Officetel Sale Fraud Assistance Case | A Non-Referral Decision for a Client Suspected of Fraud

The client, who had become a suspect in officetel sale fraud, decided to sell an officetel and concluded a sale contract with the buyer.

The buyer paid the down payment, but as the balance-payment date approached, the buyer demanded additional repairs or a reduction of the price, citing traces of interior defects and a bathroom drainage problem.

The client indicated the position that some repairs were possible, but the buyer sent a message stating, "If the conditions do not match, it may be better to look for another buyer."

The client took this content to mean that there was no intention to proceed with the contract.

The client thereafter sold the officetel to a new buyer, and, judging that the contract with the existing buyer had effectively ended, did not return the down payment.

However, the existing buyer asserted that the contract had never been rescinded, and that the client had received the down payment while concealing the officetel's defects, filing a civil lawsuit claiming its return.

After prevailing in the civil lawsuit, the buyer filed a complaint on suspicion of fraud, asserting that the client had known of the defects from the outset and had not disclosed them.

Ahead of the police questioning, the client sought out the law firm Daeryun and requested help.

In the officetel sale fraud case, the real estate lawyer reviewed, in order, the content of the explanation at the time of the contract, the opportunity to inspect the site, the point at which the defects arose, the circumstances of the repair response, and the point of the resale.

In this case, the key was whether the client had intended, from the time of the contract, to deceive the buyer and receive the down payment.

In the course of the officetel sale fraud investigation, the investigative authorities judged that it was difficult to find that the client had intentionally concealed the officetel's defects and had sought to defraud the buyer of the down payment.

As a result, the client was able to receive a non-referral decision on the fraud charge.

For an officetel sale fraud suspicion to be recognized, it must be confirmed that the seller sought, from the time of the contract, to deceive the buyer and receive the down payment or the sale price.

Because the crime of fraud is not established merely on the ground that a contract fell through, or that there is a defect, it is important, from the suspect's standpoint, to organize the content of the conversations before and after the contract and the circumstances of the buyer's confirmation of the defects.

In this case as well, it was confirmed that, after the buyer raised the issue, the client carried out some repair work and even bore the cost, and such circumstances could be used as a basis showing an intention to perform the contract rather than an intent to defraud.

Therefore, it is important to organize the facts and the supporting materials centered on the following matters.