We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Crypto Signal Group Refunds in Korea: A Lawyer’s 4-Step Strategy (Watch for Recovery Scams)
Why is it so hard to get a refund from crypto signal groups? Many “signal groups” on Telegram or KakaoTalk advertise “principal guaranteed” or “monthly returns of X%.” However, their terms usually include broad disclaimers such as “all investment decisions are the user’s responsibility.” They also label their signals as “for reference only,” which is often used to avoid liability. In practice, some of these operations may involve: Unlicensed investment advisory services Profit-sharing structures that may trigger regulatory violations Potential issues under Korean laws on fraud, quasi-receipt of funds, or capital markets regulations For this reason, crypto signal group disputes are not just civil refund claims—they often involve criminal law considerations as well. Before pursuing a refund, check this first From our experience at Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team, the key factor is not how much you invested, but how you were induced to join and how the service was structured. That makes early evidence collection critical. Capture ads and onboarding materials Save screenshots showing phrases like “guaranteed returns” or “risk-free investment,” including the platform (YouTube, Instagram, blogs, etc.). Secure payment records and refund terms Keep receipts, transfer records, account holder details (individual vs. company), and any written refund policies. Preserve communication and signal history Archive Telegram/KakaoTalk chats, signal logs, and any coercive language such as “just trust and follow.” Practical legal approach for recovery In practice, refund cases are not handled in a single step but through a structured sequence of actions. First, you need to clearly document your intent to terminate the service and request a refund. This should be done through channels such as chat, email, or text message, and should include when you joined, what service you received, what losses occurred, and why you are requesting a refund. Keeping screenshots and backups of this communication is essential. Next, rather than relying on informal complaints, it is often effective to send a formal legal notice through a lawyer. This document outlines misleading elements such as guaranteed returns, identifies potential legal violations, and sets a clear deadline and method for repayment. A properly structured legal notice often changes how the operator responds. At the same time, it is important to review whether the case involves criminal or regulatory issues such as fraud, illegal fundraising, or unlicensed advisory services. Filing complaints with investigative authorities or financial regulators can create additional pressure and may influence settlement negotiations. However, this step should be carefully aligned with the overall recovery strategy. If the operator refuses to refund or becomes unresponsive, the case may proceed to civil enforcement measures such as payment orders, damages claims, or asset freezing (including bank accounts, real estate, or crypto assets). Where multiple victims are involved, it may also be necessary to evaluate whether a coordinated group approach is more effective than individual claims. Beware of “recovery services” — secondary scams After suffering losses, victims are often approached by so-called recovery agencies claiming: “100% refund guaranteed” “Full refund if we lose” Be cautious if: Upfront fees are required The lawyer’s identity cannot be verified The service is not structured as a proper legal engagement These are common signs of secondary fraud. At Decent Law Firm, all matters are handled directly by licensed attorneys, with transparent communication throughout the case. What to prepare before consulting a lawyer To receive a meaningful assessment, prepare: Screenshots of advertisements and chat history showing how you joined Payment and transaction records Terms of service or refund policies Records of your refund request and their responses During the initial consultation, we assess: Refund viability Strength of evidence Optimal legal strategy (civil + criminal coordination) Crypto signal group disputes are time-sensitive and evidence-driven. The earlier you act, the higher the chances of recovery. If you are unsure whether your case qualifies for a refund or what steps to take next, consulting a legal professional early can make a significant difference.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Revised Yellow Envelope Act Is Now in Effect: The First Thing You Need to Check
Key Changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Union Act (Yellow Envelope Act) “Does this mean our company could now be held responsible for issues involving subcontractor employees?” This is a question increasingly being raised in real business environments. The revised Yellow Envelope Act, which took effect on March 10, 2026, is not merely a technical amendment to statutory language. It represents a major institutional shift that strengthens the authority of labor unions and fundamentally redefines the scope of employers’ responsibilities. The key changes introduced by the amendment include: Substantial expansion of the definition of “employer” Expansion of the scope of recognized labor disputes New grounds for reducing or limiting damages claims against labor unions Ultimately, the core implication is clear: labor unions now possess broader bargaining power, while companies face increased legal responsibility. As a result, companies must comprehensively review their contractual structures and internal decision-making processes, while labor unions must prepare lawful response strategies aligned with their newly expanded authority. The extent of advance preparation will ultimately determine the scale of future legal risk. The following response measures therefore deserve close attention. Key Response Points for Companies and Labor Unions Through this amendment, the scope for recognizing a principal contractor as an employer has broadened significantly, while limitations on damages claims have substantially changed the landscape of labor-management relations. From the corporate perspective, companies must carefully assess the extent to which they exercise control over working conditions within indirect employment structures such as subcontracting and outsourcing arrangements. If a principal contractor substantially influences