Suwon Law Office Case | A Suwon Attorney Established the Absence of Fraud and Concluded the Case With a Non-Prosecution Decision

The detailed account of the client who held a consultation at the Suwon law office is as follows.

The client was defrauded of approximately 500 million won after being invited into an overseas futures investment chat room.

Having been defrauded, the client ran short of money and decided to take out a loan of 40 million won from Savings Bank A.

While applying for the loan, the client checked "no" in response to the question of whether a concurrent loan was being taken out from another financial institution, and received the loan.

After taking out the loan from Bank A in the morning, the client decided to take out an additional loan of 12 million won from Savings Bank B in the afternoon and borrowed the money.

A short time later, the client learned that he had been reported by Savings Bank A on a charge of 🔗fraud.

The reason was that the client had become implicated in a charge of having deceived Bank A and intentionally taken out concurrent loans.

Having suffered losses of about 500 million won, the client was identified as a fraud suspect and placed in a deeply unjust situation, and came to a Suwon attorney to clear the charge.

For fraud to be committed, the following elements must be satisfied.

▶ The other party must be deceived and led into a mistaken belief.

▶ The other party who is under the mistaken belief must dispose of property.

▶ The deceiver or a third party must acquire the property.

▶ A property loss must occur to the victim.

During Savings Bank A's review process, the client never gave false information or submitted false documents regarding whether a concurrent loan was being taken out.

The client did not have a plan to take out concurrent loans from the outset, but applied for an additional loan because of a shortage of money after suffering fraud.

If the client had intended to defraud money, he would not have given truthful information about whether a concurrent loan was being taken out during Bank A's loan review process.

The attorney therefore emphasized that it could not be concluded that the client had deceived Bank A with an intent to defraud from the outset and obtained pecuniary benefit.

As of the morning, the client had not applied for a concurrent loan.

Savings Bank A decided on the loan after conducting an investigation into the client's repayment ability by comprehensively considering the documents the client submitted and the results of the credit information inquiry.

The bank determined all of the terms of the loan agreement, including the repayment method, the loan period, and the means of repayment.

Because whether fraud is established must be judged as of the time of the act, the attorney emphasized that the client's act does not constitute fraud.

If you are involved in a fraud case, various factors regarding intent and the act itself must be considered, so it is recommended to obtain the assistance of an attorney early in the case.

Fraud involves somewhat complex matters, and the punishment varies depending on the amount of damage, so establishing a favorable defense strategy is important.

At Daeryun, 🔗criminal attorneys with practical investigative experience conduct investigations similar to the investigation process and respond to a case from multiple angles.

If you are facing difficulties because you are involved in a fraud charge, it is recommended to resolve the matter through a Suwon attorney 🔗legal consultation booking.