Supreme Court: "Voice Phishing Using Fake Debt Repayment Confirmation... Crime of Concealing Criminal Proceeds Applicable"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act) should be applied to voice phishing scams where forged debt repayment confirmation letters were used to collect money.

On the 13th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheolsang) announced that in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of fraud and violation of the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, it overturned the lower court's ruling that acquitted him of the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act violation and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison, and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.

In March of last year, Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of acting as a so-called "remittance agent," receiving money from victims under the pretext of low-interest loans at the direction of a voice phishing organization and transferring it to a borrowed-name account. During this process, he was investigated for impersonating a financial institution employee and issuing fake debt repayment confirmation letters to victims.

The first trial court stated, "Mr. A performed the instructed tasks while at least implicitly recognizing or foreseeing the possibility that his actions were involved in voice phishing crimes," and found most charges guilty, sentencing him to 1 year and 6 months in prison.

On the other hand, the second trial court maintained the first trial's sentence but acquitted him of the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act violation. The second trial court ruled, "The 10.45 million won that Mr. A received and remitted is property obtained through fraud," and "It cannot be considered criminal proceeds as defined by the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act."

The current Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act defines crimes corresponding to Article 231 (Forgery and alteration of private documents) and Article 234 (Use of forged private documents) of the Criminal Act as serious crimes, but does not include general fraud.

However, the Supreme Court ruled to re-examine and judge the case. The court stated, "Mr. A's forgery and use of the debt repayment confirmation letter was for the purpose of obtaining unlawful financial gain," and "Since he used it and received money from victims, it can be regarded as property obtained through serious crimes under the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, namely forgery of private documents and use of forged private documents, and thus qualifies as criminal proceeds."

It added, "The lower court erred in misunderstanding the legal principles regarding criminal proceeds under the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, which affected the judgment."