Defense Against Punishment for Quasi-Deposit-Taking | Non-Prosecution for a Client Charged With Fraud and Quasi-Deposit-Taking

The client was solicited to invest by a friend, A, and began investing.

Subsequently, the client’s acquaintances also came to invest in A through the client, and to simplify the transactions, investment funds were sent and received through the client’s account.

However, A, who had promised to guarantee the investment principal, did not keep the promise, and in the end the client’s acquaintances filed a criminal complaint against the client and A on suspicion of fraud.

As a result, the client was referred to the prosecutors on suspicion of fraud and quasi-deposit-taking, and requested legal assistance to defend against punishment, asserting that he was in fact merely a victim and had no involvement in the case.

Act on Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Article 6

Criminal Act Article 347

The complainants were claiming that the client had participated in offenses such as fraud.

Accordingly, the criminal law attorney closely collected and analyzed relevant materials, such as bank account transfer records, in order to prove that the client had not been involved in the offenses.

As a result, it was confirmed that although the client had received funds deposited by the complainants, he had remitted all of them to A as they were, at A's request.

The criminal law attorney established that the client had not obtained any monetary benefit in this process, and actively argued for a finding of no charge on the ground that the elements of involvement and acquisition of benefit required for the application of punishment for quasi-deposit-taking were difficult to recognize.

When the client first began investing, he did not suspect Mr. A and showed a cooperative attitude, such as remitting funds exactly as instructed.

However, the client too was deceived by Mr. A and suffered a large loss.

Accordingly, the criminal specialist attorney submitted the remittance records and deposit records as evidence and emphasized that the client was not a subject of quasi-deposit-taking punishment but rather a victim.

The client did not engage as a business in the act of raising funds from an unspecified number of people.

The criminal law attorney argued that, because the actual complainants were all in a personal acquaintance relationship with the client, it was difficult to regard them as an unspecified number of people.

In addition, the client stated that he had merely conveyed investment-related information to acquaintances interested in investing at A’s request, and that he had no intention whatsoever to raise funds or gather investment money from an unspecified number of people.

Accordingly, the attorney emphasized that it was difficult to conclude that the client’s conduct constituted quasi-deposit-taking.

In a criminal case such as the above, complex facts such as the flow of funds, the method of solicitation, and the business structure are closely examined during the investigation.

In particular, because professional analysis of various legal issues, such as the existence of intent, the calculation of the scale of harm, and the scope of investors and contractual relationships, is required, an inadequate initial response may lead to legal disadvantage.

Daeryun LLC, the 9th-ranked law firm in the Republic of Korea (based on 2025 National Tax Service value-added tax filings), has many specialist attorneys with extensive experience in criminal cases and prepares prompt response measures.

In addition, it operates its own evidence investigation center to collect materials that may work in the client's favor and builds a strategy on that basis.

If you have become involved in a criminal case in a situation such as the above, please entrust your case at any time through Daeryun LLC's 🔗legal consultation reservation.