We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Criminal Risks for MetaTrader-Based Overseas Futures Signal and Copy Trading Operators in Korea
Growing Scrutiny of MetaTrader-Based Overseas Futures Signal Businesses MetaTrader 4 and 5 are trading platforms commonly used for overseas futures, FX trading, and CFDs, or contracts for difference. The MetaTrader platform itself is not illegal. The legal risk arises from how the business is operated. In Korea, issues may arise where an operator uses MetaTrader to run a trading signal room, copy trading service, or investment consulting business, while also directing users to a specific overseas broker and receiving referral commissions based on users’ trading volume. In such cases, Korean investigative authorities may examine whether the business structure constitutes fraud under the Korean Criminal Act or a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, commonly referred to as the Capital Markets Act. Applicable Laws Allegation Applicable Law Statutory Penalty Inducing investment through deception Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Fraud Imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million, based on the current provision as of the publication date Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Conducting unauthorized investment brokerage business Articles 11 and 444(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Paid one-on-one or interactive signal services beyond the scope of quasi-investment advisory business Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Improper business conduct by a quasi-investment advisory business operator Article 101-2 of the Capital Markets Act and related provisions Administrative sanctions, including administrative fines, inspections, and possible cancellation of registration The statutory penalty for fraud under the current Korean Criminal Act is imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. However, the actual penalty range in a specific case may vary depending on the timing of the alleged conduct, the applicable version of the law, and whether multiple offenses are found to be in concurrence. Fraud and violations of the Capital Markets Act are separate offenses with different legal elements and protected interests. Where both allegations are raised, the overall criminal exposure may increase depending on the scale of damage, business period, amount of referral revenue, and the specific role of the operator. Fraud Issues Under the Korean Criminal Act For fraud to be established in an investment-related case, there must generally be deception, mistake, a disposition of property, financial gain, and a causal relationship between these elements. In MetaTrader-based signal or copy trading cases, investigative authorities may focus on whether the operator had the actual ability and intent to generate the profits represented to customers. 1. Ability to Generate Profits Investigators may review the operator’s investment experience, trading record, risk management ability, and the explanations given to customers to determine whether the operator had an objective basis for the profits described. If the operator claimed to be an expert despite limited investment experience, or used expressions such as “stable returns,” “principal guaranteed,” or “no-loss trading,” those statements may become important factors in assessing whether the customer was misled. Overseas futures, FX, and CFDs are high-risk derivative products with significant volatility and potential for loss. Therefore, statements implying fixed or stable profits may be viewed unfavorably if they are inconsistent with the actual trading structure and risk profile. 2. Intent to Act in the Customer’s Interest Another key issue is whether the operator genuinely intended to pursue the customer’s investment interest. If the operator’s referral commission increased according to the customer’s trading frequency or trading volume, regardless of whether the customer made a profit or loss, investigators may question whether the operator prioritized referral income over the customer’s investment outcome. For example, if a customer states that they would not have invested had they known that substantial trading fees and referral commissions would be generated, the failure to disclose that fee structure may be considered a form of deception by omission. Issues Under the Capital Markets Act 1. Scope of Quasi-Investment Advisory Business Under Article 101 of the Capital Markets Act, a quasi-investment advisory business generally refers to a business that provides non-individualized investment advice on financial investment products to an unspecified number of clients for consideration, through publications, communications, broadcasts, or similar means. Paid investment advice provided through interactive channels such as KakaoTalk, Telegram, or open chat rooms may go beyond the permissible scope of quasi-investment advisory business and may be regulated as investment advisory business. A quasi-investment advisory business registration alone does not generally allow the operator to provide specific one-on-one instructions to individual users, such as entry points, liquidation timing, stop-loss levels, or take-profit levels. Such conduct may raise issues of unregistered investment advisory business under Articles 17 and 445(1) of the Capital Markets Act. 2. Possible Unregistered Discretionary Investment Management Business In a copy trading structure, if the operator uses a customer’s account, API access, or trading authority to substantially control the management of the customer’s assets, the business may be examined as a possible unregistered discretionary investment management business. Discretionary investment management generally involves managing a client’s assets by making investment decisions on behalf of the client. If the operator goes beyond simply providing market information and effectively controls trading decisions and execution, the conduct may fall within the scope of regulated financial investment business. 3. Possible Unauthorized Investment Brokerage Business If the operator actively directs users to a specific overseas broker, assists with account opening, deposits, or trade execution, and receives commissions in connection with that activity, the structure may raise issues of unauthorized investment brokerage business under Articles 11 and 444(1) of the Capital Markets Act. Simply posting a link or introducing a broker does not automatically amount to investment brokerage. However, if the operator provides account-opening guidance, deposit instructions, trading education, product-specific recommendations, and receives referral commissions, Korean authorities may review the overall business structure to determine whether the operator was effectively engaging in regulated financial investment business. Practical Response During an Investigation In these cases, investigative authorities tend to focus on the operator’s ability, intent, disclosure practices, and the actual structure of referral compensation. Because statements made during the early stages of an investigation may later become important evidence in court, it is important to review the legal structure of the business as soon as the operator is contacted by the police or another investigative authority. Key issues to review include: Whether customers were properly informed of the risks of margin trading, leverage, forced liquidation, and fee structures Whether expressions such as “guaranteed profit,” “stable return,” or “principal guaranteed” were used Whether the current business model falls within the permissible scope of a quasi-investment advisory business How the referral commission structure is connected to customers’ trading volume, trading frequency, or investment performance DECENT Law Office’s Digital Asset and Financial Investment Team advises on criminal and regulatory matters involving MetaTrader-based overseas futures signal services, copy trading structures, referral commission models, and related Capital Markets Act issues. If you have received a criminal complaint, a police summons, or notice of a preliminary investigation, or if you wish to review whether your current business structure is legally appropriate under Korean law, it is important to first examine the specific facts and operational details of the business.
