the baseline. On incident response, you should have a documented procedure covering internal investigation authority, communication standards for dealing with the FSS, Korea Exchange, and prosecutors, and a protocol for board and audit committee reporting. If You've Been Affected — or Want to Get Ahead of the Risk For individual investors who suspect they've been the victim of a front-running scheme, we assess the facts and advise on the realistic options across criminal, civil, and regulatory channels. For listed companies and financial firms, we offer a structured review covering internal policy gaps, employee training design, and a full incident response manual — including FSS, Korea Exchange, and prosecutorial engagement. If a suspicious trade has already been flagged internally, we can advise from the investigation stage through to external response. You don't need to have everything figured out before reaching out. A brief initial consultation is enough to get a clear picture of where the risk sits.
