We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
DCENT Wallet Hacking Incident: Criminal Complaints and Liability for Damages
Unauthorized transfers of digital assets from DCENT app wallets have raised questions about how affected users can respond to the incident and whether the wallet provider may be held legally liable. According to DCENT, the company received its first report of unauthorized asset transfers on September 16, 2026. As of September 17, DCENT stated that it was working with law enforcement authorities, cybersecurity specialists, and cryptocurrency exchanges to trace the transferred assets and investigate the technical cause of the incident. As the specific cause of the incident has not yet been conclusively determined, affected users should individually assess the possibility of filing a criminal complaint and pursuing compensation based on their wallet activity records and the movement of their digital assets. 1. Overview of the DCENT App Wallet Hacking Incident According to DCENT's official announcement, the first report of unauthorized asset transfers was received in the early morning of September 16, 2026. Most of the users who reported losses were identified as app wallet users. Following the reports, DCENT notified law enforcement authorities, requested cooperation from cryptocurrency exchanges to freeze assets suspected of having been stolen, and initiated asset tracing and root-cause analysis with external cybersecurity specialists. However, as the technical investigation into the cause and scope of the incident remains ongoing, it would be premature to conclude that a security vulnerability in the DCENT app wallet itself directly caused the losses. DCENT App Wallet Incident Report 2. Key Factors in Determining the Cause of the Incident The fact that digital assets were transferred without the user's authorization does not, by itself, establish the cause of the incident or identify the party legally responsible. It is necessary to examine how the affected user operated the wallet, managed recovery phrases, interacted with external services, and configured the application environment at the time of the incident. Item to Review Key Information Loss Details Date and time of the incident, types and quantities of assets, and estimated financial losses On-Chain Records Wallet addresses, recipient addresses, transaction hashes (TXIDs), and asset transfer paths App Environment Whether the app wallet was used, app version, updates, and transaction signing history Private Key Management How recovery phrases and private keys were generated, entered, stored, and managed External Interactions Phishing links, decentralized application (dApp) connections, and token approvals Reporting Records Customer support inquiries, police reports, and criminal complaint documents Even among users of the same DCENT wallet service, differences in recovery phrase management or connections to external dApps may lead to different technical findings and legal assessments. Therefore, rather than relying solely on other reported incidents, each affected user should carefully document their own wallet usage and transaction history. 3. Filing a Criminal Complaint Following a Wallet Hacking Incident Victims of a wallet hacking incident may consider filing a criminal complaint against unidentified perpetrators and requesting that investigative authorities examine the method of unauthorized access and trace the movement of the stolen digital assets. Article 48 of South Korea's Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection prohibits certain acts that compromise information and communications networks, including unauthorized network intrusion and the transmission or distribution of malicious software. However, the specific criminal offenses that may apply depend on the actual method of the attack, including how private keys were compromised, whether unauthorized system access occurred, and whether malicious software was involved. Criminal investigations may also be important in determining the cause of the incident, as investigative authorities may be able to obtain technical evidence and information about relevant parties that individual victims would otherwise have difficulty accessing. 4. Civil Liability of the Wallet Developer or Operator The occurrence of a hacking incident does not automatically establish the civil liability of the wallet developer or operator. Where a contractual obligation has been breached, liability for non-performance of obligations may be considered under Article 390 of the Korean Civil Act. Where an unlawful act involving intent or negligence on the part of the operator is established, tort liability may also be considered under Article 750 of the Korean Civil Act. The following factors are particularly relevant when assessing potential liability for damages: The scope of the operator's contractual or legal security obligations Whether an actual security vulnerability existed in the application or system Whether the operator was aware of the vulnerability and how it responded Whether a causal connection exists between the alleged security failure and the unauthorized transfer of the user's assets Whether the user's own management of recovery phrases or private keys contributed to the incident Ultimately, the findings of the technical investigation and any subsequent criminal investigation may provide important evidence when determining whether the wallet operator bears civil liability. 5. Evidence to Preserve Following a Wallet Hacking Incident If unauthorized asset transfers are discovered, affected users should prioritize preserving relevant evidence rather than deleting wallet or mobile device activity records. The following information should be collected and organized: The affected wallet address and recipient wallet addresses Transaction hashes (TXIDs) The date and time of the unauthorized transfers The types and quantities of digital assets involved Wallet screenshots and transaction histories before and after the incident DCENT app version and usage history dApp connections and token approval records Communications with DCENT customer support, including inquiries and responses Police reports and criminal complaint documents Recovery phrases, private keys, and wallet passwords should never be disclosed to third parties. DCENT has also issued official warnings regarding impersonation attempts and potential secondary scams that may arise during the investigation. 6. Legal Response Strategies for DCENT Wallet Hacking Victims Because the circumstances and technical environments of affected users may differ, each DCENT wallet hacking case requires an individual assessment. In criminal proceedings, the immediate priorities are identifying the perpetrators, determining the method of unauthorized access, investigating how private keys may have been compromised, and tracing the movement of the stolen assets. When considering a civil claim against the wallet operator, it is necessary to establish whether a security-related failure occurred in the application or system and whether that failure caused the user's losses. In particular, where substantial amounts of digital assets have been lost or the stolen assets have moved through multiple wallet addresses, affected users should organize their wallet addresses, TXIDs, and other on-chain records before determining an appropriate legal response. 7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Can I immediately claim compensation from the operator if assets disappear from my DCENT wallet? A claim for damages may be considered, but the occurrence of unauthorized transfers alone does not automatically establish the operator's liability. It is necessary to examine the technical cause of the incident, whether the operator breached any applicable obligations, and whether a causal connection exists between that breach and the losses suffered. Q2. Can I file a criminal complaint even if I do not know who the hacker is? Yes. Depending on the circumstances, victims may file a criminal complaint against unidentified perpetrators and request an investigation. In such cases, it is important to provide as much relevant evidence as possible, including the affected wallet addresses, TXIDs, asset transfer paths, and other records supporting the suspected unauthorized activity. Q3. Is it impossible to recover stolen digital assets once they have been transferred to another wallet? Not necessarily. Depending on whether the assets have entered a cryptocurrency exchange and how they have subsequently moved, it may be possible to trace the transactions or explore asset-freezing measures. However, actual recovery depends on the movement of the assets and the cooperation of cryptocurrency exchanges, investigative authorities, and other relevant parties. DCENT has also stated that it is working with relevant authorities and exchanges to trace and seek the freezing of assets suspected of having been stolen. If You Need Legal Assistance In digital asset wallet hacking cases, a legal assessment requires more than simply determining the amount of financial loss. The circumstances of the incident and the subsequent movement of the assets must also be examined. In particular, where the cause of private key exposure remains unclear or potential security failures by the wallet operator are in question, it may be necessary to consider both a criminal investigation to establish the facts and a potential civil claim for damages. DECENT Law Firm reviews the circumstances of each case based on the affected user's wallet addresses, transaction hashes (TXIDs), application usage records, and other relevant evidence to assess the available legal options and appropriate response strategies.