-
2026 AML Reform in Korea: 3 Key Anti-Money Laundering Obligations Under the Revised FSCMA
The amended Korean Anti-Money Laundering law is no longer just a compliance issue for banks. It is rapidly becoming a core operational and governance issue for virtual asset businesses, fintech companies, and even certain professional service providers. The revised Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (commonly referred to as Korea’s AML law or “Special Financial Transactions Act”) was promulgated on February 19, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on August 20, 2026. The amendments significantly strengthen AML obligations for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and expand the overall compliance framework surrounding crypto-related transactions in Korea. This article outlines the three most important AML changes businesses should understand before the new rules take effect. What Is Korea’s “Special Financial Transactions Act” (특금법)? Korea’s AML framework is governed by the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, which establishes reporting, monitoring, and internal control obligations designed to prevent: Money laundering Terrorist financing Illicit use of financial systems Under this framework, financial institutions and VASPs must identify suspicious transactions, verify customer information, maintain records, and implement internal AML controls. In practical terms, the law is designed to prevent criminal proceeds from entering or moving through the Korean financial system. 1. Stronger KYC and Transaction Monitoring Requirements The first major change is the expansion of customer due diligence and risk-based monitoring obligations. Under the revised rules, financial institutions and VASPs will be expected to verify not only customer identity, but also: Source of funds Purpose of transactions Beneficial ownership (BO) Ongoing transaction behavior and risk profile Electronic KYC (e-KYC), non-face-to-face identity verification, and real-time suspicious transaction detection systems are becoming effectively mandatory operational standards. The revised framework also strengthens the Risk-Based Approach (RBA) and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) requirements for high-risk customers and transactions. In other words, AML compliance in Korea is moving away from a simple “ID verification” model toward a continuous risk management model. For crypto exchanges and fintech operators, this means AML systems must function as active monitoring infrastructure rather than passive onboarding procedures. 2. Expanded Reporting Obligations and Stronger Travel Rule Enforcement The second major reform focuses directly on virtual asset transactions. Stricter Entry Requirements for VASPs Korean regulators are strengthening licensing and registration standards for virtual asset businesses. Proposed measures include enhanced screening of: Major shareholders Executives and management personnel Financial soundness and governance structures The regulatory approach increasingly resembles traditional financial institution supervision. Expanded Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) Proposed amendments to the enforcement decree and supervisory regulations would effectively require mandatory suspicious transaction reporting (STR) for certain virtual asset transactions exceeding KRW 10 million. The final regulations are expected to be confirmed around July 2026. Expansion of the Travel Rule Korea is also moving toward broader implementation of the Travel Rule. The proposed changes would: Expand sender/recipient information transmission requirements Increase the scope of covered transactions Impose additional verification obligations on receiving VASPs For VASPs operating in Korea, AML obligations are no longer limited to registration requirements. They are becoming a central factor affecting operational design, transaction processing, onboarding policies, and even fee structures. 3. Broader AML Accountability and Expansion to Professional Service Providers The third major reform concerns governance, accountability, and expansion of regulated entities. AML Officers Elevated to Executive-Level Responsibility Korean regulators are pushing to formalize AML reporting officers as executive-level positions. This means boards of directors and senior management will be expected to assume direct responsibility for AML governance and oversight. AML compliance is increasingly treated as a corporate governance issue rather than merely an internal compliance function. Formalization of AML Compliance Evaluations The amendments would also codify AML system evaluations into law. Participation in regulatory AML assessments may become mandatory, and penalties are expected for: Refusing to submit materials Providing false information Obstructing regulatory reviews Expansion to DNFBPs Korea is also formally considering AML obligations for Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), including: Lawyers Accountants Tax advisors The government has indicated that further amendments aligned with FATF standards are under discussion for 2026. This signals a broader regulatory trend: AML obligations are expanding beyond banks and crypto exchanges into the wider professional services ecosystem. What Should Companies Prepare Before August 20, 2026? With the revised law taking effect on August 20, 2026, companies have limited time to review and upgrade their AML frameworks. Financial institutions, fintech operators, and VASPs should now assess: Internal AML policies and procedures KYC and monitoring systems Transaction screening capabilities Governance and reporting structures Travel Rule compliance processes Risk-based customer classification systems For many businesses, the real legal risk will not come from the existence of AML obligations themselves, but from failing to implement operational systems that regulators consider “effective” in practice. If your company is preparing for Korean AML compliance, virtual asset regulation, or VASP-related legal risk management, the Virtual Asset Team at Decent Law Firm can assist with regulatory analysis, compliance structuring, and AML framework reviews.
