"Prank" 85 Million Won Snatching...It Was a Staged Hoax to Promote a Business

Tried to boost trust by taking responsibility for a fake theft
Gift certificate agency owner faces arrest over staged incident

The so-called "850 million won cash bag snatching in Bundang" case, initially believed to be a prank among friends, has turned out to be a staged incident fabricated to promote a business.

According to a Yonhap News report on the 17th, Bundang Police Station, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, has requested an arrest warrant for A, a man in his 40s who runs a gift certificate purchasing agency, on charges of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means. The police have also booked two acquaintances in their 40s, B and C, who allegedly conspired with A in the crime, on the same charges and are investigating them.

Bundang Police Station, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province

A and the others are accused of obstructing police duties by staging a fake snatching and filing a false report, making it appear as though a bag containing 85 million won had been stolen on a residential street in Yatap-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, at around 4 p.m. on December 29 last year. A was initially known as the victim in this case. He claimed that, while carrying the cash bag, a helmeted assailant on a motorcycle snatched it from him. After the police arrived in response to the report, B suddenly appeared and returned the money, saying it was "just a prank among friends." Up to that point, the case seemed likely to end as a simple happening.

However, the police investigation revealed that this was a hoax orchestrated by A to enhance the credibility of his business. In the gift certificate trading industry, there is a common practice that middle managers are not held responsible if a robbery, theft, or other incident occurs during delivery. A tried to exploit this practice in reverse to promote his company. His intention was to create a case in which "even when a theft occurred, he took responsibility and returned the money," thereby gaining customers' trust.

To this end, A recruited his acquaintances and assigned them roles. When A withdrew a client's money and set off with it, C, who was waiting in advance, would snatch the bag using a motorcycle, and then B, having received the bag, would appear later and smooth things over by saying it had "just been a prank." It appears that A then intended to use the record of having reported the incident to the police, and the subsequent handling of it, to reassure clients and promote his business.

In the early stage of the case, B had been booked on theft charges. During the investigation and trial, if it had been determined that his actions were merely a prank without "intent of unlawful appropriation" (the intent to use or dispose of another person's property as if it were one's own), it was possible that the theft charge would not have met the legal requirements, and he could have been cleared or found not guilty. However, as the amount involved was too large to be regarded as a prank, and as there were signs of planning, such as renting a motorcycle for the crime, the police expanded the investigation by searching closed-circuit (CC) TV footage in the area and checking communication records.

Confronted with evidence gathered by the police, A and the others eventually confessed fully to the crime. A police official said, "As we broadened the investigation, we detected indications that they had conspired, and therefore expanded our probe," adding, "We requested an arrest warrant for A in consideration of the fact that he was the principal offender who planned the crime."