-
Traffic Accident Settlement Agreements: Why the Settlement Amount and Non-Punishment Statement Matter
1. Do You Always Need a Criminal Settlement with the Victim After a Traffic Accident? Not every traffic accident requires a separate criminal settlement with the victim. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that, in principle, a driver cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express wishes for causing injury through occupational negligence or gross negligence in a traffic accident. Article 4 of the same Act also provides that, in principle, prosecution is barred where the vehicle is covered by qualifying insurance or a mutual aid program that meets certain requirements. As a result, for an ordinary traffic accident, depending on the type of accident and whether comprehensive insurance applies, the criminal process may be resolved through insurance handling without a separate criminal settlement. However, there is an important exception. If the accident involved a serious violation specified in the proviso to Article 3(2) — such as running a red light or crossing the centerline — or falls under another statutory exception such as fleeing the scene without taking necessary measures, prosecution may proceed even if the victim does not wish to see the driver punished. So before asking "do I need to settle with the victim?", a suspect should first check what type of case the investigation is treating this as. 2. Do You Still Need a Separate Settlement Even If Insurance Already Paid Compensation? Because compensation through an insurer and settlement in a criminal case serve different purposes, having gone through insurance processing does not automatically mean a criminal settlement is unnecessary. Auto insurance is primarily meant to compensate civil damages arising from the accident — medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. A criminal settlement, by contrast, is the process in which, while criminal proceedings are ongoing, the suspect pays a separate sum to help the victim recover from the harm and confirms whether the victim wishes to forgo punishment. How Insurance Claims and a Criminal Settlement Differ Category Auto Insurance Claim Criminal Settlement Main Purpose Civil compensation for damages Recovery from harm in the criminal case Who Pays Insurer / mutual aid association The suspect or defendant Main Content Medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, etc. Settlement amount, non-punishment statement, etc. Relationship to Criminal Proceedings For certain accidents, having insurance itself relates to the special prosecution bar May affect whether charges are filed or the sentence, depending on the type of accident What to Check Insurance coverage and scope of compensation Scope of settlement, nature of the settlement amount, non-punishment statement In particular, Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents carves out an exception to the prosecution bar for insured vehicles where the accident falls under the proviso to Article 3(2), or where the victim suffers a life-threatening injury or an incurable or intractable disease. So the mere fact that the insurer is already paying medical costs does not mean the response to the criminal case is complete. The cause and extent of the accident, together with whether insurance applies, should be reviewed together to determine whether a separate criminal settlement is needed. 3. What Should You Check in a Traffic Accident Settlement Agreement? For a traffic accident settlement agreement, what matters is not the template itself but making clear what accident the payment relates to, how much is being paid, and exactly what scope the parties have agreed on. Some people simply search online for a settlement agreement template and use it as is, but because the reasons a criminal settlement is needed and the insurance situation differ from case to case, using identical wording across cases may not be appropriate. First, the agreement should clearly identify which accident it concerns. It should record the date, time, and location of the accident and the parties involved, and if the case has already been reported to the police, information that can identify the case should be organized as well. Next, the settlement amount and the method of payment should be clearly specified. If the amount has already been paid, records such as bank transfer history that confirm payment should be kept; if payment is scheduled for later, a specific payment deadline should be set. Another important element is the character of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court has taken the position that, absent special circumstances, where a victim in a criminal case receives a settlement amount from the offender and agrees not to seek punishment, that amount is treated as part of the compensation for the victim's property damage. So if compensation through the insurer is proceeding separately, it is worth reviewing what purpose the criminal settlement amount serves and how the agreement addresses its relationship to civil compensation. Finally, what matters most for a suspect is whether the victim's non-punishment intent is actually confirmed. Simply stating that the parties "reached an amicable settlement" or that the victim "received the settlement amount" does not always make clear that the victim does not wish to see the suspect punished. 4. Why Do the Settlement Amount and the Non-Punishment Statement Matter? In a criminal settlement, the fact that a settlement amount was paid and the victim's intent not to seek punishment are separate issues, so it is important to address both together. The Settlement Amount Can Show Real Recovery from the Harm There is no fixed statutory amount for a criminal settlement based on the type of accident. The amount is negotiated between the parties based on individual circumstances, including the severity of the victim's injury, the length of treatment, how the accident occurred, and how much of the harm has already been recovered through insurance. The Supreme Court Sentencing Commission's current sentencing guidelines for traffic offenses also treat "non-punishment intent or substantial recovery from the harm" as a major mitigating factor. These guidelines were revised on March 30, 2026 and have been in effect since July 1, 2026. So if there is a possibility of criminal punishment for a traffic accident, it is worth preparing not only proof that a settlement amount was paid but also evidence of how much of the harm has actually been recovered. A Settlement Agreement and a Non-Punishment Statement Are Not the Same Document A settlement agreement is the document in which the suspect and the victim confirm the settlement amount and the terms of settlement. A non-punishment statement, on the other hand, is a separate document in which the victim clearly expresses that they do not wish to see the suspect punished — its purpose is different. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is based on the victim's "express intent." So the mere fact that the suspect transferred a settlement amount to the victim does not automatically establish that the victim does not wish to see the suspect punished. If the settlement agreement itself clearly states that the victim does not wish to see the suspect punished, it cannot be said that a separate non-punishment statement is always required for that intent to be validly expressed. Still, because it is important in criminal proceedings to clearly confirm the victim's intent, in practice it matters to record the terms of the settlement and the non-punishment intent through a reliable separate document, such as a non-punishment statement. Timing Matters for the Non-Punishment Statement In an offense where prosecution is barred if the victim objects, there is also a time limit on withdrawing the victim's wish for punishment. Under Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where prosecution cannot proceed against the victim's express wishes, withdrawing the wish for punishment is possible only before the first-instance judgment is rendered. So in a case that has already gone from a police investigation to trial, rather than simply thinking "we can settle at some point," the current stage of the proceedings and the timing of any settlement should be considered together. 5. How Does the Effect of a Settlement Differ for the 12 Major Traffic Offenses or Cases Involving Serious Injury? Whether a case involves one of the 12 major traffic offenses or an ordinary traffic accident with serious injury can change the legal significance of a victim's settlement and non-punishment intent. First, if the accident falls under the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents — such as running a red light, crossing the centerline, or violating a pedestrian's right of way at a crosswalk — the victim's wish not to see the driver punished does not have the effect of barring prosecution. In other words, settling with the victim in a case involving one of the 12 major traffic offenses does not automatically end the investigation or trial. That said, this does not mean a criminal settlement is meaningless. Because the current sentencing guidelines for traffic offenses treat non-punishment intent or substantial recovery from the harm as a positive sentencing factor, recovery from the harm and whether a settlement was reached can still be considered in determining the sentence. On the other hand, for an accident involving serious injury under Article 4(1)(2) of the Act, being covered by comprehensive insurance alone does not restrict prosecution. However, if the accident does not fall under the proviso to Article 3(2), the victim's express non-punishment intent regarding occupational-negligence injury and similar charges may still be a separate issue, so it should not be assumed that a serious-injury case will always continue regardless of settlement. Also, cases involving a fatality, fleeing the scene, drunk driving, or other charges under separate statutes may be governed by different rules. So a suspect should check their case in this order: type of accident → applicable charges → whether insurance applies → extent of harm → the effect of settlement and non-punishment intent. 6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Do I Still Need a Criminal Settlement If Comprehensive Insurance Is Already Covering All the Medical Costs? It depends on the type of accident. For an ordinary traffic accident, the special protection under comprehensive insurance may apply, but if the case falls under an exception such as one of the 12 major traffic offenses or a statutorily defined serious injury, having insurance alone may not resolve the criminal proceedings. So you should first check what charge the police are investigating, not just whether insurance is being processed. Q2. Do I Have to Pay Whatever Settlement Amount the Victim Demands? You are not legally required to pay exactly the amount the victim proposes. There is no fixed statutory amount for a criminal settlement in a traffic accident; the amount is negotiated between the parties based on the extent of the harm, the length of treatment, how the accident occurred, and how much has already been recovered through insurance. That said, in a case with a real possibility of criminal punishment, it is worth considering not just how large or small the amount is, but what recovering the harm through settlement actually means for the case. Q3. What Should I Do If the Victim Refuses to Settle? A victim cannot be forced to settle. If the victim does not respond to settlement, it is worth objectively organizing how much of the harm has been recovered through insurance and what efforts the suspect made toward a settlement. Because the outcome of a criminal case is not determined by settlement alone, other sentencing factors — how the accident occurred, the degree of negligence, the extent of harm, and any criminal record — should be prepared as well. 7. Summary and Key Takeaways Not every suspect in a traffic accident case needs a separate criminal settlement with the victim. But if a criminal settlement is needed, it matters more to check that the character and scope of the settlement amount and the victim's non-punishment intent are clearly confirmed than simply to use a generic settlement agreement template. In particular, in cases involving the 12 major traffic offenses, proceedings may continue even with a non-punishment statement, while in other types of traffic accidents the victim's express non-punishment intent can carry significant weight in whether charges are filed — so it is important to first identify which category the accident falls into. Decent Law Firm reviews the dashcam footage, the circumstances of the accident, the victim's medical records, and the status of insurance processing to assess the applicable charges and the need for a criminal settlement from a professional perspective. You can also work with attorneys experienced in numerous traffic accident settlements to review the settlement process, the settlement agreement and non-punishment statement, and the response needed at the police investigation and trial stages. If you are facing a police investigation, or are already discussing settlement with the victim, it is best to first check what legal significance a settlement actually has in your case, rather than deciding on the settlement amount first.
