We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Korea VASP Major Shareholder Changes: 30-Day Prior Reporting Requirement
Foreign investors acquiring shares in a Korean virtual asset service provider (“VASP”) should now consider regulatory reporting requirements before determining the closing date of the transaction. Under the amendments to Korea’s Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, effective August 20, 2026, major shareholders become subject to expanded reporting and screening requirements. Changes relating to major shareholders will also shift from post-change reporting to a prior report generally required 30 days before the change. 1. Who Qualifies as a Major Shareholder of a Korean VASP? A major shareholder is not determined solely by a shareholder’s ownership percentage. Under the amended Act, major shareholders include the largest shareholder and principal shareholders. A principal shareholder may include a person who: owns at least 10% of the VASP’s voting shares; alone or together with others appoints the representative director or a majority of directors; or exercises substantial influence over major management decisions or business operations. Certain shareholders who are related parties of the largest shareholder may also fall within the reporting scope. Where the largest shareholder is a corporation, persons further up the ownership chain, including certain controlling persons and representatives of that corporate shareholder, may also need to be identified. 2. When Is a Major Shareholder Change Report Required? From August 20, 2026, changes involving a VASP’s major shareholders are subject to prior reporting, generally 30 days before the proposed change. Previously, relevant changes were generally reported after the event within the applicable reporting period. Under the revised framework, major shareholder changes and changes to the VASP’s compliance framework are treated as prior-reporting matters. This means that a share acquisition or investment should be reviewed not only from a contractual perspective but also based on: the proposed signing date; the filing date; the anticipated regulatory review period; the closing date; and the date on which the actual ownership or control change occurs. A transaction timetable that does not account for the reporting process may create regulatory risk. 3. What Types of Transactions May Trigger a Major Shareholder Review? A major shareholder change should be considered where a transaction changes the VASP’s ownership or control structure. Examples include: an investor acquiring 10% or more of the voting shares; a share purchase resulting in a new largest shareholder; changes among existing shareholders that alter the largest shareholder; an acquisition of rights that gives an investor substantial influence over management; and a change in the upstream ownership structure of a corporate major shareholder. Accordingly, an investment below 10% does not automatically fall outside the scope of review. Governance rights, director appointment rights, shareholder agreements and other arrangements affecting actual control should also be considered. 4. What Will Be Reviewed in Relation to a Major Shareholder? The amended framework expands regulatory review to include a major shareholder’s legal compliance history, financial condition and social creditworthiness. The filing may require information concerning the major shareholder’s: identity and nationality; shareholding and ownership interests; relationship with the largest shareholder and related parties; relevant legal violation or criminal history; financial condition; and matters relevant to social creditworthiness. The scope of laws considered in the screening process has also been expanded to cover additional economic crime and virtual asset-related legislation, including corresponding foreign laws in certain cases. For foreign investors, this means that regulatory due diligence may need to extend beyond the Korean VASP itself. 5. What If the Largest Shareholder Is a Foreign Corporation? The analysis may extend beyond the entity directly holding the shares of the Korean VASP. Where the largest shareholder is a corporation, certain persons exercising substantial influence over that corporation, as well as its representative and other persons prescribed by law, may fall within the reporting scope. The Korean Financial Services Commission has also noted that where ownership extends through multiple corporate entities or where a major shareholder is located overseas, obtaining the required documentation may take considerable time. Foreign investors should therefore identify the relevant upstream ownership and control structure before setting a fixed transaction closing date. 6. Do Existing Korean VASPs Need to Take Action? Yes. Existing registered VASPs should also review their shareholder and control structures under the amended regime. The transitional provisions require VASPs that were already registered when the amended Act takes effect to file under the revised Article 7 requirements within three months from the effective date. Existing VASPs should therefore review: their current largest shareholder; shareholders holding 10% or more of voting shares; related-party holdings; shareholders exercising substantial management influence; and relevant upstream ownership where the largest shareholder is a corporate entity. 7. What Happens If the Prior Reporting Requirement Is Not Followed? A major shareholder change should not be treated as a routine post-closing filing. The FSC has specifically cautioned that implementing a change subject to prior reporting before receiving notice that the report has been accepted may constitute a violation and may result in criminal or administrative sanctions. Failure to submit a required change report, or submitting a false or otherwise improper change report, may also result in criminal penalties under the Act. For this reason, the regulatory filing and acceptance process should be incorporated into the transaction structure before closing. 