Criminal Defense

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense Lawyer

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense Lawyer | What Prosecutors Actually Have to Prove

Summary

Cryptocurrency fraud cases are usually prosecuted as ordinary fraud under the Criminal Act, sometimes combined with charges under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act if a borrowed or rented bank account ("daepo account") was used to receive victim funds (형법 제347조, 전자금융거래법 제49조). Whether you are the person who ran the investment scheme, recruited investors, or simply lent your account or wallet, the key legal question is the same: did you know, at the time you acted, that investors would not get their money back? That single question of intent decides whether a case ends in indictment, a suspended sentence, or non-prosecution.

Criminal · Fraud Related law: 형법 (Criminal Act) Related law: 전자금융거래법 Suspect / Defendant Perspective

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | Charges Commonly Filed in Crypto Fraud Cases

Most crypto fraud investigations rely on one or more of the following provisions. Understanding which one applies to your specific role in the alleged scheme is the first step in building a defense.

Art. 347

Fraud (사기)
Fraud requires that the accused deceived the victim and thereby caused the victim to hand over property, with intent to deceive existing at the time of the act (형법 제347조). In crypto cases, prosecutors typically point to promised guaranteed returns, fabricated trading algorithms, or nonexistent coin listings as the deception. Whether unfulfilled promises were lies from the start or a legitimate business that later failed is the central dispute in almost every case.

Art. 347-2

Computer-Use Fraud (컴퓨터등사용사기)
If funds or data were manipulated through unauthorized access to an exchange's system or account rather than through deceiving a person directly, this separate provision may apply (형법 제347조의2). This is less common than ordinary fraud but appears in cases involving exchange account hacking or manipulated wallet balances.

Art. 49

Lending or Renting a Bank Account (전자금융거래법)
Knowingly lending, renting, or receiving payment for the use of one's bank account or access media to receive victim funds is a separate crime, regardless of whether the account holder personally ran the fraud scheme (전자금융거래법 제49조). This charge frequently applies to peripheral participants who allowed their accounts to be used as pass-through points for investor money.

Art. 351

Habitual Fraud / Multiple Victims
Where a scheme involved a large number of victims or was repeated over time, prosecutors may pursue aggravated sentencing considerations, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes can apply once the total damage amount crosses certain thresholds. The aggregate damage amount, not just the number of charges, drives sentencing severity.

Where the Case Actually Turns

In practice, the outcome rarely hinges on whether cryptocurrency was involved at all — courts treat crypto fraud like any other investment fraud. It hinges on (1) whether intent to deceive can be shown from the moment funds were solicited, and (2) how much of the victim funds can be traced to the accused specifically, as opposed to co-conspirators. Both points require early, case-specific analysis rather than generic argument.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | How Intent to Deceive Is Proven or Disputed

Fraud is not established merely because investors lost money. The prosecution must show the accused intended, from the outset, not to deliver on what was promised. This is usually the single most contested issue in a crypto fraud defense.

Timing of the deception

Investigators look closely at whether the platform, trading bot, or mining operation actually existed and functioned at the time money was collected, even partially. If a real (if underperforming) business existed early on and only later became a Ponzi-style payout structure, this can support an argument that intent to deceive was absent at the outset for at least some of the charged period.

Promised returns and typical Ponzi indicators

Guaranteed fixed returns regardless of market performance, payouts to early investors funded by later investors' deposits, and pressure to recruit new investors are treated by prosecutors as strong circumstantial evidence of intent. Defense counsel typically needs to show, with financial records, where collected funds actually went and whether any genuine investment activity occurred.

Role-based intent for recruiters and referrers

Someone who recruited investors without operating the underlying scheme may argue they were themselves deceived and had no knowledge that returns were fabricated. This defense depends heavily on messages, contracts, and compensation structure showing whether the recruiter had access to internal financial information.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | Asset Tracing, Account Freezes, and Restitution

Because crypto fraud investigations usually involve dozens or hundreds of victims, financial account freezes and asset tracing happen early and can affect people who never personally handled investor funds.

