Accessory to Voice Phishing Allegations in a USDT OTC Trade

Client Information

Individual / Suspect

Case Details

Through a person-to-person over-the-counter (OTC) virtual asset trade, the client received approximately KRW 11 million in cash and transferred the corresponding amount of USDT. At the time, the client understood that the counterparty wanted to buy virtual assets for themselves and proceeded with the trade.

The counterparty was later identified as a person connected to a voice phishing crime, and the client also came under investigation. Investigators suspected that the client had helped a criminal organization move funds by receiving voice phishing proceeds in cash and converting them into virtual assets.

The charge was aiding a violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss. The client admitted that he had received the cash and delivered the USDT, but maintained that he did not know the funds were connected to voice phishing.

01. Distinguishing the Fact of the Trade from Awareness of the Crime

There was no dispute that the client had received cash and transferred USDT. The key question was therefore not whether the trade occurred, but whether the client knew at the time that the counterparty was involved in a crime and whether he was aware that he was facilitating voice phishing.

02. Specific Circumstances Showing the Trade Was Perceived as Legitimate

It was necessary to examine how the client came to know the counterparty, the verification steps before the trade, and the content of their conversations to confirm what explanation the client received before trading. The fact that the counterparty was connected to a crime had to be considered separately from whether the client was aware of it.

03. Objective Evidence of Intent to Aid

We examined whether objective materials showed prior collusion with or instructions from a criminal organization, or that the client traded knowing the funds were criminal proceeds. The issue was whether awareness of the crime could be inferred solely from the outward fact of receiving cash and transferring virtual assets.

01. Organizing the Circumstances of the Trade and the Relationship with the Counterparty

DECENT Law Firm reviewed the process from how the client met the counterparty to receiving the cash and transferring the USDT. In defense counsel's opinions, we set out the circumstances in which the client perceived the counterparty as an ordinary virtual asset buyer and the absence of any indication of prior collusion with or participation in the criminal organization.

02. Explanation Based on Pre-Trade Verification and Chat Records

During the trade, the client tried to confirm the counterparty's identity and purpose for buying the coins. DECENT reviewed the chat records from that time to substantiate the argument that the client had tried to avoid trades involving illicit funds.

On this basis, we explained that the client perceived the transaction as an ordinary person-to-person OTC trade and did not intend to exchange criminal proceeds.

03. Three Opinions Focused on the Lack of Objective Evidence

DECENT emphasized that the fact of receiving cash and transferring USDT must be assessed separately from knowingly aiding voice phishing. We focused on whether the client knew of the counterparty's involvement with a criminal organization and whether there was any basis to conclude that he traded to move criminal funds.

We responded by submitting a total of three defense counsel's opinions to the investigators, setting out the circumstances of the trade, the related materials, and the issues concerning intent to aid.