We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
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.
-
Illegal Investment Advisory Fraud in Korea: The Longer You Wait, the Less Likely You Are to Recover Your Money
Reports of fraud involving unlicensed investment advisory services — operating through KakaoTalk group chats, Telegram channels, and YouTube — are increasing rapidly. What appears on the surface to be legitimate investment advice is frequently a structure in which an unregistered operator collects high fees while generating losses for clients. When fraud of this kind occurs, failing to pursue both criminal complaint and civil recovery strategy from the outset means that with every passing day, the money, the evidence, and the perpetrators become harder to find. When Does Unlicensed Investment Advisory Become a Legal Problem? Unlicensed investment advisory services differ from properly registered advisory firms in that they provide investment information to an unspecified number of people through standardized channels in exchange for payment. The problem arises when operators go beyond this — effectively directing specific buy and sell decisions on individual stocks — without any license or registration, and accepting no responsibility for investment losses. Common characteristics include the following. Specific stock recommendations and buy/sell timing instructions delivered through KakaoTalk or Telegram group chats, text messages, or YouTube High fees charged under the guise of monthly membership, access rights, or performance commissions Exaggerated past return figures and repeated use of fabricated profit verification images When losses occur, telling clients to deposit more money with promises that losses can be recovered At this point, the conduct may already give rise to criminal fraud charges, violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and violations of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving of Funds. Why a Criminal Complaint Should Come First Many victims' instinct is to begin with a refund request or a formal letter of demand. However, a significant number of unlicensed advisory operators use borrowed corporate identities or accounts registered in other people's names, repeatedly dissolve and re-establish entities, and move funds through overseas servers or cryptocurrency — all designed to make tracing extremely difficult. For this reason, where losses have reached a meaningful level, filing a criminal complaint promptly is the most effective way to compel investigators to trace account flows, identify co-conspirators, and prevent further harm to other victims. Securing the suspect's financial records, communications history, and immigration records through the criminal process also creates a significantly stronger position for any subsequent civil litigation or settlement negotiation. Preparing for a Criminal Complaint: What to Gather If you are seriously considering filing a complaint, organizing the following materials in advance will make the process considerably more effective. • How you were recruited: when you joined, and what advertisement or referral led you to the service • Conversation records: complete screenshots of group chat and one-on-one messages, particularly any statements guaranteeing returns or directing specific trades • Transaction records: all payment records for fees and commissions, including transfer confirmations showing the recipient account details • Trading history: the stocks recommended by the operator and your actual buy and sell records, along with the total loss incurred • Other victims: information about others who joined through the same channel or participated in the same group (important for coordinated complaints) This material gives investigators a concrete basis for understanding the structure of the operation and assessing whether fraud or unlicensed advisory activity occurred. Decent Law Firm's Digital Asset Team Allowing time to pass when losses have already occurred only benefits the other side. Detailed criminal complaint drafting: We identify and build the case for every applicable charge — including fraud and unlicensed fund solicitation — beyond the base Capital Markets Act violation, with the goal of securing a strong investigative response. Parallel civil recovery strategy: Alongside the criminal complaint, we pursue civil measures including provisional attachment and damages claims to freeze remaining assets and maximize recovery prospects. Coordinated complaint support: Where multiple victims are involved, we coordinate group filings to increase the scale of the case and elevate its priority within the investigative process. If you are unsure which materials to gather first, or whether a criminal complaint or civil claim should take priority, Decent Law Firm's digital asset team is ready to work through the facts with you from the very beginning and map out a strategy for your situation.
-
Algorithm Trading Scams in Korea: How to Report AI Auto-Trading Fraud
Victims who invested based on promises of "stable returns through AI auto-trading" are increasingly finding themselves unable to recover even their principal. The one thing they all have in common: the regret of not having been suspicious sooner. What These Scams Actually Look Like The common thread running through recent algorithm trading fraud cases in Korea is the use of AI, algorithmic trading, and automated systems as a front for stock or ETF investment schemes. In one documented case, operators raised over 20 billion KRW by promising "stable, loss-free returns through US stocks and ETFs" — while showing investors fabricated account balance screens with no actual trading taking place. These operations typically manipulate their own apps or websites to display fictitious profits, then demand additional deposits under the guise of taxes, fees, or withdrawal processing charges. In most cases, the underlying structure is a classic Ponzi scheme — using new investor funds to pay returns to earlier participants. Warning Signs to Watch For If the service you're using matches any of the following, treat it as a serious red flag. • Impossible guarantees — Claims of loss-free stable returns, fixed monthly gains of 10–15%, or annual returns of 600% or more. These figures are not achievable through legitimate financial products. • Zero transparency — No explanation of which assets or strategies are being used. Just repeated assurances that "the AI handles everything." • Non-standard trading infrastructure — Use of a proprietary