Bank account freezes under the victim protection statute

Victims or investigators can request that a bank freeze an account believed to have received fraud proceeds under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud (통신사기피해환급법), even before any charge is finalized. A frozen personal account, including one unrelated to the specific transaction under dispute, can be a significant practical problem while the case is pending.

Restitution and its effect on sentencing

Actual repayment to victims, even partial, is treated favorably at sentencing and can support a request for a suspended sentence or non-prosecution disposition, though it does not by itself establish innocence (형법 제347조 관련 실무상 양형 고려사항). Courts and prosecutors distinguish between repayment made voluntarily early in the case and repayment made only after indictment.

Tracing cryptocurrency itself

Because blockchain transactions are recorded on a public ledger, investigators increasingly trace coin movements through exchange KYC records and wallet clustering analysis. This can work in a suspect's favor by showing funds were passed through to a co-conspirator rather than retained personally, which matters for calculating individual restitution and sentencing exposure.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | Multiple Defendants and Your Specific Role

Crypto fraud schemes rarely involve just one person. Distinguishing your actual role from that of co-defendants is often the most effective way to reduce exposure.

Organizer vs. account lender vs. recruiter

Investigators typically classify defendants into tiers: the person who designed and controlled the scheme, mid-level recruiters who brought in investors, and people who merely lent bank accounts or wallets for a fee. Sentencing and even the specific charges filed can differ substantially between these tiers, so establishing exactly where you fit is a priority from the first interview.

Joint principal liability

Under Korean criminal law, two or more people who jointly carry out a crime through a functional division of roles can each be held liable as a co-principal, meaning a peripheral participant can still face liability equivalent to the main organizer if the shared intent and role can be shown (형법 제30조). Whether your involvement rises to that level, or was instead limited, unwitting assistance, is a fact-specific argument that needs to be raised early in the investigation.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | From Investigation to Case Resolution

Initial consultation and case review
Before the first police or prosecutor interview, counsel reviews the specific allegations, your role, and available financial records to identify what evidence the investigation is likely built on.

Police and prosecutor interviews
Attorneys can attend investigative interviews and help prepare consistent, accurate statements, since inconsistent answers across multiple interviews are frequently used to argue consciousness of guilt.

Evidence and financial record review
Bank statements, wallet transaction histories, messaging records, and contracts are gathered to establish the actual flow of funds and to support arguments about intent and individual role.

Negotiating disposition or preparing for indictment
Depending on the strength of the evidence, counsel may pursue non-prosecution, a summary indictment, or begin preparing a full defense for trial, including restitution negotiations with victims where appropriate.

Trial or sentencing hearing
If indicted, the case proceeds to trial where intent, damage amount, and individual role are argued in detail, or to a sentencing hearing focused on mitigating factors if guilt is not contested.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | How Defense Fees Are Structured

Retainer fee
Generally set based on the stage of the case (pre-investigation, after a summons, or after indictment), the number and severity of charges, and the complexity of tracing funds across multiple accounts or co-defendants.

Success or outcome fee
May be structured around specific measurable outcomes such as non-prosecution, a reduced charge, or a suspended sentence, agreed in advance and set out clearly in the engagement contract.

Victim negotiation and restitution costs
Separate from attorney fees, negotiating repayment with victims may involve its own costs, and any actual restitution amount is distinct from the legal fee itself.

Disbursements
Includes costs such as document retrieval, expert financial analysis of transaction records, and travel for hearings outside the local jurisdiction, billed separately from the retainer.

※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.

Cryptocurrency Fraud Defense | Self-Check Before Your First Interview

1️⃣ For the Alleged Scheme Organizer

Can you show that a real product, platform, or trading strategy existed when you collected the first investor funds?
Do you have records of how collected funds were actually used, separate from what you told investors?
Have you made or offered any repayment to victims, and can you document it?
Are you the only person who controlled the funds, or were there co-organizers?

2️⃣ For Recruiters and Referrers

Did you have access to internal financial records showing the scheme was unsustainable, or were you also relying on the organizer's representations?
Do you have messages or contracts showing what you were told about the investment, as opposed to what you told investors?
Were you compensated with a flat referral fee or with a percentage tied to investor deposits?

