We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Stock Signal Group Fraud in Korea: A Guide From Reporting to Recovering Your Losses
1. When Can Losses From a Stock Signal Group Be Considered Fraud? If the operator of a stock "signal group" deceived investors with lies or fabricated materials to make them hand over money, this may constitute fraud. Article 347 of Korea's Criminal Act punishes deceiving a person to obtain property or a property-related benefit as fraud. The current statutory penalty for fraud is imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. This penalty was increased by an amendment that took effect on December 23, 2025. What matters, however, is not simply that the investment result was poor, but whether there was deception in the process that led the victim to pay money. For example, the following circumstances warrant a closer look at the underlying facts. Claiming to represent an expert or company that does not actually exist Presenting fabricated account returns or trading records Promising to guarantee the principal or a fixed return despite the possibility of loss Receiving money in the name of investment funds without actually investing it Demanding additional deposits under pretexts such as taxes, security deposits, or fees when withdrawal is requested Giving an explanation about the use of the funds or the transaction structure that differs from the truth In particular, if a person received investment funds while having no intention or ability from the outset to provide a legitimate investment service, whether fraud is established can be examined more actively. If the amount gained through the crime is KRW 500 million or more, aggravated punishment under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may also be examined. However, how to calculate the damages of multiple victims can vary depending on the structure of the offense and the relationships among co-offenders. 2. Does Every Investment Loss in Stocks Mean Fraud? No. The mere fact that a loss occurred due to normal market fluctuations during an otherwise legitimate investment does not establish fraud. Because stock prices inherently carry the possibility of fluctuation, it is difficult to punish an operator for fraud simply because a recommended stock fell in price or an expected return was not achieved. Therefore, in the investigation process, what explanation the investor received before paying money or purchasing stock is generally the key point of review. Key checkpoints for distinguishing fraud from a simple loss Category What to check Evidence worth securing Likely a simple investment loss Stock was actually purchased normally, and the loss occurred from market fluctuation Securities account transaction history, recommendation messages False representation of returns Fake profit verification or manipulated account screens presented Advertisement screenshots, profit-verification images Guarantee of principal or profit Explanation that "there is no loss" or "the return is guaranteed" KakaoTalk/Telegram conversations, recordings Inducement of additional deposits Additional remittances demanded citing withdrawal, taxes, deposits, etc. Remittance records, withdrawal-request conversations False use of investment funds Money was said to be invested but was actually used for other purposes Account transfer records, contracts Individualized investment instructions Specific stocks, prices, and buy/sell timing continuously instructed for the individual 1:1 consultation records, paid chat room conversations Ultimately, what matters more than the size of the loss is whether the explanation that led to the investment decision was true. In particular, if you were told things such as "insider information available only to VIPs," "a stock confirmed to list soon," or "the company guarantees the principal," you should check whether there was any actual basis for such claims. 3. Even If It Is Not Fraud, Could It Violate the Capital Markets Act? Yes. Depending on how the stock signal group is operated, a violation of the Capital Markets Act may be at issue separately from fraud. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act currently defines as a "quasi-investment advisory business" the business of providing, for consideration from customers, non-individualized advice on investment judgments or the value of financial investment products through publications, broadcasts, or other communication media. On the other hand, if advice on investment judgment is provided individually, reflecting an investor's financial situation or investment objectives, this may fall under the "investment advisory business." In connection with a system implemented from August 14, 2024, Korea's Financial Services Commission has announced that providing investment advice to paying members through two-way channels such as SNS or open chat rooms may be subject to regulation as an investment advisory business. Operating an investment advisory business without registration may raise issues of imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million under Articles 17 and 445 of the Capital Markets Act. In addition, Article 101-2 of the Capital Markets Act currently prohibits quasi-investment advisory businesses from the following types of advertising. Advertising that could be mistaken for that of a financial company Advertising that could be mistaken as guaranteeing against loss or guaranteeing profit Advertising presenting a rate of return that is false or has not actually been realized This is a currently effective regulation. Therefore, the mere fact that an operator reported itself to the financial authorities as a quasi-investment advisory business does not mean that all of its business practices are automatically lawful. 