We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
If you are suffering as a victim of cryptocurrency fraud involving wallets or related regulatory legislation, this is essential reading.
Cryptocurrency Fraud – Why Is It Increasing So Rapidly? The primary reasons for the recent surge in cryptocurrency fraud are information asymmetry and the complexity of its structure. Project structures, token issuance mechanisms, and profit models are often designed in ways that are difficult for ordinary investors to fully understand. This environment creates fertile ground for fraudulent schemes to appear as legitimate investment opportunities. Common types of cryptocurrency fraud include: Inducing investment by promising high returns Multi-level or referral-based structures resembling pyramid schemes Providing false listing information Guaranteeing profits through automated trading programs Such conduct may constitute fraud under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act or violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Because technical explanations and whitepapers often exist on the surface, it is not easy to detect suspicion in the early stages. In particular, schemes that build trust by paying initial returns to early investors make it extremely difficult for victims themselves to recognize warning signs. As a result, cryptocurrency fraud often continues for a significant period before it is finally exposed. Cryptocurrency Fraud Damage – What Legal Issues Arise? The most critical legal issue in cryptocurrency fraud cases is distinguishing between a mere investment failure and a criminal act of fraud. Whether fraud is established must be assessed based on the circumstances at the time the investment was solicited. If, at the time of solicitation, the promoter had both the intent and ability to repay, a subsequent refusal to repay may constitute only a civil breach of contract rather than criminal fraud. However, if criminal liability is established, the following laws may apply: Fraud (Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission (Articles 3 and 6(1)) Aggravated Fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1)) From a civil perspective, key issues include: Claims for damages based on tort Claims for return of unjust enrichment In this process, identifying the perpetrator and tracing the flow of funds are decisive factors in determining the outcome of the case. In cryptocurrency fraud cases, securing digital evidence is essential. This includes: Cryptocurrency wallet addresses Exchange transaction records Platform logs Chat records Investment solicitation materials Since the subjective element of fraud (intent to defraud) must be inferred from objective circumstances—such as the defendant’s financial status, surrounding conditions, the content of the transaction, and the performance process—unless the defendant confesses, failure to secure such evidence at an early stage may make later proof extremely difficult. Essential Response Steps If You Have Been Defrauded If you realize that you have fallen victim to cryptocurrency fraud, the first step is to immediately stop any additional transfers and cease attempts to negotiate under the perpetrator’s persuasion. This does not mean that settlement for recovery is prohibited. However, even during settlement discussions, it is critical to secure evidence and obtain assistance from a legal professional. Another essential step is organizing evidence. You should systematically compile: Chat records Deposit and withdrawal records Promotional materials Contract-like documents Afterward, you must carefully determine the timing and method of filing a criminal complaint or reporting to investigative authorities. If a complaint is filed prematurely without sufficient evidence, it may negatively affect the investigation. Therefore, it is generally more effective to organize evidence thoroughly with professional legal assistance before initiating criminal proceedings. When victims attempt to handle the matter alone, the core nature of the case is often reduced to a simple dispute, or time is wasted without properly identifying the perpetrator. In cryptocurrency fraud cases, initial strategic direction and speed are crucial. This point cannot be emphasized enough.
