Must-read if you have suffered losses from a Bitcoin advisory investment scam
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. 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 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)). 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. 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.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.
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.
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.
Key response points that must be organized immediately after Occurrence of Damage
When Bitcoin advisory fraud is suspected, time is the most critical factor.
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.