4. If I File a Criminal Complaint, Can I Get My Money Back? Filing a criminal complaint alone does not automatically result in the return of the money you lost. Criminal procedure is a process for determining whether the offender's crime is established and for imposing punishment. Therefore, even if the investigative agency recognizes the fraud charge, if the offender has no assets, there may be real difficulty in recovering the lost funds. To recover the lost funds, the following methods can be considered together with the criminal procedure. ① Civil claim for damages Under Article 750 of the Civil Act, a person can claim damages from someone who caused harm through an intentional or negligent unlawful act. ② Provisional attachment If you have identified specific assets of the offender, such as a bank account or real estate, a provisional attachment before filing the main lawsuit can be considered. Article 276 of the Civil Execution Act recognizes provisional attachment as a way to preserve future compulsory execution of monetary claims and the like. However, obtaining a provisional attachment requires substantiating the underlying claim and the necessity of preservation. ③ Order for restitution at the criminal trial stage If a fraud case is prosecuted, filing for an order for restitution during the criminal trial can also be considered. Once an order for restitution is finalized, the certified copy of the guilty judgment may carry the same effect as a certified copy of a civil judgment with executory force for purposes of compulsory execution. However, if the amount of damages or the scope of liability is unclear, the court may dismiss the application for restitution. Recovering the lost funds therefore requires looking not only at whether to file a complaint, but also at the offender's personal details and assets, the remittance route, and the stage of the criminal case. 5. What Should I Prepare Before Reporting a Stock Signal Group Scam? The first thing to do is to secure the relevant materials before leaving the signal group chat room or deleting the conversation. Stock signal group cases often involve advertising, consultation, and deposits all taking place online, so posts may be deleted or the operator may switch accounts as time passes. It is advisable to organize the following materials in their original form as much as possible. 1) Keep the entire chat history of the signal group Rather than picking out only the stock recommendation messages from KakaoTalk, Telegram, or text messages, secure the entire flow from the inducement to join through the request for investment and withdrawal. 2) Capture the advertisements and return-rate materials Keep the advertisements you saw when you joined, such as promises of a guaranteed principal, guaranteed returns, expert credentials, and successful investment cases. 3) Organize the deposit and transaction records Organize, in chronological order, who you sent money to, which account it went to, and how much. If you actually purchased stock through a securities account, prepare that transaction history as well. 4) Secure information about the operator and the business Secure the trade name, the representative's name, the phone number, the account holder's name, the website address, the business registration number, and any SNS accounts used. 5) Write out the timeline of the harm Organizing the sequence of events — the date you first saw the advertisement → joining → the explanation given → the initial deposit → additional deposits → the demand for withdrawal → loss of contact — helps you explain the facts of the complaint more clearly. 6) Keep other victims' materials separate from your own account of the facts Even where other victims of the same signal group are identified, the amount deposited and the explanations given may differ from victim to victim. You should keep what you personally experienced separate from other victims' materials. If you realized you had been victimized right after sending money, it is advisable to contact your financial institution and the investigative agency promptly to check whether any action can be taken on that transaction. However, an immediate account freeze is not possible in every stock signal group case, so the specific remittance method and type of crime involved should be checked separately. 