-
The Legal Boundaries of Virtual Assets Through the Lens of the Bitcoin Whitepaper
The Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Not a “Manual,” but a Legal Benchmark Many people understand the Bitcoin whitepaper as nothing more than a technical document. In actual disputes or criminal investigations, however, the whitepaper functions not as a simple explanation, but as the starting point for legal judgment. The contents of a whitepaper serve as key evidence in determining how a project was structured, what assumptions underpinned its design, and what representations were made to users or investors. The assumption that “having a whitepaper makes a project lawful” is therefore highly dangerous. If, at an early stage, a project adopts or modifies the structure of Bitcoin without proper legal review, and the actual operational model differs from what was explained to investors, such conduct may be evaluated as deceptive. In particular, where a project promises principal protection or high returns while in practice paying earlier participants using funds from later investors—a so-called Ponzi scheme—fraud charges may be established (see Seoul High Court Decision, Aug. 7, 2020, Case No. 2020No596). From this point onward, the matter clearly exceeds the limits of what an individual or business can assess on its own. For those losing sleep over these concerns, meaningful solutions do not begin with technology, but with a legal perspective. Risks That Arise When the Whitepaper and Actual Operations Diverge Problems arise when elements that do not exist in the Bitcoin whitepaper are added during real-world business operations. Typical examples include discrepancies in profit-sharing methods, reward mechanisms, or the identity of the actual operator compared to what is described in the whitepaper. When technical explanations and business operations are not clearly separated—particularly where multi-level membership recruitment structures or principal-guarantee arrangements are involved—the structure may constitute violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Authorization or the Door-to-Door Sales Act. Furthermore, if high returns are promised to investors despite the absence of any realistic ability to generate such returns, fraud liability may arise. The extent to which discrepancies between a whitepaper and actual operations are legally tolerable is assessed from the standpoint of investor protection and transactional fairness. Legal liability is especially likely to arise in cases such as the following: The whitepaper describes a decentralized structure, but in reality a specific entity controls token issuance and distribution The technical development plan or business model stated in the whitepaper is false or lacks any realistic feasibility Investor returns are sourced not from genuine business revenue but from funds contributed by new investors Accordingly, without legal review at the whitepaper drafting or reference stage, projects may later face liabilities that are extremely difficult to manage or unwind. Issues That Become Critical During Investigations and Trials Investigative authorities and courts do not focus on the technical sophistication of a Bitcoin whitepaper. Instead, the following issues are central: Substance of fund flows: whether investor funds were used as described in the whitepaper, or diverted to pay returns to earlier investors Identification of responsible parties: who actually planned and operated the business, and whether the individual was merely an investor or a de facto operator Existence of return guarantees: whether principal protection or fixed returns were promised, and whether there was any actual capacity to honor such promises Simply asserting that a project “referred to the Bitcoin whitepaper” does not constitute a viable defense. The initial design of the structure and the manner in which it was presented to investors directly translate into legal responsibility. Beginning a response only at the investigation or trial stage is often already too late. In crypto-related fraud cases, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply. Where the amount obtained through deception exceeds KRW 5 billion, punishment may include life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years. Where unauthorized fund-raising or multi-level marketing structures are combined with such conduct, enhanced penalties under multiple statutes may apply (see Suwon District Court Decision, Sept. 23, 2022, Case No. 2022No1558). For this reason, legal review by qualified professionals is essential from the business-structure design stage. Why Legal Interpretation of the Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Essential Ultimately, how a Bitcoin whitepaper should be interpreted, and how far it may be reflected in an actual business model, is a quintessential legal judgment. Decent Law Firm conducts an integrated review of: the original intent of the Bitcoin whitepaper the actual business and operational structure fundraising and reward mechanisms regulatory and investigative perspectives Through this approach, we provide not merely isolated advice, but consistent legal support that spans from structural design to dispute resolution and investigation response. Issues surrounding the Bitcoin whitepaper are not matters of technical debate—they are questions of legal liability. This is precisely where the involvement of professionals with substantial experience in virtual asset cases becomes indispensable.
