Anyang Lawyer Consultation | Defending Against an Actual Sentence Despite Charges of Involvement in Voice Phishing Exceeding 200 Million Won

The client who came for an Anyang attorney consultation was in a situation in which the client had been indicted for fraud and for a violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

🔗Voice phishing is a representative property crime provided for in the Criminal Act. Where it is found that a person deceived the other party into a mistaken belief and thereby obtained an economic benefit, the person is subject to imprisonment for not more than ten years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

Recently, as the job market has experienced difficulties, the number of young people who become involved with voice phishing fraud groups has surged.

If you are in a situation in which an investigative agency has contacted you for an examination, this means that the suspicion is, to some extent, established, so you should prepare a thorough response through a consultation with an attorney.

The Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is a law enacted to maintain a sound social order by regulating acts of concealing criminal proceeds related to specific crimes and by providing special provisions on the confiscation and collection thereof, thereby removing the economic factors that encourage specific crimes.

A violation of this law may result in imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

Through a consultation with an Anyang attorney, the client in the Anyang case asserted that, at the time, the client had no way to suspect that the company in question was a fraud organization.

The client was currently on a leave of absence from school and had taken on various part-time jobs to cover tuition and living expenses. While doing so, the client applied for a job posting recruiting a part-time worker in charge of packaging and parcel shipping.

Afterward, the client received a message saying, “The owner is unwell and has to close the shop for a while, so I will introduce you to a friend’s company.”

The client was told that it was a company that received investment funds from customers, invested them, and returned the profits generated, and that the job involved receiving investment funds from customers and remitting them.

When the client asked whether this was a suspicious line of work, the representative of the organization reassured the client by sending photographs of the company, business cards, and a business registration certificate.

The representative also replied that all of the company information would appear in an internet search, and when the client actually searched, there was a proper website as well, so the client came to regard it as a reasonably sound company.

In addition, because the client signed an employment contract and commuted to a normal office to perform the work, the client had no reason at all to suspect that it was a fraud organization.

The Anyang attorney argued that intent is recognized only when the person is aware of at least the essential elements of the crime.

There must be awareness and willingness to take part in the fraudulent offense, and a vague awareness of or suspicion about illegality, without more, is insufficient to constitute the intent required for fraud (see Seoul Eastern District Court, Judgment of December 11, 2019, 2019 Godan 2417).

A mere vague unease, thought, or expectation that something might be used for some unlawful purpose does not establish such intent (see Suwon District Court Ansan Branch, Judgment of April 18, 2019, 2018 Godan 4459).