6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q1. The stock signal group said the principal was guaranteed, but I incurred a loss. Is that automatically fraud? A promise to guarantee the principal can be an important piece of evidence, but that alone does not conclusively establish fraud. It is necessary to comprehensively check whether there was actually an intention and ability to cover the loss at the time of the promise, whether false returns or false information were presented along with it, and whether the investor paid money in reliance on that explanation. Because the Capital Markets Act also regulates loss compensation and profit guarantees by quasi-investment advisory businesses, an issue under the Capital Markets Act can be examined separately from criminal fraud. Q2. If the investment advisory firm is unregistered, is the contract automatically void and can I get a full refund? The mere fact that a firm is unregistered does not mean the entire contract automatically becomes void. Korea's Supreme Court has held that a violation of the prohibition on operating an unregistered investment advisory business under Article 17 of the Capital Markets Act does not, by itself, mean that the private-law effect of the investment advisory contract is immediately negated. Q3. If the signal group has already been deleted and I cannot reach the operator, is it difficult to report? The fact that some materials have disappeared does not mean that reporting itself is impossible. You should first secure whatever materials remain, such as account transfer records, text messages, existing screenshots, card payment records, and the other party's phone number and account holder's name. In particular, since the account holder and the actual signal group operator may be different people, it is important to organize the flow of funds and the role of each party involved. 7. Summary and Points to Note The mere fact that a loss occurred in a stock signal group does not by itself establish fraud. Whether there was a false explanation at the time of joining or investing, whether money was paid in reliance on that explanation, and how the operator actually used the funds are the key factors for judgment. If you suspect you have been victimized, rather than simply contacting the operator repeatedly, you should first preserve the chat history, advertising materials, remittance records, and a timeline of what happened. Decent Law Firm reviews the circumstances of joining, the process of inducement to invest, the flow of funds, and the operator's explanatory materials in stock signal group cases to identify the applicable issues, such as fraud and violations of the Capital Markets Act. In addition to filing a criminal complaint, when the other party's assets can be identified, we review procedures for recovering the lost funds — such as provisional attachment, a civil claim for damages, and an order for restitution — and guide clients toward a response strategy suited to the stage of their case.
-
The CATFI Rug Pull Case and Unfair Trading Under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act
Meme coins often attract investors because they can be launched relatively quickly and may experience sharp price increases within a short period. Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, facilitate trades through smart contracts and automated protocols rather than a centralized order-matching system. Once a token has been issued, trading can begin by creating a liquidity pool without going through the formal listing review typically required by a centralized exchange. This structure can attract investors seeking early exposure to newly launched tokens. At the same time, there has been growing concern over so-called rug pulls, in which project operators use false or misleading information to drive up the price of a token and then sell their holdings all at once. In May 2026, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office indicted individuals involved in the issuance of the meme coin CATFI on charges including violations of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants circulated false positive announcements, manipulated the token’s trading activity, and obtained unlawful profits. The case was the first in which prosecutors applied the Act’s provisions on fraudulent unfair trading. This article examines the laws that may apply to rug pulls and the key legal issues arising from such cases. Laws That May Apply to Rug Pull Schemes A rug pull is not a separately defined criminal offense under Korean law. Depending on how the scheme was structured, several provisions may apply. Where false disclosures, artificial trading activity, or market manipulation are involved, Article 10 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, which prohibits unfair trading practices, may become relevant. Category Main Conduct Relevant Provision Use of material non-public information A virtual asset service provider, issuer, or other relevant party uses undisclosed material information for trading Article 10(1) Market manipulation through matched or wash trades Parties coordinate transactions in advance or conduct trades without a genuine transfer of economic ownership Article 10(2) Market manipulation through actual trades Trades are carried out to induce others to buy or sell by artificially moving the market price Article 10(3) Fraudulent unfair trading A person uses fraudulent means, schemes, or deceptive practices, or makes false statements about material facts Article 10(4) If the parties behind a rug pull used multiple wallets to trade among themselves and artificially inflate transaction volume, Article 10(2) may apply. If investors were attracted through false lock-up announcements, fabricated social media engagement, or other misleading representations, Article 10(4) may also become relevant. A violation of these provisions may result in imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to three to five times the profit obtained or loss avoided through the violation under Article 19(1). Where the unlawful profit or avoided loss is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion, the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for at least three years. Where the amount is KRW 5 billion or more, the punishment may be life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least five years under Article 19(3). Separate from criminal penalties, the Financial Services Commission may also impose an administrative surcharge in connection with unfair trading conduct. Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings are legally distinct and may be pursued through separate procedures. The CATFI Case and the Legal Test for a Rug Pull According to the prosecution, the individuals involved in CATFI divided their holdings across multiple wallets and announced a lock-up plan on social media even though the promised restrictions were not actually observed. An influencer allegedly presented himself as an independent third party with no connection to the issuing group and encouraged investors to purchase the token. The defendants were also accused of using multiple wallets to create the appearance of active trading and rising demand. Once purchases by ordinary investors increased, they sold their holdings in a large-scale disposal. The token reportedly increased in value by approximately 1,001 times within 26 hours of issuance. Around 6,000 individuals purchased the token, and 256 investors were found to have suffered losses totaling approximately KRW 900 million. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants used approximately KRW 10 million in initial funds and obtained roughly KRW 400 million in sale proceeds. At the first trial hearing held on June 30, 2026, the defendants admitted the charges. Prosecutors requested a sentence of four years and six months for the influencer alleged to have led the scheme. However, a sharp decline in a token’s price or the failure of a project does not automatically establish a criminal rug pull. Virtual asset investments inherently involve price volatility. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a genuine business failure and a scheme designed from the outset to deceive investors and extract funds. In practice, investigators may examine whether: ▪️ The parties had planned to sell their holdings before the token was issued or concealed the true amount held by the project team ▪️ Lock-up or token-burning plans were falsely announced, or holdings were distributed across multiple wallets to disguise common ownership ▪️ Trading volume and price movements were artificially created, followed by the closure of social media channels or online communities immediately after the sale Key Legal Issues and Response Options 🔹Criminal Liability of Influencers and Marketing Personnel A person does not avoid criminal liability simply because they did not personally issue the token. An influencer, marketing agency, or account operator may be investigated as a principal offender or an accomplice if they coordinated with the issuing group, published false information, or recommended the token while falsely presenting themselves as an independent third party. Relevant evidence may include: ▪️ Records showing that tokens were transferred to the promoter before the marketing campaign ▪️ Messages concerning the sharing of sale proceeds or trading profits ▪️ Records showing that promotional content was published despite knowledge that the information was false These materials may be important in determining whether the person merely provided advertising services or knowingly participated in the scheme. 🔹Options for Investor Recovery Article 10(6) of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides that a person who violates the unfair trading provisions may be liable for losses caused to users by the violation. Accordingly, investors may consider a civil claim for damages separately from any criminal complaint or prosecution. In practice, however, recovery may be difficult where the issuer operated through anonymous wallets. Identifying the responsible parties and proving a causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the investment loss can require a detailed review of both blockchain records and online promotional materials. Investors should therefore preserve relevant evidence as early as possible, including wallet addresses, transaction hashes, purchase records, social media posts, and announcements concerning lock-ups, listings, or partnerships. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice The CATFI case demonstrates that even where a meme coin is traded through a DEX, false announcements, coordinated trading, and artificial price movements may lead to liability under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act. It also shows that affected investors may need to consider both criminal proceedings and civil claims for damages. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice reviews on-chain transaction structures and blockchain fund flows in connection with rug pulls, market manipulation, criminal complaints, investigations, and civil damages claims. Where an investment loss appears to involve a rug pull or other unfair trading conduct, legal advice should be obtained at an early stage, beginning with the preservation and review of evidence. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
-
Need Compensation for an Investment Scam?