8. What Should Foreign Investors Check Before Investing in a Korean VASP? Before acquiring shares or control of a Korean VASP, the parties should review the following matters: post-transaction voting ownership; whether related-party holdings need to be aggregated; whether the investor will become the largest or a principal shareholder; director appointment and other governance rights; the ownership structure above any corporate shareholder; major shareholder screening issues; documents required from overseas shareholders; and the relationship between regulatory filing and transaction closing. Where a prior report is required, the transaction documents should also address whether acceptance of the regulatory filing will be a condition precedent to closing, the parties’ cooperation obligations and the consequences of delay or non-acceptance. 9. Frequently Asked Questions Q1. Does an investor holding less than 10% fall outside the major shareholder rules? Not necessarily. Even below the 10% threshold, a shareholder may fall within the scope of a principal shareholder if it exercises substantial influence over major management decisions or business operations. Q2. Can the parties sign a share purchase agreement before filing the major shareholder change report? Signing and the actual change in ownership or control should be distinguished. The key issue is that a change subject to prior reporting should not be implemented before the required reporting and acceptance process is completed. For this reason, the regulatory process should be reflected in the closing conditions and transaction timetable. Q3. Are overseas corporate shareholders also subject to review? Yes. Where the largest shareholder is a foreign corporation, the analysis may extend to its upstream ownership and controlling persons. Relevant corporate and ownership documents should therefore be prepared in advance. 10. Key Takeaways Effective August 20, 2026, changes relating to a Korean VASP’s major shareholders are generally subject to a 30-day prior reporting requirement. The analysis is not limited to a 10% ownership threshold. Changes involving the largest shareholder, substantial management influence or an upstream corporate ownership structure may also require review. Foreign investors considering an investment, share acquisition or M&A transaction involving a Korean VASP should therefore assess the major shareholder status, reporting requirements and transaction timeline before closing.
-
Marriage Fraud in Korea: Why You Need a Lawyer to Respond
What Does Marriage Fraud Mean Under Korean Law? In the past, Korea had a specific offense called "fraud through the pretense of marriage" (former Article 304 of the Criminal Act), which punished having sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage. However, in 2009 the Constitutional Court ruled this provision unconstitutional, retroactively nullifying its effect, and the provision was completely abolished when the Criminal Act was amended on December 18, 2012. Today, "marriage fraud" is therefore not a separate criminal offense. Instead, it is prosecuted as ordinary fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act where a person, without any real intention of marrying, deceives another person into believing otherwise in order to obtain financial gain. If the amount defrauded is KRW 500 million or more, the offender may face aggravated punishment under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. A simple broken engagement, breakup, or failed relationship is not, by itself, punishable. The key question is whether the person never had the intention or ability to marry from the outset, yet deceived the victim to obtain money. Proving the causal link between the deceptive act and the transfer of property is the decisive factor in determining guilt or innocence. In other words, for fraud to be established, a sequential causal relationship must be recognized among the deceptive act, the victim's mistaken belief, and the victim's disposal of property. What Is the Process, From Investigation to Trial? When allegations of marriage fraud arise, the case typically proceeds through the following stages. Filing a complaint - The victim files a fraud complaint with the police. Investigation begins - Police examine phone records, text messages, bank account transactions, and other evidence of deception and the flow of funds. Suspect questioning - Statements are obtained on whether the suspect genuinely intended to marry. Referral to the prosecution and a decision on indictment. Trial proceedings - The court reaches a final determination on guilt and sentencing. Because how the existence of an intent to marry is proven often determines the outcome of the case, anyone who has been accused of, or victimized by, marriage fraud should seek legal assistance from the earliest possible stage. A Real Case of Marriage Fraud [Case We Handled] Ms. B, a woman in her 40s, gave tens of millions of won to a man who had promised to marry her, claiming the money was for business capital, but he disappeared just before the wedding. The investigation revealed that he had already taken money from several other victims in different regions using the same scheme, and his deliberate deception was recognized, leading to his indictment for fraud. As this case shows, the outcome of a marriage fraud case often depends on how thoroughly the repeated scheme and the flow of funds can be uncovered. The Role of a Lawyer, and Why You Should Work With Decent Marriage fraud cases call for the following professional approach. Analyzing phone records, messages, and account data to substantiate the intent to deceive. Developing a statement strategy tailored to the client's position, whether victim or suspect. Reviewing whether to pursue a criminal complaint and a civil claim for damages in parallel. Decent Law Firm has extensive experience handling property crime cases, closely analyzing each client's situation and building a systematic strategy from the complaint-preparation stage through investigation and trial. We stand by clients who are exhausted, financially and emotionally, by marriage fraud, working to ensure they are not disadvantaged from beginning to end. If you have already suffered harm or been accused, we recommend consulting a lawyer experienced in property crime rather than making decisions on your own. Decent Law Firm is always ready to provide prompt, accurate legal consultation to help you find the best direction for your situation.