employees’ working conditions, bargaining obligations may arise. Accordingly, companies may need to revise contractual provisions and approval procedures. In workplaces where multiple labor unions exist, it is also essential to establish strategies for responding to successive bargaining requests. To address these issues, companies should establish: Standards for unified bargaining channels Internal information disclosure procedures Response systems for damages claims arising from lawful labor disputes From the labor union perspective, direct bargaining channels with principal contractors are becoming more accessible, and the burden of damages liability during lawful labor disputes has been reduced. As a result, the legality of bargaining procedures and the efficiency of organizational strategies have become increasingly important. In essence, the amendment establishes a new standard for both labor and management: “clear responsibility and transparent procedures.” Whether adequate preparation is undertaken now will become the most important factor in determining future dispute risks. Why Work With Decent Law Firm? The revised Yellow Envelope Act is not simply about changes to statutory provisions. It is a major issue requiring companies to redesign their entire decision-making structures and labor-management communication systems. In situations like this, businesses need professionals who understand not only legal theory, but also operational realities and practical risk factors in the workplace. Decent Law Firm operates a dedicated team specializing in corporate advisory services and labor risk management, providing practical solutions in the following areas: Employer status analysis and legal risk assessment Design of bargaining and labor dispute response structures Damages liability risk control strategies Advisory services regarding collective bargaining agreements and internal policy revisions Decent Law Firm goes beyond providing abstract legal interpretations. We act as a practical partner helping businesses maintain stable labor-management relations even after the revised law takes effect. If your organization needs practical and immediately applicable response measures, now is the time to begin preparing with Decent Law Firm. Ultimately, This Is an Unavoidable Process of Change At this stage, the key response strategy is to accurately understand the purpose of the revised system, reduce unnecessary disputes, and ensure that necessary bargaining procedures become more transparent. At Decent Law Firm, consultations are conducted directly by attorneys who are also certified labor consultants, as well as legal professionals with extensive corporate operational experience. We help both companies and labor unions respond in predictable and legally sound ways while preserving the intent of the law. With sufficient case analysis and properly documented procedures, risks can be managed in advance. Before it becomes too late, it is important to seek professional legal guidance and prepare strategically.
-
How to File a Criminal Complaint for Workplace Harassment and Manage Legal Risks
Workplace Harassment: When Does It Escalate to Criminal Charges? Workplace harassment, in and of itself, is not subject to criminal punishment. However, if the conduct constituting harassment also satisfies the elements of crimes under the Criminal Act—such as assault, intimidation, insult, or defamation—criminal charges may be filed (Criminal Act Articles 260, 307, and 311). Many cases are resolved through internal reporting procedures, investigations, and personnel measures within the company. The issue arises when internal procedures fail to function effectively, or when the reporting itself results in retaliation. Where a superior in a position of dominance repeatedly engages in verbal abuse, publicly humiliates an employee, or where exclusion and isolation persist over an extended period, the matter goes beyond a mere internal workplace conflict. If psychological harm accumulates to the point that daily life or continued employment becomes difficult, and the harassment conduct satisfies the elements of a criminal offense, criminal prosecution may be considered. In such cases, civil claims for damages may also be pursued (Supreme Court Decision, November 25, 2021, Case No. 2020Da270503). The point at which one considers how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment should not be when emotions erupt, but when it is possible to calmly assess whether the objective legal requirements are met. For those enduring anxiety and fear alone, this article aims to clarify that there is a clearly defined area in which the law can provide protection. Types of Workplace Harassment That May Lead to Criminal Charges In practice, workplace harassment cases that escalate to criminal complaints tend to follow identifiable patterns. If repeated verbal abuse constitutes the offense of insult (Criminal Act Article 311), or if facts—true or false—are publicly alleged in a manner that damages another’s reputation (Criminal Act Article 307), criminal charges may be sufficiently supported. By contrast, private errands unrelated to work or excessive workloads may not, by themselves, meet the threshold for criminal punishment. However, if such conduct is accompanied by assault or threats, offenses such as coercion (Criminal Act Article 324) may be examined. Deliberately excluding an individual from meetings or work-related communications, or publicly labeling someone as a “problem employee” in front of others, also constitutes a serious matter. In particular, if retaliatory actions—such as disadvantages in personnel decisions, downgraded evaluations, or involuntary transfers—follow after harassment is reported, the legal gravity of the case increases significantly. Workplace harassment does not require repetition as an absolute condition. Even a single act may be recognized if it constitutes a serious infringement of personal dignity. Nevertheless, for criminal prosecution, each offense must satisfy its specific statutory elements. In cases of insult or defamation, requirements such as publicity and factual allegations must be met (Criminal Act Articles 307 and 311). Criminal Complaint Procedure and Key Pre-Filing Considerations In workplace harassment cases, accuracy in preparation and sequencing matters more than the procedure itself. The overall process typically proceeds as follows: Collection of Evidence and Organization of Facts Secure