-
Crypto Market Making in Korea: Legal Risks for Token Projects and Market Makers
Crypto market making is not automatically considered market manipulation under Korean law. However, the legal analysis does not stop at whether an agreement is labeled as a “market making” or “liquidity provision” arrangement. The key issue is how the trading strategy is actually structured and executed—particularly whether it is designed to artificially create trading volume, influence prices, or induce other investors to trade. For foreign token projects, foundations, and market makers engaging with Korean exchanges or Korean users, this means that the Market Making Agreement, trading instructions, API logic, token lending structure, and fee arrangements should be reviewed together. What Is Crypto Market Making? Crypto market making generally refers to the continuous placement of buy and sell orders in order to provide liquidity to a trading market. For newly listed or relatively illiquid virtual assets, limited order-book depth may result in wide bid-ask spreads and significant price movements even from relatively small orders. To address this, a token project may provide tokens or capital to a professional market maker, which then places buy and sell orders on one or more exchanges. A typical market making arrangement may include provisions concerning: Target exchanges and trading pairs Bid-ask spreads Liquidity or volume requirements Token lending and return arrangements Trading capital Service fees and performance-based compensation API or algorithmic trading systems The important point is that entering into a Market Making Agreement does not determine the legal characterization of the actual trading activity. What matters is how those contractual terms are implemented in the market. Is Crypto Market Making Legal in Korea? Crypto market making is not unlawful merely because liquidity is being provided to the market. However, actual trading activity may fall within Korea’s prohibition on unfair trading if it is intended to induce other investors to trade or to artificially influence trading volume or prices. Article 10 of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users prohibits, among other conduct: Matched orders Wash trades Transactions designed to create a false appearance of active trading Transactions intended to artificially move or stabilize the price of a virtual asset Other fraudulent or deceptive trading practices Accordingly, describing a trading arrangement as “liquidity provision” is not sufficient. The actual analysis may require reviewing: Who determines the trading strategy Whether specific price or volume targets are imposed Whether the token project participates in or directs trading decisions Whether the market maker’s compensation is linked to price or volume performance How orders, cancellations, and executions actually occur The distinction between legitimate liquidity provision and unlawful market manipulation therefore depends heavily on the purpose and structure of the actual trading activity. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users – Article 10 What Market Making Structures May Create Higher Regulatory Risk? Market manipulation risk may increase where a market making arrangement goes beyond providing ordinary liquidity and instead seeks to artificially create a particular level of trading activity or price. 🔹Key Market Making Terms to Review Structure Key Legal Issue Minimum trading volume Whether volume is being artificially generated regardless of genuine market demand Target price Whether trading is intended to push the token toward a specified price Price floor or price band Whether the strategy constitutes ordinary liquidity provision or artificial price stabilization Repeated high-priced purchases Whether orders are intended to induce additional buying by other investors Multiple trading accounts Whether economically identical parties are trading against each other API trading How orders, cancellations, and re-orders are triggered Token lending How the market maker may use or dispose of the tokens and how they must be returned Performance fees Whether compensation is directly tied to price appreciation or increased trading volume A contractual requirement to maintain liquidity or a certain spread does not, by itself, establish unlawful conduct. The analysis may change, however, where the actual strategy involves repeated trades unrelated to genuine market demand, artificial volume generation, or continuous buying designed to defend a specific token price. The contractual KPI and the actual trading strategy should therefore be reviewed together. Can API or Algorithmic Market Making Create Market Manipulation Risk? The use of APIs or automated trading systems does not itself constitute market manipulation. Automated order placement is commonly used in market making because market makers must respond quickly to changing order-book conditions. The legal issue is what type of trading strategy has been automated. Additional review may be required where an automated strategy involves, for example: Repeated high-priced purchases Large orders followed by rapid cancellations Multiple accounts placing coordinated orders Repeated trades designed primarily to generate volume Orders designed to influence prices across multiple exchanges In July 2026, the Korean Financial Services Commission disclosed enforcement cases involving virtual asset market manipulation using high-frequency API trading, high-priced purchases, and manipulative order strategies. The significance of these cases is not that API trading itself is prohibited, but that the purpose, order pattern, and resulting market impact of the trading activity are subject to scrutiny. FSC – Key Results of Virtual Asset Unfair Trading Investigations What Should Be Reviewed in a Market Making Agreement? A Market Making Agreement should be reviewed not only for commercial terms, but also for how those terms may influence actual trading behavior. Trading Volume Requirements Where daily or weekly trading volume targets are imposed, the key issue is not simply the existence of a target. The review should determine how the market maker is expected to achieve the required volume and whether the strategy may result in transactions unrelated to genuine market demand. Price-Related Conditions Terms such as “maintain the price above a certain level,” “defend against price declines,” or “reach a target price” require particular attention. Ordinary spread management and trading intended to artificially maintain or influence a specific market price should not be treated as the same activity. Token Lending and Return Where a project provides a significant number of tokens to the market maker, the agreement should clearly