-
Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud in Korea: Can You Recover Your Money?
Current Trends in Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud Unlisted shares are shares that are not traded on a public stock exchange. In Korea, these shares are often sold through private transactions, intermediaries, or over-the-counter channels. Because pricing information is not publicly available and the transaction process is often opaque, unlisted stock investments can easily become a source of fraud. A common pattern involves inducing investors to pay large sums based on claims such as “the company will soon be listed” or “a KOSDAQ listing is imminent.” Victims often wait for years, believing that the listing has simply been delayed, and may not realize that they have been defrauded until much later. Recently, fraud schemes have become more sophisticated. Rather than selling shares that do not exist, some perpetrators sell shares that actually exist but are of little value, inducing victims to purchase them at prices dozens of times higher than their real market value. Because the shares themselves may exist, victims often find it difficult to recognize the fraud at an early stage. This article explains the laws and court precedents that may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud in Korea, as well as the legal options available for recovering investment losses. Applicable Laws Several Korean laws may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud cases, depending on the facts, the amount of damage, and the role of each participant. Category Main Issue Statutory Penalty Fraud Obtaining money or property by inducing investment through false information Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act: imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million Aggravated Fraud Fraud involving damages of KRW 500 million or more Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes: imprisonment for at least 3 years Illegal Fund-Raising Receiving investment funds without authorization while promising principal or profit guarantees Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million Violation of the Capital Markets Act Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Article 444 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Depending on the scale of the damage and the manner of involvement, multiple charges may apply at the same time. Key Factors in Determining Fraud For fraud to be established in an unlisted stock investment case, the investigative authorities must examine whether there was deception and fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that: “Unless the defendant confesses, fraudulent intent, which is a subjective element of fraud, must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial condition before and after the act, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the transaction, and the process of performance.” — Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570, December 27, 2019 In other words, even if the perpetrator claims that they genuinely believed the company would be listed, investigative authorities and courts may still find fraudulent intent based on objective facts, such as the company’s financial condition, false explanations, and how the investment funds were used. In practice, investigators often focus on the following circumstances: False listing schedule: whether the perpetrator stated a specific listing timeline despite the lack of any realistic basis. Misuse of investment funds: whether the money was used for purposes different from what was promised to investors. Impossibility of performance: whether it was impossible from the beginning to transfer the shares or perform the promised obligations. Active involvement of intermediaries: whether an introducer or broker received commissions or directly participated in persuading the investor. Fraud organizations may also attempt to avoid liability under the illegal fund-raising regulations by avoiding direct phrases such as “principal guarantee.” Instead, they may use indirect expressions such as “repurchase commitment if listing fails” or “compensation for the difference if the public offering price is lower than expected.” Under Korean court practice, these types of clauses may still be interpreted as an agreement to preserve principal or profits under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Legal Strategy for Recovering Investment Losses Filing a criminal complaint does not automatically result in the recovery of the invested funds. In many cases, both criminal and civil procedures must be considered together. A criminal complaint can be useful because it allows investigative authorities to trace the flow of funds and secure evidence through compulsory investigation. If search and seizure is conducted at an early stage, it may help identify relevant accounts and determine where the investment funds went. Civil asset preservation measures, such as provisional attachment, are also important. These procedures are designed to freeze the perpetrator’s assets before they are disposed of or transferred. In many cases, filing for provisional attachment at the same time as, or shortly after, the criminal complaint can improve the possibility of recovery. The likelihood of recovery usually depends on the following factors: Assets held by the perpetrator: real estate, bank deposits, or other identifiable assets may be subject to provisional attachment. Traceability of funds: clear bank transfer records and account flows can make recovery more realistic. Scope of accomplices: if introducers, recruiters, or account holders were involved, it may be possible to pursue claims against those whose assets can be identified. Timing of response: the earlier the response, the more legal options may remain before the perpetrator disappears or disposes of assets. In unlisted stock investment fraud cases, the question is not only whether a criminal complaint can be filed. It is equally important to determine who should be targeted, what assets may be preserved, and which legal procedures should be pursued first. Review by DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense and Fraud Response Team Unlisted stock investment fraud cases require a comprehensive legal review. The key issues include whether fraud can be established, whether accomplices can be identified, whether assets can be preserved, and how criminal and civil procedures should be coordinated. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense and fraud response team has handled unlisted stock investment fraud cases from the criminal complaint stage through asset preservation and recovery strategy. If your investment has not been returned, or if the person in charge has stopped responding, it is important to review your situation before more time passes. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
-
Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Strategy in Korea: Why You Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer Immediately
A detention warrant request is not the end of an investigation — in many cases, it is the moment that determines the direction of the entire criminal case. In Korea, once prosecutors request a detention warrant, the court usually conducts a pre-trial detention hearing within approximately 48 hours. What happens during this short window can significantly affect whether the suspect remains free or is taken into custody. Only 48 Hours to Prepare A Korean pre-trial detention hearing (often referred to as a warrant review hearing) is a procedure where a judge directly questions the suspect before deciding whether detention is necessary. Within this limited timeframe, the defense team must quickly: review the investigation status, meet the detained suspect, analyze statements and evidence, prepare written submissions, organize supporting materials, and develop a hearing strategy. In practice, many detention decisions are heavily influenced by the preparation completed before the hearing even begins. What Korean Courts Focus on in Detention Hearings Korean courts generally evaluate three core issues when deciding whether to issue a detention warrant. 1. Risk of Flight The court considers whether the suspect may avoid future investigation or trial proceedings. Stable residence, employment, family ties, and long-term connections to Korea can become important factors supporting release. 2. Risk of Evidence Tampering Judges also examine whether the suspect may destroy evidence, influence witnesses, or coordinate statements with related parties. If major evidence has already been secured and the suspect has cooperated with investigators, these points may help reduce concerns about detention necessity. 3. Seriousness of the Alleged Crime The court reviews the severity of the allegations, potential repeat offenses, financial damage, and overall case structure. At the same time, factors such as victim compensation efforts, settlement discussions, remorse, or legal disputes regarding the allegations may also be considered by the court. A criminal defense lawyer structures the defense strategy around these exact legal standards rather than relying on emotional appeals alone. A Detention Hearing Lawyer Does Much More Than Attend Court Effective defense in detention cases is usually built before the hearing date. ✔️ Immediate Client Interview and Statement Review The lawyer meets the suspect as quickly as possible to understand the case structure, prior statements made to investigators, and any inconsistencies or legal risks that may affect the hearing. ✔️ Written Opinions and Supporting Materials Defense counsel prepares written submissions explaining why detention is unnecessary. These materials may include: proof of residence, employment records, family relationship documents, medical conditions, cooperation history, transaction records, contracts, or communication evidence relevant to the allegations. The quality and organization of these submissions can directly affect the judge’s perception of the case. ✔️ Hearing Preparation and Statement Strategy During the hearing, suspects are questioned directly by the judge. Answers given during this process can significantly influence the outcome. An experienced lawyer helps prepare how key facts should be explained, which issues require caution, and how to maintain a consistent legal position throughout the hearing. ✔️ Planning for Possible Detention Even before the hearing concludes, the defense may also prepare follow-up measures such as detention review requests, bail applications, or additional legal filings if detention is ultimately granted. Early Defense Is Especially Important in Financial and Crypto-Related Cases Cases involving cryptocurrency, investment disputes, fraud allegations, voice phishing, OTC crypto transactions, or financial crimes are often highly technical and document-heavy. Simply claiming innocence is rarely enough. The defense must clearly explain transaction structures, fund flows, business relationships, and the suspect’s actual role in a way the court can realistically understand within a short hearing. In multi-party investigations, statements made by co-defendants or related individuals can also create additional risks at the detention stage. For foreign nationals living in Korea or international business operators, these risks may become even more serious due to language barriers, visa concerns, or misunderstandings regarding Korean criminal procedures. Detention Is Not a Conviction — But It Changes Everything A detention warrant does not mean guilt has been proven. However, actual detention can severely affect: preparation of the defense, business operations, employment, immigration status, family life, and psychological stability. There is a substantial practical difference between defending a criminal case while free and defending it while detained. If you have been contacted by Korean investigators or informed that a detention warrant may be requested, immediate legal review is strongly recommended. The criminal defense team at Decent Law Firm handles detention hearings, financial crime investigations, cryptocurrency-related criminal matters, and complex economic crime cases involving both Korean and foreign clients in Korea. Early action often shapes the outcome.