-
Startup Incorporation in Korea - It Doesn’t End with Registration
Incorporating a startup is not just a matter of filing paperwork. It is a strategic process of designing your equity structure, voting rights, and shareholder relationships. The way you structure your company at the beginning will directly impact future investment opportunities, control over management, and the risk of disputes. Why Start as a Corporation from Day One In Korea, more startups are choosing to incorporate from the outset rather than starting as sole proprietorships. This is because, under a sole proprietorship, the founder bears unlimited personal liability, and risks grow rapidly as the business scales. In addition, most investment programs, government grants, and certifications are designed specifically for incorporated entities. The Most Common Risk: 50:50 Equity Split One of the most frequent mistakes among co-founders is a 50:50 equity split. While it may seem fair at first, it often leads to deadlocks in critical decisions such as appointing a CEO, approving investments, or entering into major contracts. Another issue arises when founders’ contributions change over time, but ownership remains fixed—often leading to conflict and, in many cases, legal disputes. To mitigate these risks, equity should be structured based on roles and contributions, and paired with vesting mechanisms tied to actual participation. Articles of Incorporation Are Not Enough- Why a Shareholders’ Agreement Is Essential If the articles of incorporation serve as the company’s constitution, a shareholders’ agreement functions as a detailed private arrangement among founders. Key matters that should be addressed separately include: Share buyback mechanisms (e.g., call options) Voting rights and decision-making structures Risk management when a founder exits Non-compete obligations and IP protection Without these provisions, resolving disputes later can become significantly more difficult. Structuring for Investment and Government Programs From the incorporation stage, startups should prepare for future investment and growth. Investment readiness → Establishing board structure and preferred share frameworks Government support and certifications → Designing capital and governance structures aligned with venture certification or special programs Early-stage structuring can have a decisive impact on both investment terms and founder control. How Decent Approaches Startup Incorporation Decent Law Firm does not simply handle registration. We act as a strategic partner in designing your startup’s legal and governance framework. Equity structuring for co-founders Integrated design of articles of incorporation and shareholders’ agreements Stock option and investment structure planning Structuring with future investment, exit, and global expansion in mind Incorporation Is Just the Beginning The way you design equity and shareholder relationships will define your company’s future and control structure. If you are currently deciding how to allocate equity among co-founders, or need to review your structure before incorporation, We invite you to consult with Decent’s Corporate Practice Team.