address: Permitted use of the tokens Disposal authority Return obligations Settlement mechanics Allocation of trading profits and losses Performance Fees and Trading Authority Performance-based compensation should also be examined, particularly where fees are linked directly to token price appreciation or trading volume. In addition, even where the written agreement gives the market maker independent trading authority, actual instructions sent through Telegram, Slack, email, or other channels may become relevant if the project is directing specific price or volume outcomes. Is Reviewing the Market Making Agreement Alone Sufficient? No. The agreement and the actual operating structure should be reviewed together. A contract may simply refer to “liquidity enhancement,” “spread maintenance,” or “market making services.” Actual communications or trading instructions, however, may contain materially different expectations concerning price support or volume generation. For this reason, a legal review may need to cover not only the agreement itself but also: Market Making Agreement and side letters Internal operating guidelines and KPIs Exchange order and execution records API logic and trading parameters Trading-account structure Token and fund transfers Telegram, Slack, email, and other trading instructions Fee and performance compensation arrangements The key issue is not only what the contract says, but how the contractual terms are implemented through actual orders and executions. Do Korean Rules Apply to an Offshore Market Maker? Using an offshore market maker does not automatically exclude the application of Korean law. Article 3 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides for extraterritorial application where conduct outside Korea produces effects within Korea. Accordingly, Korean regulatory exposure should be considered where, for example: Market making is performed on a Korean exchange A token is listed on both Korean and overseas exchanges Trading on an offshore exchange is used to influence the Korean market A Korean project directs an offshore market maker regarding price or volume Korean regulators have also investigated cases involving virtual assets listed simultaneously on Korean and foreign exchanges where trading activity across markets was allegedly used to influence Korean investors. Depending on the exact scope of services, it may also be necessary to consider whether the market maker’s activities raise separate issues under Korea’s virtual asset service provider regulatory framework. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users What Should Be Reviewed Before Entering into a Market Making Arrangement? Before entering into a Market Making Agreement, the project and market maker should align the contractual terms with the anticipated trading structure. 1. Roles and Trading Authority Determine who establishes the trading strategy and who has authority to execute orders. 2. Price and Volume KPIs Review whether spread, liquidity, volume, or price-related KPIs may require problematic trading behavior in practice. 3. Token and Fund Flows Map how tokens and trading capital move from the project to the market maker and ultimately to exchange accounts. 4. Trading Method Determine whether trading will be manual, API-based, or algorithmic, and whether multiple accounts or exchanges will be used. 5. Compensation Structure Assess whether compensation is simply payment for liquidity services or is directly tied to price appreciation or increased trading volume. The relevant contracts, order logs, API records, internal instructions, and token transfer records should also be retained appropriately. These materials may become important if the trading activity is later reviewed by an exchange, regulator, or investigative authority. What Are the Consequences of Market Manipulation in Korea? Market manipulation involving virtual assets may lead to administrative sanctions, criminal liability, and civil damages. The Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides for monetary penalties in relation to unfair trading conduct and criminal penalties for violations of Article 10. The severity of sanctions may vary depending on factors including the amount of unlawful profit or avoided loss. The Financial Services Commission announced in July 2026 that, during the first two years following implementation of the Act, Korean authorities had completed approximately 40 unfair-trading investigations and referred or reported more than 30 cases to investigative authorities. Accordingly, market making structures should not be reviewed only after an enforcement issue arises. Potential unfair-trading exposure should be assessed at the contract and trading-structure stage. FSC – Key Results and Future Plans for Virtual Asset Unfair Trading Investigations Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Is using a crypto market maker illegal in Korea? No. The use of a market maker does not itself establish market manipulation. The actual trading strategy, purpose, project involvement, and price or volume conditions must be reviewed. Q2. Can a Market Making Agreement require a minimum trading volume? A minimum volume requirement is not automatically unlawful. However, if the target is achieved through transactions intended to create an artificial appearance of active trading, the arrangement may raise unfair-trading concerns. Q3. Can a project ask a market maker to maintain a minimum token price? Price-support or price-floor arrangements require particular caution. Korean law prohibits certain transactions conducted for the purpose of inducing other investors to trade by artificially moving or stabilizing the market price. Q4. Is API-based market making considered market manipulation? No. The use of an API itself is not prohibited. The relevant issue is whether the automated strategy is designed to artificially generate volume, influence prices, or induce other investors to trade. Q5. Does Korean law apply to foreign market makers? It may. Where offshore trading produces effects in Korea, including through Korean exchange markets or Korean investors, the potential application of Korean virtual asset regulations should be reviewed. Market Making in Korea Requires More Than Contract Review The central legal issue in crypto market making is not whether a contract describes the activity as “liquidity provision.” The key questions are how orders are actually generated, what objectives the project gives to the market maker, and what price and trading volume are ultimately created by the strategy. Where price targets, volume KPIs, API trading, token lending, and performance compensation are combined, the legal analysis should cover both the written agreement and the actual operating structure.