-
Crypto Futures Trading Scams in Korea: Are Traders and Promoters Also Liable?
Crypto futures "signal groups" — private channels that claim to share exclusive trading tips — may look like legitimate investment communities on the surface. But depending on how they operate, they can expose everyone involved to serious criminal liability under Korean law, including violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FSCMA), fraud charges, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. What many don't realize is that it's not just the organizers who get prosecuted. Analysts, mentors, and promoters are increasingly being indicted as co-conspirators. How Serious Are the Penalties? Two core charges typically apply in these cases: operating an unregistered investment advisory or discretionary service under the FSCMA, and fraud through false or misleading information. If you directed buy/sell timing and leverage ratios for clients without proper financial registration — and received fees or a share of profits in return — you could face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 100 million KRW. Add in guarantees of high returns, promises to cover losses, or fabricated profit screenshots and fake trading screens, and fraud charges stack on top. When victim losses exceed certain thresholds, penalties escalate sharply under the Aggravated Punishment Act: Over 500 million KRW → minimum 3 years imprisonment Over 5 billion KRW → minimum 5 years imprisonment Who Gets Charged — and for What? These operations typically divide labor: a ringleader who runs the group, analysts or mentors who give trading calls, and promoters or account managers who recruit investors. • Ringleaders and Mentors Ringleaders control the group setup, the scripts, and the money flow. Korean courts treat them as primary offenders — the ones who bear the heaviest sentences across fraud, FSCMA violations, and the Aggravated Punishment Act. Analysts and mentors who gave specific trade instructions, or who fabricated credentials to gain investor trust, are regularly indicted alongside ringleaders as co-offenders. • Promoters "I was just doing marketing" is rarely an effective defense. Even if your only role was funneling people into the group via Instagram DMs, KakaoTalk, or Telegram, knowingly recruiting investors into a fraudulent operation can make you liable for aiding and abetting fraud — or as a full co-conspirator. In structures where promoters received a significant cut of investor trading fees through referral commissions, Korean prosecutors have treated them as an integral part of the criminal enterprise. There are documented cases where dozens of staff members were referred to prosecutors simultaneously on fraud and Financial Information Act violation charges. Why "I Only Took a Referral Fee" Won't Hold Up A common setup in Korea-based crypto futures signal groups involves partnering with offshore exchanges. Promoters drive sign-ups through referral codes and earn a percentage of each investor's trading fees — meaning the more an investor trades (and loses), the more the organization earns. Prosecutors view this as a structure designed to push investors toward high-risk, high-leverage trades to generate fee income — and they open investigations accordingly. Promoters and sales staff often argue: "I never gave trade instructions. I just helped people sign up and collected referral fees." But if the evidence shows any of the following, you may be assessed as an active participant in the fraud rather than a peripheral one: You approached unspecified individuals with exaggerated claims of high returns or loss recovery You were aware that the structure was heavily disadvantageous to investors You continued recruiting even after it became foreseeable that investors would suffer losses That said, where a promoter's actual role, knowledge, and financial benefit were genuinely limited, there are cases where thorough documentation at the investigation stage led to a finding of no grounds for indictment. Were You Involved in Promoting or Running a Signal Group? If you have a history of involvement — or are currently participating in a referral fee arrangement — you need to assess your criminal exposure before investigators come to you. Start by getting clear on the facts: What exactly did you tell investors? What did you actually know about how the operation worked? And how much did you receive in fees or incentives? Organizing this into a clear, documented account is the essential first step. If You've Been Notified of an Investigation, Act Now Decent Law Firm's virtual asset practice has handled cases involving signal group operators, analysts, and promoters — carefully distinguishing the degree of involvement in fraud, FSCMA violations, and Financial Information Act charges to build targeted defense strategies. If you've received notice of an investigation into a crypto futures signal group, or you're concerned about potential exposure, don't assume your role was too minor to matter. Getting your role and the evidence organized before the investigation escalates is the safest move you can make. Speak with a Korean virtual asset attorney today.