objective materials such as recordings, messenger conversations, emails, internal notices, and witness statements. Organize the incidents chronologically by date, location, and conduct. Review of Internal Reporting Options Under Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act, employees may report workplace harassment to the employer, who is obligated to investigate and take appropriate measures. Internal reporting is a legal right, and retaliatory treatment against the reporter is prohibited. Filing a Criminal Complaint with the Competent Investigative Authority The complaint should be drafted around the elements of applicable criminal offenses (e.g., assault, threats, insult, defamation), while also describing the broader context of workplace harassment. Investigation of the Complainant, Witnesses, and the Accused Consistency and precision in statements during interviews with investigators are critical points of evaluation. Review of Disposition and Consideration of Follow-Up Measures Depending on the outcome of the investigation, additional complaints, civil damages claims, or parallel labor law procedures may be considered. Emotional expressions or exaggerated descriptions during this process can undermine credibility. Moreover, if a complaint is dismissed, filing a complaint without an objective factual basis may expose the complainant to risks of defamation claims or counter-charges. Deciding how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment is never a matter to be taken lightly. A poorly prepared complaint can lead to further legal disputes, and this risk must be clearly understood. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm approaches workplace harassment cases not as emotional conflicts, but as matters of legal structure. We conduct advance reviews of whether criminal complaint requirements are met and design feasible strategies based on the quality and arrangement of evidence. We also work in collaboration with labor law specialists who are former certified labor attorneys, refining expressions that could be interpreted unfavorably during statements, and responding to criminal, labor, and civil issues in an integrated manner rather than treating them separately. The outcome of workplace harassment cases depends heavily on the initial response. The consequences of taking this issue lightly are far from insignificant. This is precisely why a structured response is necessary. Before it is too late, we strongly encourage discussing your available options with a qualified professional.
-
If Recovering Losses from a Copy Trading Scam Is Urgent
1. How Copy Trading Scams Typically Begin Copy trading scams often start by gaining investors’ trust through phrases such as automated trading, professional management, or profit mirroring. Statements like “you don’t need to trade yourself” or “just follow a verified account” appear to reduce the burden of investment decisions. In fact, small profits may be generated in the early stages, making the scheme seem like a legitimate investment. However, after a certain period, a recurring pattern of inducing additional deposits begins. As the invested amount increases, withdrawals are delayed. Investors are asked to prepay fees or accept changing conditions, followed by loss of contact or restricted account access—at which point the damage becomes final. Unlike a simple investment loss, cases suspected to involve copy trading scams hinge on whether there was an intent to deceive investors and unlawfully obtain financial gain. Because this determination is made by comprehensively examining the transaction structure, fund management practices, and the operator’s conduct, becoming a victim without having the opportunity to explain one’s position is far from uncommon. 2. The Core Structure That Makes It Look Like a Legitimate Investment Copy trading scams are often highly sophisticated in appearance. They are designed to resemble lawful investment services through real-time trading screens, screenshots of profit verification, and performance graphs. Some even use interfaces similar to actual exchanges to eliminate suspicion. However, there is a clear gap between the structure perceived by the investor and the way the system is actually operated. Whether this discrepancy constitutes a violation of the duty to disclose material information or amounts to deceptive conduct depends on the specific facts of each case. If there is a material inconsistency between how the investment structure was explained and how it was actually operated—and that inconsistency influenced the investor’s decision—it may serve as a key basis for establishing fraud. 3. The Three Questions Victims Ask Most Frequently Q1. Can it still be considered fraud even if I actually made profits? Yes. Initial profit payouts are often used to build trust and induce additional deposits. The key issue is not whether profits occurred, but how those profits were generated. Q2. The account was in my name—can this still be considered fraud? What matters more than the account holder’s name is who actually controlled the trades and the funds. If the operator effectively controlled the transactions, it may be difficult to view the activity as a normal investment. Q3. When should I consider legal action if withdrawals are blocked? Once withdrawal conditions are repeatedly changed or additional payments are demanded, delaying a response is risky. If this is accompanied by avoidance of contact or account restrictions, immediate legal assessment is required. 4. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat copy trading scam cases as mere investment disputes. From the earliest stage, we focus not only on individual losses, but on the overall transaction structure and fund flows. We organize legal issues based on the substance of the investment method, the operator’s level of involvement, and indicators of fund control. Based on this analysis, we assess the feasibility of criminal complaints and investigation responses, while also considering parallel recovery measures such as civil damages claims or restitution of unjust enrichment. In copy trading scam cases, outcomes vary significantly depending on the initial response. Drawing on extensive experience with virtual asset and automated trading matters, we provide clear, practice-oriented strategies that reflect the key points investigators focus on. Accurately identifying the structure is what ultimately determines the direction of the case.
