Hyeonsu “Elliot” Jin
MP elliot@decentlaw.ioElliot served as a corporate lawyer at Pyeongan Lawfirm and as in-house counsel for Chai Corporation, providing diverse corporate advisory services.
- Corporate · Startups
- Cross-border · Dispute Resolution
- Crypto
- VC · Financial Advisory
- IP Litigation
- Sports
성공사례
관련소식
-
법률정보Must-read if you have suffered losses from a Bitcoin advisory investment scam
Why do “Bitcoin advisory” investment scams keep recurring? Recent cases reviewed through consultations show that the image of legitimacy created by the term “Bitcoin advisory” is a key factor amplifying investor losses. Terms such as advisory, consulting, and asset management simultaneously convey professionalism and an institutional feel, leading investors to place trust almost instinctively. The problem is that, when the actual structure is examined, the boundary between investment solicitation and advisory services is often virtually nonexistent. In many cases, victims are repeatedly encouraged to purchase specific coins or are instructed on precise timing for entering positions, while the provider formally inserts disclaimers stating that “the final decision rests with the investor.” In particular, when expressions such as guaranteed profits, loss compensation, or target returns by a certain date appear, these may constitute prohibited agreements for loss compensation or profit guarantees under the Capital Markets and Financial Investment Services Act (Article 55), and are highly likely to be evaluated as deceptive conduct constituting fraud. In practice, such representations serve as critical indicators when determining the establishment of fraud, and the same patterns are repeatedly observed in real cases. When to suspect fraud rather than a “simple investment failure” The point most investors struggle with is the mere fact that a loss occurred. However, not every loss amounts to fraud. That said, if the following elements are combined, the possibility of a Bitcoin advisory scam should be carefully examined: Whether there were promises of principal protection or loss compensation Whether upfront payments were required under the name of advisory fees, membership fees, or management fees Whether funds were transferred to personal wallets, overseas exchanges, or accounts under borrowed or third-party names If, in addition, the advisor avoids responsibility after losses occur, induces further deposits, or becomes unreachable, it becomes difficult to view the situation as a mere investment failure. From a legal perspective, the elements of fraud are assessed comprehensively: the existence of deceptive conduct, the victim’s mistake and disposition of property, and the occurrence of financial loss. In particular, in investment-fund fraud cases, whether the perpetrator had the intent or ability to return the principal at the time of the investment agreement is a key criterion (Supreme Court Decision, Sept. 26, 2013, 2013Do3631). Merely disclosing investment risk does not readily negate the establishment of fraud. If the invested funds were used for personal purposes rather than for actual investment, or if there was no intent or capacity to invest from the outset, fraud may be established regardless of whether risk disclosures were made (Daejeon District Court Decisions, Apr. 15, 2021, 2020Godan3110 and 2020Godan4443 (consolidated)). Key response points that must be organized immediately after Occurrence of Damage When Bitcoin advisory fraud is suspected, time is the most critical factor. First, all deposit records, message logs, wallet addresses, and TXIDs must be preserved immediately. Deleting messenger records or changing wallets significantly reduces the possibility of recovery. Extra caution is required if there are requests for additional transfers or for signing settlement agreements or written undertakings. Such actions may instead become evidence favorable to the perpetrator. Criminal complaints and civil claims for damages are separate procedures and can be pursued in parallel. However, the realistic possibility of recovery varies depending on factors such as whether the perpetrator can be identified, whether their assets can be traced, and whether liability can also be imposed on accomplices or platform operators. These elements must be considered collectively when formulating a response strategy. Early judgment determines later outcomes. For victims who are left alone to worry and feel anxious during this process, it is essential to clearly recognize that the choices made now will determine the feasibility of future recovery. Why legal assistance is necessary in Bitcoin advisory investment fraud cases In response, Decent Law Office first reconstructs the structure of the case in detail to determine whether it legally constitutes fraud. Under the label of “advisory services,” the firm analyzes what actions actually took place, and to what extent investment solicitation and management intervention occurred—based on contracts, messenger records, and fund flows. The firm also examines, from a legal standpoint, whether disclaimer clauses formally inserted into advisory agreements or terms of service can genuinely exempt liability. In many cases, the issue is not the existence of documents, but whether those documents truly reflect the actual transaction structure. Decent therefore focuses on clearly delineating liability based on substance rather than form. Additionally, during the investigative stage, the firm reviews the traceability of fund flows to assess the possibility of identifying perpetrators, the existence of accomplices, and the involvement of platforms or intermediaries. These cases require more than simply filing a complaint; the core objective is to establish a response strategy that keeps actual asset recovery in view. In Bitcoin advisory cases, the later the initial response, the more difficult it becomes to secure evidence and trace responsibility. Before it is too late, seek professional assistance to accurately identify the nature of the case and set the correct course of action.
