1. Client’s Crisis

The client was indicted on charges of participating in a money laundering organization involving a total of 8.6 billion won. The role carried out was to receive proceeds from crimes with significant social harm, such as voice phishing, illegal gambling sites, and investment fraud, through borrowed-name accounts, convert them into cash, and deliver them. Together with an accomplice, the client secured laundering work through brokers, managed so-called mule bank accounts, and dispersed and transferred funds, taking a commission of about 1.5%.

At trial, the court of first instance imposed an actual prison sentence of 2 years and 6 months, citing the enormity and seriousness of the crimes. In addition, it ordered forfeiture of a large amount of cash seized during the investigation, along with expensive luxury watches and jewelry, and imposed a surcharge as well. Faced with the risk of losing not only imprisonment but also all personal assets, the client came to Law Firm Jeonjae.

2. Key Issues

The key issues to be contested in this case were broadly threefold. First, whether all funds included in the indictment qualified as proceeds of a “serious crime” under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds. Of the total amount of 8.6 billion won, some portions were legally difficult to treat as proceeds of a “serious crime.” Second, it had to be determined whether the luxury watches and jewelry seized during the investigation were actually purchased with criminal proceeds, or whether they were the client’s personal assets unrelated to the crimes. The trial court had ordered blanket forfeiture without making that distinction. Third, given the scale of the 8.6 billion won money laundering operation, it was also necessary to challenge whether the sentence imposed at first instance was appropriate and whether sufficiently favorable sentencing factors for the client had been considered.

3. Our Strategy

Attorney Shin Mi-jin developed a strategy in the appellate court focused on identifying legal flaws and factual errors.

First, she directly challenged the funds related to the alleged “Violation of the Interest Limitation Act” (32.4 million won) on legal grounds. She argued that a violation of the Interest Limitation Act does not constitute a “serious crime” under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and therefore the money laundering charge relating to those funds could not stand.

Second, she demonstrated that the forfeiture of the seized luxury watches and jewelry was improper. She examined and rebutted, one by one, the lack of evidence showing that those assets had been purchased with criminal proceeds or used in the commission of the offenses, and focused on proving that they were the client’s personal assets unrelated to the crimes, thereby overturning the forfeiture ruling.

Third, regarding sentencing, she specifically presented favorable circumstances such as the client’s cooperation with the investigation, sincere remorse for the wrongdoing, and lack of prior convictions, and requested a reduction in sentence.

4. Outcome and Recovery

The appellate court accepted Attorney Shin Mi-jin’s arguments and modified the first-instance judgment in three respects.

First, it acquitted the client of the 32.4 million won portion related to the violation of the Interest Limitation Act. Next, regarding the high-value watches and jewelry that had been ordered forfeited at trial, the court found insufficient evidence that they had been purchased with criminal proceeds, revoked the forfeiture order, and directed that those items be returned to the client. The final sentence was also reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

In a large-scale money laundering case where severe punishment was expected, the result protected the client’s property rights and reduced the sentence by precisely disputing the legal scope of criminal proceeds and proving the impropriety of forfeiting personal assets unrelated to the crime.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting with a professional, as the outcome may differ depending on the specific facts of the case.

Attorney in Charge: Attorney Shin Mi-jin

To protect confidentiality, this case has been partially de-identified to the extent that it does not undermine the essence of the matter.