Does Any of This Sound Familiar? ✔️ Cryptocurrency / Virtual Asset Scam Patterns You were invited to a high-return crypto investment group through social media or an open chat room. After making a small initial investment, you actually received profits. Once you invested more money, withdrawals suddenly became unavailable. The person in charge disappeared, or the investment platform itself vanished. ✔️ Stock Recommendation Service Scam Patterns It started as a free stock recommendation service. You initially made profits from recommended stocks. You were encouraged to join a VIP group or paid service. After paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees, your losses continued to grow. If any of the above applies to you, there is a significant possibility that you have been the victim of investment fraud. Before blaming yourself, consider whether legal remedies may be available. Why Compensation May Be Possible — Legal Grounds Many victims ask: "I've already transferred the money. Can I still recover it?" In many cases, the answer is yes. Criminal Complaint (Fraud Investigation) Filing a criminal complaint can initiate an official investigation and enable law enforcement authorities to trace bank accounts and investigate criminal proceeds. In addition, asset-freezing measures such as preliminary attachment orders or payment suspension procedures under applicable financial fraud regulations may help prevent the dissipation of assets. Civil Damages Claim Victims may also pursue the return of their losses through civil litigation, either independently or alongside criminal proceedings. Where multiple individuals participated in the fraud, all participants may be held jointly liable under the principle of joint tort liability. This means that victims may seek recovery of the full amount of their losses from any one of the responsible parties. Furthermore, since the implementation of South Korea's Virtual Asset User Protection Act on July 19, 2024, the legal framework for responding to virtual asset-related fraud has become stronger than before. Why Legal Representation Matters Recovering losses from investment scams is difficult not because victims lack knowledge of the law, but because fraudsters deliberately conceal their tracks. Fraud organizations often: Split funds across multiple accounts Operate through multiple entities or shell companies Launder proceeds through virtual assets and overseas platforms As a result, a simple complaint or basic police report is often insufficient to uncover the full structure of the scheme. Even when a case is formally reported, investigations may end with "suspect unknown" or "insufficient evidence" unless the case is properly supported. Effective recovery efforts often require: Early evidence preservation strategies (chat records, bank transfers, platform screenshots, etc.) Experience working with virtual asset exchanges and tracing transactions Coordinated group actions involving multiple victims The ability to pursue both criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously Without an experienced virtual asset litigation team, navigating these processes can be extremely challenging. What Makes Decent Law Firm Different Decent Law Firm operates a dedicated team focused on virtual asset disputes and investment fraud cases. Attorneys who understand cryptocurrency exchanges, blockchain transactions, and digital asset investigations approach these cases from an entirely different starting point. Our Experience Includes: Cooperation with virtual asset exchanges and regulatory authorities Simultaneous criminal and civil recovery strategies Representation of groups of victims in collective actions Development of evidence preservation and recovery strategies tailored to victims In investment fraud cases, time is critical. The longer the delay, the greater the risk that assets will be dispersed and evidence will disappear. Prompt action can significantly improve the likelihood of recovery. One Thing You Should Do Right Now Preserve Your Evidence. Keep any materials you still have, including: KakaoTalk or messaging app conversations Bank transfer records Screenshots of investment platforms or applications Wallet addresses and account information Contact details of the individuals involved Even if the other party has disappeared, and even if the platform no longer exists, legal options may still be available. The sooner action is taken, the better the chances of protecting your rights and recovering your losses.
-
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.
-
Involved in a USDT Exchange Transaction in Korea?