-
Voice Phishing Cash Collection Agent Penalties in Korea: What If You Thought It Was Just a Part-Time Job?
In voice phishing cases involving cash collection agents, criminal liability is not determined solely by the fact that the person received and delivered cash. The key issue is whether the person knew that their actions were being used as part of a criminal scheme—in other words, whether criminal intent and participation in the scheme can be established. Even if a person started the job after being told through a recruitment website that it involved debt collection or document delivery, criminal liability may arise depending on the recruitment process, communication methods, actual job duties, and the manner in which cash was collected and transferred. 1．What Is a Voice Phishing Cash Collection Agent? A cash collection agent generally refers to a person who receives cash from a voice phishing victim and delivers it to the criminal organization. Under the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Damage, Article 2, telecommunications-based financial fraud includes not only schemes in which victims are induced to transfer money to an account, but also schemes in which funds are collected directly from victims. Accordingly, even if a person did not personally make fraudulent calls or send deceptive messages to the victim, criminal liability may still arise if that person participated in collecting and transferring the victim’s cash. Relevant Law Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Damage, Article 2 2．Can You Be Punished Even If You Only Collected and Delivered Cash? Yes. If criminal intent and participation in the voice phishing scheme are established, a cash collection agent may be held criminally liable even if they did not personally deceive the victim. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that a cash collection agent does not need to know the entire method of the fraud or the full structure of the criminal organization. Criminal intent and participation may still be established if the person at least recognized that they were collecting victims’ cash as part of a coordinated criminal scheme. Conversely, if the person genuinely did not know that their conduct was being used for criminal activity, criminal intent may not be established. Therefore, investigators and courts do not rely solely on a statement such as “I did not know.” They examine the objective circumstances surrounding the work Relevant Case Supreme Court of Korea, December 12, 2024, Case No. 2024Do10141 3．How Do Courts Assess a Claim That “I Thought It Was Just a Part-Time Job”? Courts consider the recruitment process, actual job duties, and other surrounding circumstances to determine whether the person was aware that the work was connected to criminal activity. 🔹Key Factors in Determining Criminal Intent Factor What May Be Examined Recruitment process Whether there was a normal interview or identity verification process Contractual relationship Whether an employment or service agreement was properly executed Communication method Whether instructions were given only through anonymous services such as Telegram Actual duties Whether the person was instructed to collect large amounts of cash from strangers Interaction with victims Whether the person was instructed to impersonate an employee of a financial institution or another company Transfer method Whether the collected cash was divided and transferred through multiple transactions Frequency and amount Whether large amounts of cash were collected repeatedly Compensation Whether the payment was unusually high compared with the nature of the work Personal circumstances Whether age, work experience, and social experience made it possible to recognize that the work was unusual No single factor automatically establishes criminal intent. The Supreme Court considers multiple circumstances together, including the content and method of communications with the organization, how the person was recruited, how the cash was collected, what was said or done to the victim, the number and amount of collections, the transfer method, compensation, and the individual’s personal and professional background. 4．What Are the Penalties for a Voice Phishing Cash Collection Agent? A person found to have participated in voice phishing as a cash collection agent may face criminal penalties. Under Article 15-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Damage, a person who commits telecommunications-based financial fraud may be punished by imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equivalent to three to five times the criminal proceeds, or both imprisonment and a fine. However, the same charge or sentence does not apply automatically to every cash collection agent. The applicable offense and actual sentence may differ depending on when the conduct occurred, the person’s degree of participation, the number and amount of collections, their actual role, whether the victim was compensated or a settlement was reached, and the person’s criminal record. The Sentencing Guidelines for Fraud Offenses issued by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court of Korea also take into account factors such as minor or passive participation, substantial recovery of damages, and prior criminal history. Relevant Law Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Damage, Article 15-2 5．What Should You Prepare If You Are Under Police Investigation as a Cash Collection Agent? Before the first police interview, it is important to organize the circumstances of your involvement and preserve objective evidence showing what you understood the job to be. If the key issue is whether you knew the work was connected to voice phishing, the following materials should be reviewed: Recruitment advertisements, text messages, and other recruitment and hiring records KakaoTalk, Telegram, text messages, and other communications containing work instructions Records showing when and where cash was received and how it was transferred, including cash collection and transfer records Compensation records and company-search history showing why you believed the work was legitimate Do not delete relevant chat records or transaction records after an investigation has begun. Decent Law Firm reviews the circumstances of the client’s involvement and the likelihood that criminal intent may be found, and assists with the response strategy from the police investigation stage. 6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. If I am a first-time offender, can a cash collection agent case end with only a fine? A first offense does not guarantee that the case will result only in a fine. The actual sentence depends on factors such as the degree of participation, amount of loss, number of offenses, recovery of damages, and prior criminal history. Q2. Can I be punished if I collected or delivered cash only once? Yes. Even a single act may result in criminal liability if criminal intent and participation in the scheme are established. However, the number and amount of collections are only some of the factors considered. The circumstances under which the person accepted the job and what they understood at the time must also be reviewed. Q3. Can I be treated as an accomplice even if I never met anyone from the voice phishing organization? Yes. The fact that you never personally met an organizer does not, by itself, exclude criminal participation. The Supreme Court has held that a coordinated criminal relationship may be established even without an express meeting or detailed agreement, including where the participants’ intentions were connected sequentially or implicitly. Q4. If I settle with the victim, will I avoid punishment? A settlement does not automatically terminate the criminal case. However, substantial recovery of damages or the victim’s request for leniency may be considered favorably during sentencing. Q5. Can I simply tell the police that I did not know it was voice phishing? Simply stating that you did not know may not be sufficient. The investigation may examine objective circumstances such as the recruitment process, communications, cash collection method, transfer method, compensation, and frequency of the transactions. 7. Summary and Key Considerations The central issue in a voice phishing cash collection case is whether the person knew that their conduct was being used as part of a criminal scheme. Even without detailed knowledge of the entire organization or fraud method, criminal liability may arise if implied awareness and participation are established. If you are facing a police investigation, the circumstances of the case and available evidence should be reviewed from the outset to determine whether criminal intent may be established and how the investigation should be handled. ※ The applicable law and potential criminal liability may vary depending on the date of the conduct and the specific facts of each case.