-
Crypto Futures Scam in Korea: Can Traders and Promoters Be Held Liable?
More Than Just “Signal Sharing” Crypto futures signal groups in Korea often appear to provide investment insights, but depending on their structure, they can expose participants to serious criminal liability, including violations of Korean financial laws, fraud, and aggravated economic crimes. Korean authorities are increasingly targeting not only operators but also analysts, mentors, and promoters involved in these groups. Liability is assessed based on actual involvement, meaning even those with seemingly limited roles may still be treated as accomplices. Legal Risks Under Korean Law Many cases involve unregistered investment advisory or discretionary services under Korean financial regulations. Providing specific trading instructions—such as entry/exit timing or leverage—while receiving fees or profit-sharing may constitute a violation. If combined with misleading representations, such as guaranteed returns, loss recovery promises, or fabricated performance records, fraud charges are typically added. As the financial scale of the case increases, penalties escalate significantly. In large-scale cases, Korea’s aggravated punishment framework applies, making custodial sentences a realistic outcome. Liability by Role: Operator, Analyst, Promoter These groups are usually structured with distinct roles. Operators who design and control the system and financial flow are considered primary offenders and face the most severe penalties. Analysts or mentors who provide trading guidance or influence investment decisions based on claimed expertise may also be charged as co-offenders. Promoters often assume they are safe because they “only handled marketing,” but Korean enforcement practice does not necessarily support this view. If a promoter understood the structure and continued recruiting investors, they may be treated as an accomplice or as aiding fraud. In referral-based structures, where promoters earn commissions from trading activity, their role is often viewed as part of the core business operation rather than simple advertising. Why “Referral Fees Only” Is Not a Safe Defense Many Korea-related crypto futures schemes are linked to offshore exchanges and use referral codes to generate revenue from investor trading fees. Because revenue increases with higher trading volume and risk-taking, Korean regulators may view this structure as encouraging excessive risk for profit. Even if a promoter did not directly give trading instructions, investigators will examine chat logs, promotional messages, and communication patterns. If there is evidence of aggressive marketing, exaggerated returns, or continued recruitment despite foreseeable losses, liability may still be established. However, where involvement was limited and knowledge of the structure was minimal, early clarification during the investigation stage can lead to more favorable outcomes. If You Are Involved or Under Investigation If you have participated in operating or promoting a crypto futures group related to Korea, or are currently receiving referral commissions, it is important to assess your legal exposure early. You should organize, based on objective evidence, what information you provided to investors, what you understood about the structure and risks, and the extent of your financial benefit. Korean investigations rely heavily on documented evidence. Early preparation can significantly affect the outcome. Act Before Enforcement Begins In Korea, the outcome of crypto-related fraud cases is often shaped before formal enforcement actions progress. Once authorities begin search and seizure or formal investigation, it becomes much harder to reposition your case. Decent Law Firm provides legal support in crypto-related cases in Korea, including signal group and referral-based structures, with strategies tailored to each participant’s role and level of involvement. If you are concerned about potential liability, now is the time to review your position and prepare.