Legal Risks of Crypto OTC Transactions, Money Laundering Allegations, and Accomplice Liability Some individuals become involved in USDT (Tether) exchange transactions in Korea believing they are simply helping with a private crypto transfer or OTC deal, only to later find themselves under investigation for fraud, money laundering, or violations of Korean financial regulations. In recent years, Korean investigative authorities have increasingly focused on crypto-based money laundering structures connected to voice phishing, investment scams, illegal gambling operations, and overseas criminal organizations. As a result, even participants who were not part of the original scam may become subject to criminal investigation if they are found to have handled, converted, or transferred suspicious funds. This article explains the key Korean laws, court precedents, and investigative standards commonly applied in USDT exchange cases involving alleged accomplice liability or concealment of criminal proceeds. Why USDT Is Frequently Used in Money Laundering Schemes USDT (Tether) is a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar and is widely used because of its relatively stable value and fast cross-border transfer capability. However, these same characteristics also make USDT attractive to criminal organizations seeking to move or conceal illegally obtained funds. In Korea, investigative authorities have recently uncovered multiple cases where proceeds from voice phishing or investment fraud were converted into USDT and transferred to overseas wallets or cash-out channels. In March 2026, for example, Seoul Jungnang Police announced the arrest of 19 individuals involved in laundering fraud proceeds through USDT conversion schemes linked to overseas criminal groups, with approximately KRW 6 billion in criminal assets seized. Under Korea’s Act on Reporting and Use of Certain Financial Transaction Information (commonly referred to as the “Special Financial Transactions Act” or “Special Act”), anti-money laundering obligations primarily apply to registered Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). As a result, OTC crypto transactions conducted privately between individuals often become a gray area where the participant’s knowledge and intent become the central legal issue. Major Korean Laws That May Apply 1) Fraud Accomplice Liability Under the Korean Criminal Act If a person is found to have participated in the movement, exchange, or delivery of funds obtained through fraud, Korean prosecutors may investigate whether that person acted as: a joint principal offender (co-principal), or an aider and abettor (accessory) under Articles 30 and 32 of the Korean Criminal Act. The key issue is whether the participant knowingly assisted the fraudulent scheme or merely engaged in what appeared to be an ordinary transaction. 2) Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment One of the most commonly applied statutes in these cases is Korea’s Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. The law criminalizes conduct such as: disguising the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, concealing the origin of criminal proceeds, or hiding or transferring criminal assets. In practice, converting fraud proceeds into cryptocurrency, cashing out USDT, or transferring funds through third-party wallets may all be viewed by investigators as potential money laundering activity. The central legal question is usually whether the person handling the transaction knew — or at least should have suspected — that the funds were connected to criminal activity. 3) Korean Special Financial Transactions Act (Crypto Business Registration Issues) Individuals who repeatedly exchange USDT or conduct OTC crypto transactions for commission-based profit may also face allegations of operating an unregistered virtual asset business. Korean authorities generally look at factors such as: repeated or continuous transactions, receipt of commissions or service fees, dealing with multiple counterparties, and operation resembling a commercial exchange service. A one-time transaction between acquaintances is treated differently from ongoing exchange activity conducted for profit. 4) Foreign Exchange Transactions Act In some cases, Korea’s Foreign Exchange Transactions Act may also become relevant. This typically arises where funds are transferred internationally, including situations involving overseas wallets, offshore entities, or cross-border settlement structures. If the transaction occurred solely between domestic parties using Korean won, investigators may focus more heavily on money laundering or crypto regulatory issues rather than foreign exchange violations. However, international transfer structures may trigger additional scrutiny. The Most Important Legal Issue: “Willful Blindness” or Implied Criminal Intent One of the most important legal concepts in these investigations is whether the participant had criminal intent — including so-called “willful blindness” or implied awareness. The Korean Supreme Court has ruled as follows: To punish a person for concealing criminal proceeds, it is sufficient that the person recognized the property as criminal proceeds in general terms; it is not necessary for the person to know the exact type or details of the underlying crime. — Korean Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5288, Jan. 11, 2007 This means that even if