2026-01-22 -
법률정보
An Initial Response Guide to Achieve a Favorable Outcome After an Assault
What to do first immediately after an assault: securing safety and creating records Just because the assault has ended does not mean the danger has completely passed. The very first priority is to separate from the scene and prevent further confrontation. Put physical distance between yourself and the assailant, and seek help from people nearby to stabilize the situation. In cases of assault, the general rule is to call 112 and request police dispatch. If there is an imminent risk or ongoing threats, reporting immediately is essential. If injury is suspected, you should also request medical assistance through 119. Dispatch records and call logs generated at this stage often become the starting point for later fact-finding. Many victims think, “It will probably get better after some time,” but once initial response is delayed, objective evidence disappears quickly. Medical records and evidence collection: key factors that determine the outcome The significance of medical records Even if the pain feels vague or the injuries do not appear severe, it is important to visit a hospital as soon as possible. Medical certificates, treatment records, and receipts for medical expenses are not merely reference materials—they are critical evidence in both criminal proceedings and damage compensation assessments. Evidence must be collected “lawfully” Bruises and wounds change over time, so photograph them immediately from multiple angles If there are witnesses, secure their contact information and make a brief note of when, where, and what they saw For nearby CCTV footage, request preservation first rather than viewing (if preservation is missed, footage may be deleted) Recording the assault itself or conversations before or after the incident can help secure evidence That said, the admissibility of recordings is determined by a comprehensive review of how the recording was made, the credibility of the content, and whether it was edited. It is therefore important to clearly document the timing and circumstances of the recording. When assaulted, the key is not collecting as much evidence as possible, but securing evidence properly, so it does not become disputed later. Reporting, filing charges, and intent to punish: an irreversible decision point A 112 report initiates on-site intervention and fact verification. A criminal complaint, on the other hand, is a formal procedure that documents both the facts and the intent to seek punishment. Under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of assault is classified under Article 260(3) as an offense prosecuted only upon the victim’s complaint (a crime subject to the victim’s intent). Accordingly, the decision to express or withdraw an intent to punish can dramatically change the direction of the case. Once a statement of no intent to punish is submitted, it may be difficult to reverse after a certain point. In addition, whether the incident is classified as simple assault, injury, or aggravated assault involving a dangerous object changes not only the applicable provisions, but the entire procedural path. If this classification is misjudged at the initial stage, it is often very difficult to correct later—no matter how much explanation is provided afterward. Early organization and documentation determine the result In assault cases, investigative authorities and courts make decisions based on clearly organized facts and lawfully obtained evidence. At this stage, Decent Law Office provides the following practical assistance: Organizing facts and constructing a clear timeline Determining the appropriate charges and procedural strategy Reviewing and structuring evidence with a focus on admissibility Responding to issues related to intent to punish and settlement documentation Many people who experience an assault think, “This seems manageable on my own.” However, if early organization and documentation are insufficient, the outcome can move in a direction completely different from what was intended. For clients who are troubled and anxious about this issue, assistance that sets the direction correctly from the outset can make a clear difference. Assault cases are decided in the details. What you organize and what you preserve at the initial stage directly affects the final conclusion. Decent Law Office plays a practical role right at that starting line. Before it is too late, consider obtaining professional assistance to prepare materials that are appropriate for your situation.