-
Inheriting Crypto from Binance and Other Overseas Exchanges: What Heirs Need to Know
If a family member passed away while using overseas exchanges such as Binance, Bybit, or KuCoin, the cryptocurrency remaining in their accounts is part of their estate. Unlike a domestic bank account, however, the process is far from straightforward. Most heirs have no idea where to begin. Crypto Held on Overseas Exchanges Is Part of the Estate The fact that an exchange is based overseas does not exclude its assets from inheritance. Any asset with economic value is subject to estate laws, regardless of where it is held. The following types of crypto assets are typically included in the estate: Coins held in spot and futures accounts on overseas exchanges such as Binance, Bybit, and KuCoin Assets held in sub-accounts, Earn/staking products, Launchpad/Launchpool, and similar products Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC, as well as altcoins and tokens of all kinds Coins stored in personal wallets such as MetaMask or hardware wallets The challenge is that, unlike domestic bank accounts, there is no centralized system for looking up balances across exchanges. Heirs must track down every exchange and wallet the deceased used on their own. This typically requires piecing together evidence from emails, text messages, OTP apps, exchange notification emails, and bank transaction records. Why Inheriting from Overseas Exchanges Is So Complicated Overseas exchange accounts are built around a single-user model. From account registration and KYC verification to two-factor authentication, everything is tied to the account holder personally. Even as a legitimate heir, you cannot simply log in or withdraw funds. ⚠️ Important: Attempting to access the account without authorization carries serious legal risk. Guessing login credentials or bypassing 2FA to move assets could expose you to criminal or civil liability. If there are multiple heirs, it could escalate into a dispute over embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, or unjust enrichment. Each exchange also has its own inheritance process and documentation requirements. Some, like Binance, have a formal inheritance procedure in place. Others have no published guidelines at all and handle requests case by case via email. If the account was registered under a non-Korean nationality — such as a European or Japanese address — the exchange may require documents that conform to that country's legal standards. When multiple heirs are involved, some exchanges require signatures and consent from all parties, which can stall the process for months if family cooperation breaks down. Three Problems That Are Hard to Solve Alone These are the most common difficulties heirs encounter in practice. ① The documentation cycle Even after contacting customer support, heirs often receive nothing more than a generic reply asking for proof of death and proof of heirship. Submit one set of documents, and the exchange asks for another. Misunderstandings in English-language correspondence can send the process back to square one. ② The estate tax deadline If the tax filing deadline arrives before the crypto has actually been recovered, heirs face a separate problem: which date's price should be used for valuation, and how should the filing be handled? Missing the deadline or filing incorrectly can result in significant penalties and surcharges. ③ Disputes among co-heirs One heir may want to recover and divide the assets quickly, while another delays or refuses to cooperate on documentation. If one heir accesses the account and moves assets unilaterally before an agreement is reached, it can give rise to claims of embezzlement or unjust enrichment against them. Decent Law Firm's Five-Step Process Decent Law Firm's dedicated digital asset team handles inheritance cases involving not only domestic exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb, but also overseas exchanges including Binance. ① Identifying the deceased's crypto holdings We begin by reviewing emails, mobile records, 2FA apps, and transaction histories to build a complete picture of every exchange account and wallet involved. ② Structuring the estate and tax strategy We assess the composition of heirs, the existence of a will, the proportion of crypto relative to other assets, and the optimal approach to estate tax filing — helping the family reach a clear agreement on how assets will be divided. ③ Analyzing each exchange's requirements and preparing documentation We review the inheritance procedures and requirements for each overseas exchange, then design the appropriate authentication process — including translation, notarization, and Apostille certification where required. ④ Filing inheritance claims and supporting asset recovery We handle all English-language correspondence with the exchanges, manage document submission, and respond to follow-up requests — working to ensure the inherited crypto is transferred safely into the heirs' accounts. ⑤ Estate tax filing and ongoing risk management We oversee valuation timing, exchange rate application, and tax return preparation, while accounting for the risk of future tax audits or disputes. Not sure where to start? Let's talk first The decisions made early in an overseas crypto inheritance case can significantly affect the odds of recovery, the time it takes, the tax burden, and the likelihood of family conflict. Decent Law Firm's digital asset team is with you from the initial consultation through to final recovery and tax resolution.