-
Crypto Hacking Response Guide: What to Do First After You Discover a Breach
1. What Should You Check First When You Discover You've Been Hacked? The first thing to determine is exactly how your crypto assets left your control. Even incidents that look like the same "crypto hacking" can involve very different response strategies and liability structures — a compromised exchange account, a leaked wallet seed phrase, and a fraudulent signature approved on a phishing site are not the same problem. So as soon as you confirm the loss, the first step is to identify which type of incident you are dealing with. Type of Incident What to Check First Immediate Response Exchange account compromised Login history, withdrawal history, whether 2FA settings were changed Request an account/withdrawal freeze Personal wallet compromised Whether the seed phrase or private key was exposed Consider moving remaining assets to a new, secure wallet Phishing site interaction The URL visited, and any signatures or token approvals granted Block further approvals/access and preserve evidence Malware/remote access Installed programs, access and execution logs Stop using the infected device and preserve evidence Exchange-side breach The exchange's incident notice, affected assets, and scope of damage Check the exchange's notice and claims procedure Identifying the type of incident first makes it much easier to determine what evidence to gather and who may ultimately be liable. In particular, if the loss occurred while using an exchange, it is worth checking not only how well you managed your own account, but also whether the exchange was properly safeguarding user assets. Under Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, virtual asset business operators are required to keep their own assets separate from user assets and to actually hold the same type and quantity of virtual assets entrusted to them by users. In addition, the current Regulation on Supervision of Virtual Asset Business requires at least 80% of the economic value of user assets to be kept in an environment separated from the internet (cold storage). So if the breach occurred at an exchange, rather than concluding simply that "the account was hacked," it is important to work out exactly how authentication was carried out and which account or wallet the withdrawal came from, since this will affect how liability is ultimately determined. 2. What Should You Do Immediately to Stop Further Losses? Once you confirm the breach, the first priority is to stop any remaining crypto assets from being drained further. If the breach occurred on an exchange account, the first step is to contact the exchange's customer support or incident report channel to check whether login or withdrawals can be restricted. At this stage, don't stop at simply changing your exchange password — check whether other authentication methods, such as your email, phone number, or OTP, may also have been compromised. If the issue originated in a personal wallet, the seed phrase or private key itself may already be exposed. In that case, rather than continuing to use the same wallet, you should consider creating a new wallet in a verified, secure environment and moving any remaining assets there. That said, be careful about immediately resetting a compromised phone or computer. The device may still hold records — phishing site visit history, malware, login logs — that show exactly how the account or wallet was compromised. What to Check Immediately After a Crypto Hacking Incident Request a freeze on further withdrawals from the exchange account Check whether your password, OTP, or other authentication methods were compromised Review protective measures for any remaining crypto assets Avoid resetting the affected device without careful thought Preserve withdrawal alert emails, texts, and app notifications Save your exchange customer support inquiries and their responses What matters at this stage is not rushing into every possible action, but balancing preventing further damage with preserving evidence. At Decent Law Firm, in the initial consultation we first identify the structure of the incident — whether it involves a compromised exchange account, a compromised personal wallet, or phishing/remote access — and based on that, help determine what evidence should be preserved first and what should be requested from the exchange. 3. What Evidence Should You Secure After a Crypto Hacking Incident? Once you've stopped further losses, the next step is to gather as much evidence as possible showing how the stolen assets moved. In crypto cases, what matters most is not just a screenshot of the loss, but the transaction records showing exactly when the assets moved, from which address to which address. Where possible, try to preserve the following information in as close to its original form as possible. Evidence You Should Secure Date and time of the incident Type and quantity of the stolen crypto assets Value of the assets in Korean won at the time of the loss The withdrawal (sending) wallet address The receiving wallet address The TXID or transaction hash The exchange or wallet service used Login and access notifications OTP, phone, and email authentication records Password change notifications Records of exchange customer support inquiries The phishing site URL Related text messages, emails, and messenger conversations Information on any suspicious programs or apps Of these, the TXID and wallet addresses are the core evidence for tracing how the assets moved afterward. On public blockchains, a block explorer can be used to trace how assets moved from the initially compromised address to other addresses. Records kept internally by the exchange also matter. Under Article 9 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, virtual asset business operators are required to retain transaction records — sufficient to trace, search, and verify transactions — for 15 years from the end of the transactional relationship. However, the fact that an operator retains transaction records is a separate question from whether a victim can immediately obtain all of the internal data they want. Login IP addresses, authentication data, withdrawal approval processes, and other internal system records may not be voluntarily disclosed by the exchange, and may need to be obtained through the proper legal process during an investigation. So before filing a report, it helps to separate what you can gather yourself now from what will need to be obtained later through the investigating authorities. At Decent Law Firm, based on the transaction history, TXIDs, wallet addresses, and exchange responses a victim has secured, we organize a chronological timeline of how the assets moved from the moment of the loss, and structure the facts and evidence so they can be used effectively in a police report or criminal complaint. 