2026-01-20 -
법률정보
Must-read if you want to avoid punishment for violating Korea’s Anti-Money Laundering Law
Why anti–money laundering (AML) cases become a problem The Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “Specified Financial Information Act,” often called the AML Act) is a core law aimed at preventing money laundering (AML) by regulating money-laundering activities and the financing of public-intimidation/terroristic acts through financial transactions. This law is not so much a statute that directly punishes the act of money laundering itself; rather, it focuses on regulating the financial transaction order through measures intended to prevent money laundering—such as reporting obligations for financial institutions, customer due diligence (KYC) obligations, and reporting/registration obligations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs). Because of this, cases repeatedly arise in which a person becomes a target of investigation for alleged AML law violations even though they did not directly commit a crime, simply because they failed to exercise sufficient caution regarding the source of funds or the structure of the transaction. Recently, in practice, issues often arise in situations involving virtual asset (crypto) transactions, movement of funds using corporate accounts, and intermediary/relay structures involving third parties. Even if a transaction appears normal on the surface, legal risk can arise if the origin and flow of funds are not clear. In what situations can you become implicated in a violation of the AML law? Violations of the Specified Financial Information Act are intent crimes, meaning punishment requires proof of intent. However, intent includes not only direct intent, but also dolus eventualis (reckless/conditional intent). If a person recognizes the possibility that the criminal result may occur and internally accepts that risk, intent may be found. This is determined not only by the actor’s statements, but by a comprehensive evaluation of specific circumstances, including the external form of conduct and the situation. Lending your financial account to another person or providing an access medium (e.g., authentication tools) may constitute a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Article 49(4) of that Act). In addition, if you assist someone in conducting financial transactions under another person’s real name for the purpose of an evasive or unlawful act, you may be liable as an aider for a violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Financial Real-Name Act) (Article 6(1) and Article 3(3) of that Act). However, under the Financial Real-Name Act, an “evasive/unlawful act” must rise to a level comparable to the concealment of illegal assets, money laundering, financing of public-intimidation/terroristic acts, or evasion of compulsory execution. There is case law holding that simply being used as an account to receive fraud proceeds from electronic financial fraud is, by itself, difficult to regard as an “evasive/unlawful act” (Incheon District Court, Feb. 11, 2022, Decision 2021No3685). That said, in practice, there have been many cases where something appeared to be a normal investment settlement or payment for services, but was judged to be a channel for transferring illegal funds, triggering an investigation. In particular, when repeat transactions, large amounts, and a complex transaction structure are intertwined, criminal suspicion becomes much stronger. Key response points you must consider if you become implicated Money-laundering-related crimes punish not only principal offenders but also aiders and abettors. Therefore, even if you did not directly obtain or store criminal proceeds, you may be punished as an accomplice if you engaged in conduct that facilitated money laundering. For aiding/abetting liability to be established, the principal’s crime must satisfy the statutory elements and be unlawful, and the aider must have intent to assist along with awareness that the principal’s conduct constitutes an act meeting the elements of the offense. However, in AML cases, what matters more than whether you committed a formal act is how you were involved in the flow of funds and whether you could have recognized what was happening. In practice, factors like the following are reviewed comprehensively: Whether you committed specific acts that constitute money laundering or aiding/abetting money laundering Whether you knew, or could have known, that the funds were criminal proceeds or other illegal assets Whether your involvement was merely part of routine 업무 (work-related involvement), or whether you had an intent to facilitate money laundering In virtual asset cases, whether you fall under the Specified Financial Information Act’s definition of a “virtual asset service provider (VASP)” and whether you fulfilled the reporting/registration obligations Also, the fact that the transaction structure looked normal does not, by itself, negate legal responsibility. In areas such as virtual asset transactions, the use of corporate accounts, and third-party relay structures, the key standard is substance over form—the reality, not the appearance. Financial transactions or virtual asset transactions conducted in Korea are subject to the Specified Financial Information Act. Even if the transaction occurs overseas, it may still fall under the Act if it is conducted through Korean financial institutions or virtual asset service providers. Assistance from Descent Accordingly, Descent Law Office approaches AML cases not as a simple response to allegations, but through a structure-focused analysis. Reflecting the characteristics of virtual asset and corporate transactions, the firm reviews fund flows and each party’s role in a multidimensional way, and from the early stages of an investigation, establishes a response strategy that considers both criminal and civil risks. Based on extensive practical experience in similar cases, the firm provides realistic defense direction rather than merely formal advice. In AML matters, outcomes can vary greatly depending on the timing and manner of response, and early choices can determine the course of the case. Before it is too late, consult a professional expert first.
2026-01-19