someone claims: “I did not know it was voice phishing money,” or “I thought it was related to tax avoidance or gambling,” criminal liability may still arise if the person recognized that the funds were likely illegal in some form. Importantly, Korean courts may separately recognize liability for concealing criminal proceeds even where accomplice liability for the original fraud itself is disputed. The two offenses are legally distinct. Factors Korean Investigators Commonly Use to Infer Criminal Awareness Investigative authorities do not rely solely on direct admissions. Instead, they often infer intent based on the overall transaction structure. Common factors include: ▪️Unofficial OTC Transaction Methods Transactions conducted outside registered exchanges or through private channels are often viewed as higher-risk structures. ▪️Repeated Transactions Repeated dealings using similar methods may be interpreted as evidence that the participant understood the suspicious nature of the activity. This may also support allegations of operating an unregistered crypto business. ▪️Excessive Commissions or Fees Receiving unusually high compensation compared to ordinary exchange fees may be treated as evidence of awareness of illegal risk. ▪️Lack of Identity Verification Transactions involving anonymous parties, unverifiable identities, or disappearing counterparties may raise additional suspicion. ▪️Blockchain Transaction Analysis Because cryptocurrency transfers are recorded on the blockchain, Korean authorities increasingly use blockchain forensic analysis to trace fund flows and identify links between victim funds and crypto wallets. Where several of these factors appear together, prosecutors may argue that the participant at least “implicitly recognized” the illegal nature of the funds. Defense Strategy: Explaining Why Criminal Awareness Did Not Exist In these cases, simply stating “I did not know” is rarely enough. Because Korean courts broadly recognize implied criminal intent, the defense must often demonstrate — through objective facts and evidence — why the person could not reasonably have recognized the funds as criminal proceeds. Important factors may include: how the relationship with the counterparty developed, why the transaction appeared legitimate at the time, whether there were objective warning signs, how the transaction was explained to the participant, and whether statements remain consistent with blockchain records and messaging history. Early-stage responses are particularly important because investigators often already possess substantial transaction data before conducting interviews. An inconsistent or poorly prepared initial statement may later be used to strengthen suspicions. In addition, allegations involving fraud accomplice liability, criminal proceeds concealment, crypto business registration issues, and foreign exchange violations each involve different legal elements. Identifying the actual scope of potential liability at an early stage is therefore critical. Decent Law Firm | Digital Asset & Crypto Investigation Team USDT-related investigations in Korea often involve complex issues extending beyond ordinary crypto transactions, including blockchain tracing analysis, accomplice liability, money laundering regulations, crypto compliance obligations, and foreign exchange law. At Decent Law Firm, our digital asset and crypto investigation team has experience handling cryptocurrency-related investigations from the initial investigation stage through criminal trial proceedings. If you have been contacted by Korean investigative authorities or are unsure about the allegations being raised, careful early-stage legal review is strongly recommended. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
-
AI Crypto Scam: What to Do If You Cannot Withdraw Your Funds
As interest in artificial intelligence continues to grow, crypto scammers are increasingly using “AI-powered investment platforms” and “AI trading systems” to attract investors. These scams often appear sophisticated. They may provide polished whitepapers, fake AI trading dashboards, technical presentations, and fabricated success stories to create the illusion of legitimacy. At first, small withdrawals may work normally. However, once a larger amount is invested, victims frequently encounter withdrawal restrictions and repeated requests for additional payments. For foreign investors living in or interested in Korea, understanding these patterns early can make a significant difference in preserving evidence and responding effectively. What Is an AI Crypto Scam? An AI crypto scam is a type of cryptocurrency fraud where scammers falsely claim to operate AI-based trading technology, automated investment systems, or advanced blockchain algorithms in order to obtain investor funds. Unlike older crypto scams that relied mainly on unrealistic profit promises, AI-related scams tend to look far more convincing because they use technical language and complex-looking systems that ordinary investors cannot easily verify. Common examples include: “AI automated trading” platforms Fake AI investment algorithms AI-powered coin analysis systems Fabricated development teams and partnerships Telegram or KakaoTalk investment groups promoting “AI-selected coins” In many cases, the underlying technology either does not exist at all or consists only of publicly available open-source tools presented as proprietary AI