-
The Revised Yellow Envelope Act Is Now in Effect: The First Thing You Need to Check
Key Changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Union Act (Yellow Envelope Act) “Does this mean our company could now be held responsible for issues involving subcontractor employees?” This is a question increasingly being raised in real business environments. The revised Yellow Envelope Act, which took effect on March 10, 2026, is not merely a technical amendment to statutory language. It represents a major institutional shift that strengthens the authority of labor unions and fundamentally redefines the scope of employers’ responsibilities. The key changes introduced by the amendment include: Substantial expansion of the definition of “employer” Expansion of the scope of recognized labor disputes New grounds for reducing or limiting damages claims against labor unions Ultimately, the core implication is clear: labor unions now possess broader bargaining power, while companies face increased legal responsibility. As a result, companies must comprehensively review their contractual structures and internal decision-making processes, while labor unions must prepare lawful response strategies aligned with their newly expanded authority. The extent of advance preparation will ultimately determine the scale of future legal risk. The following response measures therefore deserve close attention. Key Response Points for Companies and Labor Unions Through this amendment, the scope for recognizing a principal contractor as an employer has broadened significantly, while limitations on damages claims have substantially changed the landscape of labor-management relations. From the corporate perspective, companies must carefully assess the extent to which they exercise control over working conditions within indirect employment structures such as subcontracting and outsourcing arrangements. If a principal contractor substantially influences employees’ working conditions, bargaining obligations may arise. Accordingly, companies may need to revise contractual provisions and approval procedures. In workplaces where multiple labor unions exist, it is also essential to establish strategies for responding to successive bargaining requests. To address these issues, companies should establish: Standards for unified bargaining channels Internal information disclosure procedures Response systems for damages claims arising from lawful labor disputes From the labor union perspective, direct bargaining channels with principal contractors are becoming more accessible, and the burden of damages liability during lawful labor disputes has been reduced. As a result, the legality of bargaining procedures and the efficiency of organizational strategies have become increasingly important. In essence, the amendment establishes a new standard for both labor and management: “clear responsibility and transparent procedures.” Whether adequate preparation is undertaken now will become the most important factor in determining future dispute risks. Why Work With Decent Law Firm? The revised Yellow Envelope Act is not simply about changes to statutory provisions. It is a major issue requiring companies to redesign their entire decision-making structures and labor-management communication systems. In situations like this, businesses need professionals who understand not only legal theory, but also operational realities and practical risk factors in the workplace. Decent Law Firm operates a dedicated team specializing in corporate advisory services and labor risk management, providing practical solutions in the following areas: Employer status analysis and legal risk assessment Design of bargaining and labor dispute response structures Damages liability risk control strategies Advisory services regarding collective bargaining agreements and internal policy revisions Decent Law Firm goes beyond providing abstract legal interpretations. We act as a practical partner helping businesses maintain stable labor-management relations even after the revised law takes effect. If your organization needs practical and immediately applicable response measures, now is the time to begin preparing with Decent Law Firm. Ultimately, This Is an Unavoidable Process of Change At this stage, the key response strategy is to accurately understand the purpose of the revised system, reduce unnecessary disputes, and ensure that necessary bargaining procedures become more transparent. At Decent Law Firm, consultations are conducted directly by attorneys who are also certified labor consultants, as well as legal professionals with extensive corporate operational experience. We help both companies and labor unions respond in predictable and legally sound ways while preserving the intent of the law. With sufficient case analysis and properly documented procedures, risks can be managed in advance. Before it becomes too late, it is important to seek professional legal guidance and prepare strategically.
-
Traffic Accident Settlement Representation & Agreement Drafting Guide – Must-Read
The Legal Significance of “Settlement” for the Offender In traffic accidents that proceed as criminal cases, settlement with the victim is not merely a financial resolution. If a settlement is reached: In offenses prosecutable only upon complaint, prosecution may not proceed (except where statutory exceptions apply). Even where exceptions apply, settlement is considered a favorable sentencing factor. The likelihood of a fine or suspended sentence increases. The risk of imprisonment decreases. Conversely, failure to reach a settlement may be interpreted as a lack of effort to restore harm, which can significantly affect sentencing. In short, settlement is a critical factor in sentencing and a key variable shaping early defense strategy. Practical Problems When Attempting Settlement Alone Many offenders assume that having comprehensive auto insurance is sufficient, or that a direct apology and negotiation will resolve the matter. However, comprehensive insurance alone does not exempt criminal liability in cases falling under statutory exceptions or involving fatalities (Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents). Settlement still plays a crucial role in sentencing. In practice, the following issues frequently arise: Negotiations collapsing due to emotional confrontation Failure to respond properly to excessive settlement demands Settlement agreements lacking language sufficient for sentencing mitigation Phone calls or messages later used as unfavorable evidence In particular, inappropriate expressions during direct negotiation may create misunderstandings or escalate into secondary disputes. Settlement is not merely a conversation—it is a process of structuring legal consequences. Why Professional Settlement Representation Is Necessary Traffic accident settlement representation is not simply about delivering compensation on behalf of the offender. It involves: Analyzing the accident circumstances and fault ratio Reviewing criminal liability exposure and sentencing outlook Determining a reasonable settlement range Drafting an agreement clearly reflecting the victim’s intent not to seek punishment Establishing submission and response strategy before investigative authorities From the offender’s perspective, the approach must shift from emotional reaction to risk management. Immediately after the accident, statements should be made cautiously, and direct financial negotiation with the victim should generally be avoided. After accurately analyzing the nature of the case, a settlement strategy aligned with the criminal procedure should be designed. Settlement is not the final stage of the case—it sits at the core of the overall criminal defense strategy.