4. Can Crypto Assets Already Moved to Another Wallet Still Be Traced or Frozen? Even after crypto assets have moved to another wallet, it is sometimes still possible to trace the transaction path on the blockchain. However, being traceable and being actually recoverable are two different questions. On public blockchains, the transfer from the originally compromised wallet to another wallet remains on the record. So it is possible to check where the stolen assets moved afterward, and whether they show signs of having flowed into a domestic or overseas centralized exchange. In particular, if the assets are confirmed to have moved into a deposit address at an identity-verified centralized exchange, the account information and transaction records held by that exchange can become important evidence for an investigation. Factors to Check When Assessing Recovery Potential Factor What It Means Current custody wallet Whether the stolen assets still remain at that address Inflow to a centralized exchange Whether identity verification may be possible through an exchange account Further movement of assets Whether the assets were quickly split across multiple addresses Change of chain Whether the assets were moved to another network via a bridge Asset conversion Whether the assets were converted into a different crypto asset Use of an overseas operator Whether cooperation from a foreign exchange or international cooperation is needed That said, confirming that assets moved on the blockchain does not mean those assets can be immediately frozen. Reporting and freezing procedures differ from exchange to exchange, and actually freezing assets or obtaining account information may require legal process, such as a request from investigating authorities or a warrant. In addition, if assets have been split across multiple wallets, moved to a different chain, or converted into a different crypto asset, tracing and recovery become considerably more complex. So you should not assume either that "there is a blockchain record, so recovery is guaranteed" or, conversely, that "the assets already moved to another wallet, so recovery is impossible." At Decent Law Firm, based on the secured TXIDs and wallet addresses, we map out how the assets moved, and where there are signs that assets flowed into a specific exchange, we organize the material so that fact is clearly communicated to the investigating authorities. Where an overseas exchange is involved, we also consider that exchange's own damage-reporting and evidence-preservation procedures, along with whether international cooperation through Korean investigating authorities is needed. 5. What Is the Right Order for Filing a Police Report and Seeking Recovery? Once you have organized the facts of the loss and the basic transaction data, the next step is to consider filing a report with the investigating authorities. You can report hacking and other cybercrime damage through the Korean National Police Agency's Cybercrime Reporting System (ECRM), which asks you to specify the date and details of the loss and describe how the crime occurred. In crypto cases, rather than simply stating "my coins were hacked," it is important to organize and submit materials that let investigators immediately understand the structure of the incident. What to Organize Before Filing a Report 1) How the Incident Occurred Note the last time you used the account normally, and when you first noticed the unusual withdrawal. 2) The Assets Affected Summarize the type and quantity of crypto assets involved, and the total loss. 3) The Fraudulent Transaction Confirm the TXID and the sending/receiving wallet addresses. 4) Signs of Account Compromise Note any confirmed signs such as foreign IP access, password changes, OTP changes, or a compromised email account. 5) Movement of the Assets After the Theft If you can confirm the assets moved to another wallet or exchange, include that information as well. Organizing this information in advance helps investigators determine which exchange or business operator to seek records from, and what specifically to request. At Decent Law Firm, after organizing the facts of the incident and the asset movement history, we help specify the exchange accounts, access logs, authentication records, and wallet addresses that investigators will need to confirm during a criminal complaint or report. Even after an investigation begins, if new wallet addresses or signs of exchange inflow are identified, they should be organized as additional evidence and submitted. 6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. My coins were moved to another wallet through hacking — can the transaction be reversed? Once a transfer is recorded on the blockchain, it is generally very difficult to reverse it the way you might cancel a bank transfer. So rather than trying to cancel the transaction itself, it is more important to identify the current location of the stolen assets and their transaction path, and check whether they have since flowed into an exchange. Q2. If the stolen coins moved to an overseas exchange, does that mean recovery is impossible? The mere fact that the assets moved to an overseas exchange does not mean recovery is impossible. That said, the required procedure and its difficulty can vary depending on the exchange's home country and policies, whether it holds user identity information, the current status of the assets, and the likelihood of cooperation with Korean investigating authorities. Q3. Should I immediately reset a phone or computer that was hacked? Taking steps to prevent further damage is necessary, but resetting the device unconditionally before all the case evidence has been secured requires caution. The affected device may still contain access logs, phishing URLs, malware, and other data showing how the breach occurred, so it is worth preserving the necessary evidence first before proceeding with safety measures. 7. Summary and Key Points If you experience a crypto hacking incident, the first priority is to stop any further withdrawals and secure evidence — TXIDs, wallet addresses, login and authentication records — that can help establish what happened. If the crypto assets have already moved to an external wallet, you should trace the path from the original fraudulent transaction onward, and where there are signs the assets flowed into a specific exchange, consider pursuing evidence preservation and a potential freeze through the investigating authorities. If the cause of the loss appears related to the exchange's own authentication or custody systems, it is also worth examining the exchange's legal obligations and the possibility of a damages claim. At Decent Law Firm, we review the transaction history, TXIDs, wallet addresses, and exchange usage records to reconstruct how the incident occurred and how the assets moved, and help build out the facts and evidence needed for a police report or criminal complaint. Where the stolen assets show signs of moving through domestic or overseas exchanges, we also look at the possibility of requesting evidence preservation or a freeze from the exchange, along with further steps through the investigating authorities, and where the incident relates to the exchange's security or custody obligations, we consider the full path toward recovery, including a damages claim. Because crypto assets can move through multiple wallets and exchanges in a very short time, once you confirm a loss, the priority is to organize whatever evidence you can secure right now, and to get help from a professional as soon as possible so you have the best chance of recovering your lost funds.
