Crypto

Crypto OTC Exchange Operator Cleared of Fraud Accomplice Allegations, Including Illegal Fund-Raising and Electronic Financial Transactions Act Charges

Non-Referral Decision

사건 개요

Client Information: Individual / Suspect

Case Details: The client was engaged in crypto OTC exchange transactions, a form of direct peer-to-peer exchange conducted outside a centralized exchange platform.

In this case, the complainant had followed the guidance of an investment advisory group and transferred Korean won to the client’s personal bank account on two occasions. After deducting an agreed exchange fee, the client transferred the corresponding amount of virtual assets to the wallet address designated by the complainant.

When the complainant later suffered investment losses, the complainant filed a criminal complaint not only against the investment advisory group but also against the client, alleging that the client had acted as an accomplice in the alleged investment fraud.

As a result, the client was investigated for fraud, violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission, and violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

디센트 전략

Decent Law Firm focused on demonstrating that the client was not involved in the alleged investment fraud scheme, but had only conducted a separate OTC exchange transaction.

We organized and submitted objective materials showing the client’s actual role in the transaction, including:

▪️Prior notice messages
The client had informed the complainant in advance that the exchange would only be processed if the funds were not illegal or used for unlawful purposes, that the client had no relationship with the introducer or the investment advisory group, and that any subsequent investment or trading after the crypto transfer was unrelated to the client.

▪️Actual crypto transfer records
The transaction records showed that the client had transferred the corresponding amount of virtual assets after deducting only the agreed exchange fee.

▪️Lack of causation
We emphasized that the complainant had made some profits during the investment process and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct causal link between the client’s OTC exchange transaction and the complainant’s ultimate investment losses.

An attorney from Decent Law Firm also attended the police questioning with the client and assisted the client in explaining the crypto transaction structure clearly, while avoiding unnecessary or potentially prejudicial statements.

결과 및 의의

"Non-Referral Decision"

The investigative authority acknowledged that the complainant had transferred funds for investment purposes. However, it found insufficient evidence to conclude that the client had participated in the alleged investment fraud, promised principal or profit guarantees, or provided a bank account for criminal use.

As a result, the client received a non-referral decision due to insufficient evidence on all three charges: fraud, violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission, and violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

This case shows that receiving funds into a personal account in a crypto OTC transaction does not automatically establish fraud accomplice liability or a violation of financial transaction laws. What matters is the client’s actual role, whether there was any investment solicitation or profit guarantee, and whether the account or transaction was knowingly provided for criminal purposes.