app or website rather than a licensed brokerage platform. Deposit accounts held in individual names or virtual accounts rather than a registered corporate entity. • False authority — Fabricated or exaggerated claims of affiliation with globally recognized asset managers, academics, or financial regulators. If anything feels off, stop sending money immediately and start preserving evidence. If You've Already Been Victimized: What to Do Now If you've transferred funds and suspect fraud, the priority is evidence preservation — not confronting the operator. Step 1 — Preserve all evidence Save everything: promotional messages, KakaoTalk or Telegram conversations, promotional materials and contracts, screenshots of the app or website showing balances, returns, and withdrawal requests (do this before the site goes dark), and full records of all deposits and withdrawals. Step 2 — Report to the Financial Supervisory Service File a report with the FSS Illegal Financial Investment Reporting Center. Submissions are cross-referenced with similar cases and can trigger coordinated investigations. Step 3 — File a criminal complaint A formal complaint can be filed with the police or prosecutor's office on charges of fraud, and where applicable, violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving of Investments. When multiple victims file simultaneously, cases are often escalated to joint task force investigations. In parallel with criminal proceedings, civil remedies — including provisional seizure of the perpetrator's assets and claims for damages — should be considered to maximize the likelihood of actual recovery. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Algorithm trading fraud is structurally designed to look like a legitimate investment service, which makes it genuinely difficult to distinguish from an ordinary investment loss. Building a case requires systematically documenting what misrepresentations were made, who was involved, and at what point the fraudulent structure was in place. Decent Law Firm's Litigation Practice reconstructs the fraud architecture and the specific points of deception using contracts, messaging records, and app screenshots — and designs a coordinated strategy combining criminal prosecution with civil asset recovery. If you were promised high returns through AI auto-trading or algorithmic investment, and you're now experiencing withdrawal delays, demands for additional deposits, or complete loss of contact, don't wait. Contact Decent Law Firm's Litigation Practice today.
-
Crypto Trading Bots in Korea: Legal Risks Around VASP Registration and Market Manipulation
The number of operators building and running automated cryptocurrency trading services — commonly known as trading bots — is growing rapidly. What looks like a straightforward software product from the outside can carry significant legal exposure depending on how it is structured: potential classification as a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP), market manipulation liability, and civil damages claims are all live risks. What matters is not what the technology does, but how the service operates. When Does a Trading Bot Become a VASP? Simply developing or selling an automated trading program does not automatically make an operator a VASP. However, once a service crosses certain structural thresholds, it may no longer be characterized as software provision — it may be treated as managing or transacting virtual assets on behalf of customers. The following structures are particularly high-risk: Collecting API keys from multiple customers and running strategies centrally on the operator's servers Pooling customer assets in the operator's wallet, executing trades, and settling afterward Running copy trading or arbitrage strategies across multiple accounts simultaneously and charging fees or performance-based compensation Once a service falls into this category, questions arise around VASP registration obligations, anti-money laundering (AML) compliance duties, and criminal exposure for operating without authorization. The same trading bot can lead to entirely different legal conclusions depending on how it is designed. Market Manipulation and Criminal Liability Automated trading programs are under close regulatory scrutiny precisely because of their potential use in market manipulation. Placing large volumes of orders in rapid succession and canceling them to artificially inflate trading volume, or distorting the order book to mislead investors, are among the most common problem patterns. Recent court decisions in Korea have resulted in custodial sentences for market manipulation carried out using automated trading programs. The position that "it was just the program" is no longer a viable defense. Operators should be particularly alert to marketing language. Phrases like "volume management" or "chart making" can be used as evidence of criminal intent in a market manipulation case. Civil Liability: Misrepresentation and Duty to Explain More frequent in practice than criminal or regulatory action are civil disputes. Expressions commonly used to market trading bot services — "principal guaranteed," "fixed monthly returns," "AI generates profits automatically" — can give rise to false advertising claims and breach of disclosure duty if losses occur. Disclaimers in terms of service do not provide complete protection. Where a service failure — a server outage, an API error, an abnormal order — causes customer losses, liability will turn on whether the operator exercised the standard of care expected. Broad indemnity clauses will not shield an operator from liability where negligence or misrepresentation can be established. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Decent Law Firm's digital asset team works at the intersection of technology and financial regulation. We help operators build legally sound businesses from the ground up. VASP analysis: Full review of service architecture to identify and eliminate unauthorized operation risk before it becomes a problem. Algorithm compliance review: Legal guidance on trading strategies to ensure they cannot be characterized as market manipulation. Terms of service and marketing compliance: Drafting and reviewing documentation to minimize false advertising exposure and build defensible terms for civil disputes. Running a service without legal review is unnecessary risk. If you are designing or operating a crypto trading bot service, contact Decent Law Firm's digital asset team for a clear-eyed assessment of where you stand.
