Successful Civil Damages Claim in a Voice Phishing Case

Client Information

Individual / Plaintiff
 

Case Details

The client was a victim of a voice phishing (financial fraud) scheme and suffered financial losses of approximately KRW 50 million.

The crime followed a typical structure in which a third party provided their bank account, through which the fraud proceeds were transferred and misappropriated. Immediately after the funds were deposited, they were repeatedly withdrawn, resulting in substantial and irrecoverable financial damage to the client.

Although criminal proceedings were underway, the client determined that relying solely on the criminal case would be insufficient for actual recovery of damages. Accordingly, the client decided to pursue a civil lawsuit for monetary compensation and sought legal representation from Decent Law Firm.

Decent Law Firm approached this matter not as a simple case of “temporary account lending,” but as a joint tort (co-tortfeasor) structure that enabled the completion of the voice phishing crime.

Our team conducted a meticulous analysis of the criminal investigation records and detailed financial transaction data, closely matching the timing of the defendant’s provision of the bank account with the immediate withdrawal patterns following the deposit of the victim’s funds.

Based on this analysis, we demonstrated that without the defendant’s act of providing access credentials (the bank account), concealment and misappropriation of the criminal proceeds would not have been possible. We emphasized that the defendant’s conduct was not mere negligence, but a critical and indispensable contribution to the completion of the crime.

Furthermore, we clearly identified the illegality of transferring access credentials under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and actively relied on established court precedents recognizing joint tort liability where the account holder could at least foresee or tacitly recognize that their account might be used for voice phishing or other financial crimes.

Through this legal framework, we effectively refuted the defendant’s arguments, including claims of lack of intent, temporary account lending, and absence of economic benefit, demonstrating that none of these defenses could exempt civil liability.