Incheon Voice Phishing Attorney Assistance | Assisting a Client Wrongfully Accused of Voice Phishing to Obtain a No Prosecution Decision

Voice phishing is becoming increasingly organized and sophisticated, and as a result the number of victims who are deceived is growing.

As with the client in the above case, such schemes now extend to bold conduct that even involves meeting in person to receive cash directly.

Electronic financial crimes such as voice phishing are criminal acts of obtaining pecuniary benefits by using personal information and financial transaction information acquired through deceiving others, and they may be punishable as the 🔗Crime of fraud under the Criminal Act. No one may deceive another person and thereby receive property, obtain a pecuniary benefit, or cause a third party to obtain such a benefit.

A person who transfers a bankbook, cash card, or the like while knowing that it will be used in a fraud offense may, separately from the offense of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, be punished for the crime of aiding and abetting fraud under the Criminal Act.

A violation of this is punishable under Article 347 of the Criminal Act by imprisonment for up to ten years or a fine of up to 20 million won.

The Incheon voice phishing attorney argued that the client had not suspected at all that this was voice phishing.

At the time, the client was in such financial difficulty that they had taken out a loan from a moneylending company.

While receiving consultation in an effort to find a loan with a lower interest rate, the client was introduced by the organization member to a "sole proprietor loan product" that could be used at a lower interest rate.

The organization member said that a track record was needed in order to obtain the sole proprietor loan, and instructed the client to withdraw the amount deposited into the client's account, exchange it for gift certificates, and deliver them.

The client had no idea at all that the amount deposited into their account was the funds of voice phishing victims.

The Incheon voice phishing attorney emphasized that, because this entire sequence of events differed entirely from a typical voice phishing offense, the client could not have recognized it as voice phishing.

In addition, the client was neither guaranteed nor promised any financial compensation in this process.

The client realized that this was a voice phishing offense only upon being contacted for the police investigation.

Had the client aided or taken part in such conduct while knowing that it was voice phishing, the client would not have participated so actively in the investigation.