3️⃣ For Bank Account or Wallet Lenders

Did you know, or have reason to suspect, that the account would be used to receive fraud proceeds?
Were you paid specifically for use of your account or access media?
Has your account been frozen under the telecommunications fraud victim protection statute, and have you received formal notice?

4️⃣ If You Have Already Received a Police Summons

Have you reviewed the specific charge and statute cited in the summons before your interview?
Have you gathered your own transaction records and communications relevant to the allegation?
Do you have a consistent account of your role prepared before speaking to investigators?

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. I lost money on a coin that later turned out to be a scam, but investigators are now questioning me as a suspect because I recruited friends. What should I do?

A. This is a common and difficult position because you may be both a victim and a suspect. The key issue is whether you knew or should have known the investment was fraudulent when you recruited others (형법 제347조 요건인 기망의 고의). Gathering evidence of what you were told and when, before your first interview, is important.

Q. Can I be charged just for lending my bank account, even though I didn't run the scheme?

A. Yes. Knowingly lending or renting a bank account or access media for someone else's use is a separate offense under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, regardless of your role in the underlying fraud (전자금융거래법 제49조). Whether you knew the account would be used for fraud proceeds is the central factual dispute in these cases.

Q. My bank account was frozen even though I say I didn't do anything wrong. What can I do?

A. Accounts can be frozen based on a victim's request under the telecommunications-based financial fraud victim protection statute even before charges are finalized (통신사기피해환급법). There are procedures to contest or request release of a freeze, particularly for funds unrelated to the disputed transaction, and this is often handled alongside the criminal case.

Q. If I repay the victims, will the charges be dropped?

A. Restitution does not automatically result in dismissal, but actual repayment, especially early and voluntary repayment, is generally considered a favorable factor in prosecutorial and sentencing decisions and can support a request for non-prosecution or a suspended sentence.

Q. What is the difference between being charged with fraud versus computer-use fraud?

A. Ordinary fraud under Article 347 requires deceiving a person into voluntarily handing over property, while computer-use fraud under Article 347-2 applies to unauthorized manipulation of a computer system or data to obtain property without directly deceiving a person (형법 제347조, 제347조의2). Most investment-scheme crypto cases are charged under the ordinary fraud provision.

Q. How is the damage amount calculated when investors are still holding worthless coins?

A. Damage amount calculations vary by case, but generally focus on the money actually paid in by victims rather than any residual notional value of coins they still hold. Aggregate damage amount across all victims can trigger aggravated sentencing considerations, which is why an accurate accounting is important early on.

Q. Can multiple defendants be charged differently for the same scheme?

A. Yes. Investigators and prosecutors typically distinguish between the organizer, mid-level participants, and peripheral participants such as account lenders, and each may face different charges or sentencing outcomes depending on their actual role and knowledge (형법 제30조 공동정범 관련 실무).

Q. Should I get a local lawyer if the case is being investigated outside Seoul?

A. Cases are typically handled by the police or prosecutor's office with jurisdiction over where the fraud occurred or where the accused resides, so working with a crypto fraud defense lawyer familiar with the specific regional office can help with practical matters like interview scheduling and local procedure.

Q. What happens if I ignore a police summons related to a crypto investment I was involved in?

A. Ignoring a summons does not stop the investigation and can result in a warrant for compelled appearance or be viewed unfavorably later in the case. It is generally advisable to respond and prepare with counsel rather than avoid the interview.

Q. Is it better to stay silent during the police interview?

A. You have a right to remain silent, but whether exercising it helps or hurts your case depends heavily on the specific evidence already gathered against you and your role in the alleged scheme. This is a strategic decision best made with counsel after reviewing what the investigation already has.

Official References

개인정보처리방침

법무법인 프런티어(이하 “사무소”)는 개인정보보호법에 따라 정보주체의 개인정보 및 권익을 보호하고 개인정보와 관련된 정보주체의 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리하기 위하여 본 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.

제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치

제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다

제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.

제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.

제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.

제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.

제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.

제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.

개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.

제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.

제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제