-
Essential Reading for Victims of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams
Typical Types of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams Recently, cryptocurrency loan scams have become increasingly sophisticated, carefully disguised to appear like legitimate financial transactions. At first glance, they may look no different from lawful crypto-backed loan services. Common methods include the following: Luring investors with promises of high returns and low-interest crypto-backed loans Explaining a structure where a loan is executed after depositing USDT, while in reality no loan is ever provided Demanding advance payments under the guise of loan fees or security deposits Using fake loan websites that impersonate well-known exchanges or platforms The key point is that although these schemes take the form of a “loan,” their substance is to deceive victims into transferring cryptocurrency to a specific wallet and then misappropriate it. Missing this fundamental nature can completely derail the direction of any legal response. Key Legal Issues at Stake The most important legal criterion in cryptocurrency loan scams is whether fraud under Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act is established. Even if the transaction is labeled as a loan, fraud is constituted if the perpetrator deceives the victim and thereby obtains property or a financial benefit. Investigative authorities and courts typically examine the following elements when determining whether fraud has occurred: Whether there was a deceptive act toward the victim Whether the victim was induced into a mistake due to that deception Whether there was a disposition by the victim based on that mistake (i.e., transfer of cryptocurrency) Whether the perpetrator acquired property or a financial benefit Whether there is a causal relationship between the deceptive act and the victim’s financial loss If there are multiple victims or repeated offenses, enhanced punishment may apply, such as habitual fraud under Article 351 of the Criminal Act or aggravated penalties under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. If a criminal organization was formed or joined, additional liability may arise under Article 114 of the Criminal Act. What matters is not the form, but the actual structure of the scheme. Only by proving this process can a victim move beyond the status of a “cryptocurrency scam victim.” Risk Factors Commonly Overlooked by Victims One of the most common misconceptions among victims is the belief that “because it is structured as a loan, it is different from an investment scam.” However, even if the scheme outwardly takes the form of a loan, fraud is established if, from the outset, the perpetrator had no intention or ability to provide a loan and instead deceived the victim to misappropriate cryptocurrency. This is not merely a civil breach of contract, but a criminal offense subject to punishment. Victims often give up on taking action for reasons such as: Assuming recovery is impossible because overseas platforms or wallets are involved Missing the appropriate time to report due to delays The problem is that the longer reporting is delayed, the more difficult it becomes to trace cryptocurrency wallets, freeze scam-related accounts, track criminal proceeds, and identify those involved. A misjudgment at this stage can effectively eliminate any realistic chance of recovery. Decent Law Firm’s Approach and Direction of Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat cryptocurrency loan scams as simple criminal complaints. The core issue lies in the underlying fraud structure. Our approach includes: Analyzing the flow of cryptocurrency and the structure of the scam Developing a strategic approach at the criminal complaint stage Conducting a realistic assessment of the possibility of tracing and recovering virtual assets Determining whether to pursue civil proceedings in parallel, if necessary Cryptocurrency-related cases require a fundamentally different approach from ordinary fraud cases. The later the response, the more sharply the chances of recovery decline. If you are trapped in repeated anxiety and uncertainty over this issue, there is no need to lose time making decisions on your own. At the same time, you must clearly recognize that taking this matter lightly can lead to irreversible consequences. Because cryptocurrency loan scams are cases in which early action directly determines the outcome, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice at the earliest possible stage.
-
How to Respond When Involved in an OTC Crypto Fraud Case
1. Understanding OTC Transactions and Their Structure OTC (Over-The-Counter) trading refers to off-exchange transactions conducted directly between individuals or through intermediaries, without using a centralized exchange. In the virtual asset market, OTC trades are commonly used for large-volume transactions, lower fees, and private settlements. The risk is that this structure can be exploited for crimes such as voice-phishing-related money laundering and fraud. “OTC crypto fraud” often occurs when criminals disguise illicit fund flows as legitimate trades and pull ordinary participants into the transaction chain. A simple claim of “I didn’t know” is no longer enough. In OTC-related investigations, authorities focus on what you knew at the time, whether you fulfilled your duty of care, and whether you could have recognized suspicious circumstances. If your explanation is inconsistent or you respond poorly at the early stage, even a transaction you believed to be lawful can escalate into criminal exposure. This is not a matter that ends as a misunderstanding. A wrong first step can lead to real punishment. 2. Potential Criminal Liability in OTC Crypto Fraud Cases 1) Elements of Fraud Under Korean Criminal Law For fraud to be established under the Korean Criminal Act, the prosecution generally must prove all of the following: Deceptive act The victim’s mistake Transfer of property Intent to unlawfully obtain property Mere participation in a transaction is not enough. The key issue is whether criminal awareness and intent can be established. 2) Possible Sentencing Ranges For general fraud, Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act provides for up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. If the amount of unlawful gain is large, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply, significantly increasing sentencing exposure: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more and less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine may also be imposed in addition to imprisonment, up to the amount of unlawful gain If the OTC transaction is linked to voice phishing or other telecommunications-based financial fraud, additional liability may arise under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. 3. Key Defense Strategies at the Investigation Stage Once a suspicious transaction is identified, all further transactions must be halted immediately. Preserving evidence is critical, including: Transaction records Wallet transfer histories Messaging and chat logs Any materials related to the counterparty’s identity During questioning by investigative authorities, it is essential to consistently explain: That the OTC transaction itself followed lawful trading practices That there was no awareness that the funds were illicit That there was no conspiracy or even conditional intent to participate in criminal activity Recent case outcomes indicate that mere involvement in off-exchange trading does not automatically prove criminal intent. However, this tends to apply only where the post-incident explanation is structured, evidence-backed, and legally coherent. Where a person fails to substantiate lack of intent, criminal disposition can follow (Suwon High Court, Sept. 17, 2025, Case No. 2025No635). 4. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to OTC Crypto Fraud Defense OTC crypto fraud cases are highly sensitive to early-stage decision-making. Decent Law Firm supports clients from the outset by analyzing the transaction structure, mapping fund flows, and separating objective facts from assumptions about awareness. We develop a defense framework by: Organizing a consistent statement strategy Selecting and arranging objective supporting materials Conducting precedent-based legal analysis to prevent unfounded allegations of conspiracy or intent Even if your transaction was legitimate, it is possible to be mischaracterized as a participant in criminal activity. In such situations, professional legal representation is not optional—it is essential. Decent Law Firm provides clear standards for evaluating risk and a structured, case-specific legal process for clients considering consultation regarding alleged involvement in OTC crypto fraud schemes.