-
If You Need Assistance With a Voice Phishing (Borrowed Account) Victim Relief Application
Why Is Recovery So Difficult in Borrowed-Account Voice Phishing Cases? Telecommunications financial fraud (commonly known as “voice phishing”) typically involves transferring funds through bank accounts opened under third parties’ names (so-called fraud-use accounts). Money transferred by the victim is quickly split across multiple accounts. Some funds are withdrawn in cash or converted into virtual assets, making tracing practically impossible. If the financial institution’s payment suspension procedure is delayed, meaningful recovery becomes extremely difficult. In organized schemes, roles are divided among recruiters, cash couriers, and managers, which makes identifying legally responsible parties time-consuming. Accordingly, borrowed-account voice phishing cases are not simple financial incidents. They are serious criminal matters requiring simultaneous consideration of both criminal and civil response. Immediate Actions After the Incident Immediately apply for victim relief through the financial institution after the transfer Report to the police and initiate a formal investigation Secure account flow data and organize call and message records If response is delayed at this stage, funds will rapidly dissipate. This matter must never be taken lightly. Even a few hours can determine the outcome. After payment suspension, a claim extinguishment procedure is conducted by the financial institution and the Financial Supervisory Service, followed by a decision regarding victim refund distribution. However, if an additional victim relief application is not submitted within two months from the public notice of the claim extinguishment procedure, the victim may lose eligibility for the refund (Article 6(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss). Borrowed-account voice phishing cases require not only prompt initial measures but also systematic follow-up management. Why Legal Assistance Is Necessary Victims must simultaneously manage multiple response channels, including the Financial Supervisory Service, police authorities, and commercial banks. Filing a simple report is not sufficient. If the perpetrator can be identified, a civil claim for damages should be pursued in parallel. If a joint offender structure is revealed, strategies to assert joint tort liability must also be considered. Where the principal offender cannot be apprehended, it may be necessary to examine whether the account holder who provided access media, while foreseeing the fraudulent use, may bear liability for damages under tort law. However, proving the account holder’s foreseeability is essential, and liability may be limited if contributory negligence of the victim is recognized. Careful case-by-case legal analysis is therefore required. Providing practical direction to clients facing such distressing circumstances is the role of legal counsel. Attempting to navigate these procedures alone, particularly in an emotionally shaken state, can be overwhelming and complex.
-
If you need legal assistance regarding suspended sentences for DUI
DUI Penalties – What Are the Actual Standards? Driving under the influence (DUI) is classified as a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and sentencing varies depending on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and prior convictions. ▷ BAC between 0.03% and 0.08% Up to 1 year of imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 5 million. ▷ BAC between 0.08% and 0.2% (first offense or more than 10 years since prior conviction) 1 to 2 years of imprisonment or a fine between KRW 5 million and KRW 10 million. ▷ BAC of 0.2% or higher 2 to 5 years of imprisonment or a fine between KRW 10 million and KRW 20 million. ▷ Repeat offense (within 10 years after a DUI conviction resulting in a fine or heavier punishment) BAC between 0.03% and 0.2%: 1 to 5 years of imprisonment or a fine between KRW 5 million and KRW 20 million. BAC of 0.2% or higher: 2 to 6 years of imprisonment or a fine between KRW 10 million and KRW 30 million. ▷ Refusal to take a breathalyzer test: 1 to 6 years of imprisonment or a fine between KRW 5 million and KRW 30 million. Courts have been taking a stricter stance, particularly where a defendant reoffends within 10 years of a prior DUI conviction, and the rate of custodial sentences has increased. If personal injury or property damage is involved, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes may apply, leading to even harsher penalties. Suspended Sentence for DUI – Key Factors That Open Possibilities Courts consider the following major sentencing factors: Whether there are prior DUI convictions and how many The BAC level Whether an accident occurred and the extent of damage Whether restitution and settlement have been made A sincere attitude of remorse Efforts to prevent reoffending (treatment, education programs) Social ties and livelihood circumstances Submitting a letter of apology alone does not result in a suspended sentence. Because courts comprehensively evaluate the circumstances of the offense, subsequent actions, and the likelihood of reoffending, it is crucial to systematically prepare materials tailored to the individual case. The Line Between Imprisonment and a Suspended Sentence The direction of a verdict is not determined by a single BAC number. The outcome can vary significantly depending on the legal response. For example: Whether damages were fully compensated even if an accident occurred The time interval between prior offenses Whether the case involves simple intoxicated driving or dangerous driving How statements were made during the early investigation stage These factors directly influence sentencing decisions. In particular, investigation-stage statements, evidence organization, and settlement progress play decisive roles in shaping the court’s perception. If early response is mishandled, the possibility of receiving a suspended sentence can decrease rapidly. Conversely, a precisely structured defense strategy may create room to avoid imprisonment. How Decent Law Firm Assists Decent Law Firm does not approach DUI suspended sentence cases as mere pleas for leniency. We analyze the entire case and respond strategically. First, we objectively assess imprisonment risk by reviewing the applicable statutes, prior convictions, BAC level, and whether an accident occurred. Second, we systematically structure sentencing materials, including treatment plans, completion of prevention programs, and documentation of social relationships, to persuasively demonstrate a low risk of reoffending. Third, where victims are involved, we design settlement strategies and assist in achieving meaningful recovery. Fourth, during trial, we structure arguments around the factors the court considers most significant to increase the likelihood of a suspended sentence. A DUI case is not simply a matter of paying a fine. Although it may feel as though the outcome is already determined, the result can change substantially. What matters is the choice you make at this stage. Decent Law Firm designs the entire criminal procedure and presents realistic, strategic solutions tailored to each client’s circumstances. We strongly recommend seeking legal advice before it is too late.
