Busan Attorney | Busan Criminal Attorney, Assists Client Suspected of Being a Voice Phishing Cash Collector, Resulting in a Non-referral Decision

The client explained that two months earlier he had received a call stating that a fraudulent bank account had been issued in his name and was being used for criminal proceeds.

At the time, the client received a call from a person claiming to be a prosecutor at the Suwon Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, who threatened that a fraudulent bank account had been issued in the client's name and was being used in crime, and that if he did not want to be detained, he must immediately follow the caller's instructions.

In fact, the voice phishing offenders completely deceived the client using forged official documents and the client's personal information that could make them appear to be a genuine investigative authority.

The client explained that he had mistakenly believed the matter to be real and had no choice but to follow the offenders' instructions.

The client explained that he had previously received an offer for a high-paying short-term part-time job through a job-search site and had provided his own account information.

However, he stated that he had never anticipated that his account would be misused through this.

The client deposited nearly 200 million won in cash to the offenders over a total of 10 separate occasions, and he even served as a cash collector receiving funds from numerous victims, placing him in the dual position of both victim and suspect.

The client, after being instructed by the voice phishing offenders to go to a nearby police station and meeting a detective in the investigation division, came to realize that this was all voice phishing.

In the end, the client disclosed all the facts and was booked without detention as a voice phishing cash collector.

The client was alleged to have opened an account that was used as a fraudulent bank account at the demand of the voice phishing organization.

In particular, because circumstances were detected indicating that criminal proceeds had been transferred from the client's account, the police suspected that the client had conspired with the voice phishing organization.

The Busan attorney explained that the client had been booked on an alleged violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

The key issues in the case were whether the client had known in advance about the voice phishing crime, and whether he had intentionally participated in the crime.

① Did the client know about the crime?

The Busan attorney explained that the elements of a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are the act of borrowing or lending an access medium for the purpose of using it in a crime or while knowing that it will be used in a crime, or the act of keeping, delivering, or distributing such a medium.

According to precedent, with respect to “the purpose of using it in a crime,” where there is no evidence that the defendant himself had the purpose of using the cards he kept, delivered, and so on in a crime, and with respect to “while knowing that it will be used in a crime,” where there is no proof of which specific criminal statute the vague unlawfulness the defendant was aware of corresponds to, the courts have held that this part too is a case in which the crime is not proven.

In the end, according to that precedent, it was judged proper that the client also be treated as not guilty.

② Did he intentionally participate in the crime?

The client explained that the offenders knew all of his personal details and had deceived him with forged official documents, so that there had been no room for doubt.

In addition, unable to withstand the offenders' threats, the client collected cash from numerous victims and handed it over to organization members, thus carrying out the role of a cash collector.

Because of the voice phishing offenders' systematic instructions, it was difficult for him to recognize that he was participating in a voice phishing crime.

The Busan attorney determined that the client had no way of knowing that he was participating in the offense, and concluded that there was no criminal liability.

The Busan attorney argued that there was no conditional intent, emphasizing that the client had no prior knowledge of the crime and that he had no choice but to act under threats from the organization.

This could be proven on the basis of the remittance records, conversation records, and other materials exchanged between the client and the offenders.

The Busan attorney proved that the client was not a mere perpetrator but a victim of the voice phishing organization who had been exploited by the offenders.

Explaining that the offenders had exerted psychological pressure through forged official documents and personal information, the attorney emphasized that the client was a victim who had not properly recognized the criminal situation.