-
Criminal Liability and Defense Strategies for Involvement in LBank Fraud
Criminal Liability Faced by Perpetrators Involved in LBank Fraud The most immediate consequence faced by individuals involved in LBank-related fraud is criminal liability. Where a person deceives another and obtains property or pecuniary benefits, the offense constitutes fraud, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million under Article 347(1) of the Korean Criminal Act. In addition, under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, penalties are enhanced depending on the amount fraudulently obtained: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more but less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine equivalent to the amount fraudulently obtained may be imposed concurrently. Furthermore, a person who commits telecommunications-based financial fraud may be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year or a fine ranging from three to five times the criminal proceeds, or both, pursuant to Article 15-2(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. Liability Varies Depending on the Role Played in LBank Fraud In LBank fraud cases, the severity of criminal liability varies depending on the participant’s role within the scheme. Those who act as masterminds or planners by designing and operating the overall structure face the heaviest punishment. Individuals who direct or instruct others may be evaluated as instigators or indirect principals. Even those who merely handle cash withdrawals or transfer funds may be punished as co-principals or accessories to telecommunications-based financial fraud. Simply claiming that one “followed instructions” does not exempt liability. Providing bank accounts or lending one’s name is also considered conduct that facilitates fraud and is subject to criminal punishment. In LBank fraud investigations, the key criterion is not the amount actually obtained, but rather the individual’s role within the overall criminal structure. Defense Strategies After Being Identified as a Suspect in LBank Fraud If you are identified as a suspect in an LBank fraud case, early-stage action is critical. Before appearing for questioning, it is essential to immediately retain legal counsel and participate in investigations with counsel present. A single statement or expression made during questioning may later be used as unfavorable evidence at trial. Where involvement is established, efforts toward victim restitution and settlement play a significant role in sentencing. Compensation and settlement with victims may be considered mitigating factors that reduce punishment. Conversely, flight, destruction of evidence, additional offenses, or attempts to coerce or threaten victims must never be taken lightly, as such conduct can decisively aggravate sentencing. For those enduring daily fear and uncertainty as a result of this case, it must be clearly recognized that the choices made now may determine the course of their future. How Decent Law Firm Assists in LBank Fraud Cases LBank fraud cases involve complex structures and overlapping legal provisions, making strategic action from the outset indispensable. Decent Law Firm carefully analyzes each participant’s role and level of involvement to define the scope of liability, and formulates defense strategies to prevent the case from expanding unfavorably during the investigative stage. Defense theories must differ clearly between peripheral participants and core figures, and approaches to statements, evidence organization, and victim restitution must be tailored to each individual case. Large-scale financial fraud cases such as LBank fraud should never be handled lightly. Without 전문적인 legal assistance, they can lead to irreversible consequences. Drawing on extensive experience in such matters, Decent Law Firm provides practical and effective legal representation from the initial investigation through trial. If you need assistance, you may consider working with Decent’s Virtual Asset Defense Team. We stand ready to serve as a reliable shield against the severe consequences of imprisonment.