-
Crypto Market Manipulation in Korea: Penalties and Legal Standards for Spoofing and High-Priced Buy Orders
A sharp increase in a cryptocurrency’s price or a large volume of trades by a single trader does not, by itself, constitute market manipulation under Korean law. The key issue is whether the trader intentionally created artificial trading volume or price movements in order to induce other investors to trade. Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users prohibits matched orders and wash trades, as well as transactions intended to make the market appear more active than it actually is or to artificially move or stabilize the price of a virtual asset. Accordingly, even where high-priced buy orders, spoofing, multiple accounts, or API-based automated orders are identified, the legal analysis should not focus on a single type of order alone. The overall trading pattern—including the purpose of the trades, order and execution history, pre-existing holdings, and subsequent sales—must be reviewed as a whole. Legal Standards for Crypto Market Manipulation in Korea Article 10 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users prohibits transactions such as matched orders and wash trades when conducted for the purpose of misleading others into believing that trading is more active than it actually is or otherwise causing investors to make incorrect judgments. The Act also prohibits transactions intended to induce others to trade by creating the appearance of active trading or by artificially moving or fixing the price of a virtual asset. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, Article 10 Therefore, the focus is not simply on whether trading volume was large or whether the price moved significantly. What matters is why the orders were placed, whether there was a genuine intention to execute them, and whether multiple orders formed part of a coordinated trading strategy. How Are Spoofing and High-Priced Buy Orders Assessed? The presence of high-priced buy orders or spoofing does not automatically establish market manipulation. However, market manipulation may become an issue where such trading patterns are repeated and are accompanied by the disposal of previously accumulated holdings after the price rises. Type of Trading Key Points to Review High-priced buy orders Whether repeated buy orders were used to push the market price upward Spoofing Whether large orders were repeatedly placed and cancelled without a genuine intention to execute Matched orders Whether the parties agreed in advance on the price, quantity, or timing of the trades Wash trades Whether trading volume was created without any meaningful transfer of economic ownership Multiple-account trading Whether multiple accounts traded in coordinated or repetitive patterns API-based trading Whether automated orders were used to artificially create trading volume or price movements In particular, if the trading structure follows a pattern such as accumulation → price formation → disposal of holdings → realization of profits, authorities may review the entire series of transactions rather than treating each order in isolation. What Is the Difference Between Ordinary Trading and Market Manipulation? Buying cryptocurrency before a price increase and selling it later at a profit does not, by itself, amount to market manipulation. When determining whether trading crossed the line into unlawful market manipulation, the following factors may be considered: whether a large position was accumulated before the price increase; whether high-priced or unusually large orders were repeatedly placed; whether orders were repeatedly cancelled after being submitted; whether multiple accounts or API-based systems traded in a coordinated manner; whether substantial holdings were sold immediately after the price increased; and whether communications with other traders or the underlying trading strategy were connected to the actual order pattern. Ultimately, the key question is whether the trader intended to induce other investors to trade by artificially influencing the market price or trading volume, and whether the trading records support that conclusion. What Are the Penalties for Crypto Market Manipulation in Korea? Under Article 19 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, a person who engages in prohibited market manipulation may be subject, in principle, to imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to three to five times the profit gained or loss avoided through the violation. 🔹Penalties Based on the Amount of Profit or Loss Avoided Profit Gained or Loss Avoided Statutory Penalty Less than KRW 500 million In principle, imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to 3–5 times the profit gained or loss avoided KRW 500 million or more but less than KRW 5 billion Imprisonment for at least 3 years KRW 5 billion or more Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years Where imprisonment is imposed, the court may also impose disqualification for up to ten years and a fine. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, Article 19 In addition to criminal penalties, market manipulation may also result in administrative monetary penalties under Article 17 of the Act. Assets obtained through the unlawful conduct may also be subject to confiscation or collection of equivalent value. Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, Article 17 What Should You Do If You Are Investigated for Market Manipulation? If you are contacted by Korean financial regulators or investigative authorities, it is important to review the entire trading structure during the relevant period, rather than attempting to explain only the particular orders identified by the authorities. Key materials may include: complete buy and sell records for each exchange; order placement, cancellation, and execution history; virtual asset holdings before and after the relevant period; exchanges and accounts used for trading; API logs and automated trading program records; use of accounts or API keys belonging to other persons; communications with other traders; and the source of trading funds and the ultimate recipient of any profits. In market manipulation investigations, objective trading records such as order and execution data can become central evidence. Before responding to investigators, it is therefore important to confirm whether your explanation is consistent with the actual trading records and to prepare a clear, evidence-based explanation of why the orders were placed and what the underlying trading strategy was. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. Can a Single High-Priced Buy Order Constitute Market Manipulation? Not necessarily. A single high-priced buy order does not automatically amount to market manipulation. The purpose of the order, whether similar orders were repeated, market conditions at the time, the size of the trade, and any subsequent sale of the trader’s holdings may all be relevant. Q2. Can I Be Punished Even If I Did Not Make a Profit? Yes. The law prohibits the market manipulation itself, so the absence of actual profit does not necessarily eliminate criminal or regulatory liability. Q3. Is API-Based or Automated Crypto Trading Illegal in Korea? No. The use of APIs or automated trading systems is not illegal in itself. However, if such systems are used to repeatedly place artificial orders, engage in matched trading, or create misleading trading volume or price movements, the conduct may be investigated as market manipulation. Q4. Can Investors Who Suffered Losses Claim Damages? Potentially, yes. However, the existence and scope of civil liability will depend on issues such as causation between the manipulative conduct and the investor’s loss, as well as the timing and price of the relevant transactions. Market Manipulation Investigations Require a Trading-Record-Based Response A sharp increase in a crypto asset’s price or a large trading volume does not automatically establish market manipulation. The central issue is whether trading volume or price movements were artificially created for the purpose of inducing other investors to trade. If you have been contacted by Korean financial regulators, police, or prosecutors, you should first organize your order and execution history, API records, account relationships, and fund flows, and prepare to explain the purpose of the trades based on objective evidence. Decent Law Firm can review your trading records and develop a tailored strategy for responding to a crypto market manipulation investigation in Korea.