technology. Common Types of AI Crypto Scam Schemes Fake AI Technology and Whitepapers Scammers often publish professional-looking whitepapers filled with technical terminology, charts, and fake development roadmaps. Before investing, investors should carefully review: Whether the developers are real people LinkedIn profiles and professional history GitHub repositories and development activity Whether partnerships and investors actually exist Many fraudulent projects use fabricated team members or copied technical materials. Presale Investment Fraud Another common scheme involves selling tokens before a supposed exchange listing. Victims are told they are receiving a “special presale opportunity” before the token is listed on major exchanges such as Upbit or Binance. Typical warning signs include: Guaranteed future listings Promises of “100x returns” VIP insider investment opportunities Claims of limited early-access token allocations In reality, many projects disappear entirely after collecting investor funds. Fake Exchanges and AI Trading Platforms Some scammers direct victims to private trading apps or fake exchanges operated entirely by the fraud group. The structure often follows the same pattern: Small withdrawals are allowed initially Investors are encouraged to deposit larger amounts Withdrawals become restricted Additional fees are demanded Communication suddenly stops Requests to install unofficial apps or use unknown platforms should be treated with extreme caution. Signs That You May Already Be a Victim If any of the following situations apply, additional transfers should be stopped immediately. Requests for Taxes or Verification Fees One of the most common scam tactics is demanding advance payment before withdrawals are processed. Victims may be told they must pay: Taxes Wallet activation fees AML verification costs Security deposits International transfer charges Legitimate exchanges generally do not require separate personal transfers in order to release withdrawal funds. Financial Authority Impersonation Some scammers pretend to represent regulators, compliance teams, or financial institutions. They may falsely claim that: Your account has been flagged for money laundering Additional compliance checks are required Korean financial authorities are reviewing the transaction A temporary security payment must be made These are frequently used to pressure victims into sending more money. Continuous Withdrawal Delays Scammers often use technical excuses to delay withdrawals, including: Wallet maintenance Node synchronization problems Security upgrades Hacking attempts International approval delays Repeated postponements are a major warning sign. Sudden Loss of Communication Victims often report that customer service suddenly disappears after additional payments are refused. In many cases: Telegram administrators block users Support responses become automated Account managers disappear entirely Websites or apps suddenly shut down What To Do If You Are a Victim of an AI Crypto Scam 1. Stop Sending Additional Money No matter what explanation is provided, additional payments should not be made. Scammers frequently exploit victims psychologically by claiming that “one final payment” will unlock the withdrawal process. In practice, additional deposits usually lead only to larger losses. 2. Contact Your Bank Immediately If the transfer was recent, contact your bank as quickly as possible and explain that the transaction may involve fraud. Unlike voice phishing cases, crypto-related fraud may not always qualify for immediate account suspension under Korean law. However, early reporting can still help preserve transaction records and improve response options. Obtaining a police incident confirmation document may also assist in certain cases. 3. Preserve All Evidence The following materials should be saved immediately: Whitepapers and advertisements Wallet addresses and transaction records Screenshots of the platform Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email conversations Voice recordings and investment solicitations Contracts or investment documents Because fraudulent platforms can disappear without warning, early evidence preservation is critical. 4. Report the Case and Seek Legal Advice AI crypto scams may involve multiple legal issues, including: Fraud Illegal fundraising schemes Financial regulatory violations Money laundering-related offenses Electronic financial transaction violations Many scams also involve overseas entities, cross-border fund transfers, and anonymous crypto wallets, making early strategic response especially important. The longer the delay, the more difficult asset tracing and evidence collection may become. Early Response Can Make a Difference AI crypto scams are not simply failed investments. In many cases, they involve organized fraudulent operations designed to systematically prevent withdrawals and extract additional payments from victims. If withdrawals have been blocked or communication has stopped, it is important to review the situation carefully and respond quickly. Decent Law Firm’s digital asset and crypto disputes team advises clients on crypto investment fraud, asset tracing, criminal complaints, and cross-border legal response strategies related to cryptocurrency scams in Korea. Even with limited initial materials, it may still be possible to assess the structure of the case and discuss available legal options.
