Case Result: Non-Prosecution Due to Insufficient Evidence in a Cryptocurrency Investment Fraud Case

Client Information

Individual / Suspect
 

Case Details

The client was employed by a company and was responsible for recommending cryptocurrency investments to potential customers under the company's instructions.

The process was relatively straightforward.

The client contacted customers by phone, introduced cryptocurrency investment opportunities, and explained that investors would receive both their principal and profits once returns were generated.

One day, however, a customer contacted the client claiming that the promised payment date had passed and that neither the invested funds nor the profits had been returned.

Shortly thereafter, the client was contacted by the police and received a summons to appear for questioning as a suspect in a cryptocurrency investment fraud investigation.

Although the client had merely performed assigned job duties, he unexpectedly found himself under criminal investigation for fraud.

Recognizing the difficulty of responding to the investigation alone, the client retained Decent Law Firm for legal representation.

From the earliest stage of the investigation, Decent Law Firm worked closely with the client to organize the facts and submitted legal opinions based on the following key arguments.

1. Verification of the Cryptocurrency's Existence

We confirmed through publicly available sources that the cryptocurrency in question was a legitimate digital asset that had been properly listed on a cryptocurrency exchange.

This undermined the complainant's premise that the investment involved a fictitious token created solely for fraudulent purposes.

2. Tracing the Actual Recipient of the Investment Funds

We demonstrated through transaction records that the complainant's funds were deposited into a company account rather than the client's personal account.

We further established that the funds were actually used to purchase the cryptocurrency.

A critical point was that the invested funds never flowed to the client personally.

3. Clarifying the Client's Limited Role

The client's role was limited to that of a telemarketer acting under company instructions.

He had no authority or involvement in managing investment funds, operating the investment program, or determining whether returns would be paid to investors.

This was supported by internal work instructions and communications records.

4. Absence of Fraudulent Intent

Based on the above facts, we argued that the client had no intention from the outset to deceive the complainant or unlawfully obtain money.

We actively presented this position to the investigating authorities throughout the investigation.