Blog, Criminal

Caught in the Act: 15 days of detention, 3 rounds of interrogation

A man was arrested on the spot while withdrawing cash using more than ten cards under others’ names. Within 48 hours, an arrest warrant was issued, and he was detained in a detention center for half a month during the investigation. He had already undergone three rounds of suspect interrogation. During the first interrogation, he claimed that he had no choice but to comply due to threats from a criminal organization, stating that he would have been harmed if he hadn’t followed orders. However, in the second and third interrogations, he recanted his statement and invoked his right to remain silent. His claims were completely disregarded during the police investigation, and even the interpreter called in by the police provided highly unfavorable testimony against him. It was at this point that he became our law firm’s client.

Electronic Financial Transactions Act

He was indicted for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (전자금융거래법) and the Criminal Act (형법). 

Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3 

(3) Renting, lending, possessing, delivering, or distributing an access medium with the intent to use it for a crime or knowing that it will be used for a crime.

Here, an access medium (접근매체) refers to a means for electronic financial transactions, such as cards, passbooks, etc. The police regarded our client as a cash withdrawal mule (현금수거책) for a fraud crime and arrested him.

Why Common Defenses Fail: The Futility of “I Didn’t Know” and “I Was Threatened”

Why do arguments like “I didn’t know” or “I had no choice because I was threatened” fail to persuade the investigators in such cases? The primary reason is that financial crimes are considered to have a significant impact on society, leading investigative agencies and courts to treat them with the utmost seriousness. In this case, our client claimed that while traveling in Korea, he was instructed by a criminal organization via Telegram to withdraw cash. He stated that he felt threatened and complied with their instructions out of fear, believing that the criminal organization was tracking and monitoring his every move. To his perplexity, however, there was no concrete evidence remaining to support his claim, as the individual who had instructed him to withdraw the cash had erased the messages and deleted the chat room, leaving no trace of their communication.

The Real Difficulties of Custody Investigations

Here, we’d like to briefly explain why custody investigations can be so daunting. From the client’s perspective, they are subjected to immense emotional strain in an unfamiliar environment where their freedom is severely restricted. As a result, they may inadvertently say or do things that could jeopardize their case.

From the perspective of the investigative and judicial authorities, the requirements for issuing a warrant that curtails personal freedom are rigorous. An arrest warrant can be issued when the prosecution request it and the court grants approval. The court meticulously assesses the grounds for detention, considering factors such as the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of recidivism, and the potential danger posed to victims and key witnesses. Consequently, the mere presence of an arrest warrant at the scene suggests that the court and investigative authorities have compelling reasons to suspect the individual’s involvement in a serious crime. For the suspect, this means that securing a favorable outcome is an uphill battle.

The particularly challenging aspects of this case were twofold: firstly, the Korean courts treat this type of crime with great severity, and secondly, our client was arrested under circumstances that strongly suggested his guilt. In such a case, if the client simply maintains his innocence without considering the legal context and the court’s perspective, it may create an insincere impression on the court. The critical point to understand is that when deciding whether to admit fault and how to do so, relying on common legal knowledge or emotional responses can lead to disastrous consequences. The logic employed by legal professionals can be entirely different from that of the general public.

Legal Strategy Under Severe Circumstances

Despite the challenging circumstances, we adapted our strategy. Given the existence of tangible and substantial evidence (records of our client withdrawing cash using others’ cards and CCTV footage), and the fact that he already admitted his guilt, we aimed to demonstrate accountability and remorse while simultaneously requesting leniency from the court. Through a thorough analysis of our client, we uncovered favorable circumstances and evidence and wove them into a compelling narrative. We meticulously demonstrated with verifiable evidence how our well-intentioned client unknowingly became involved in a crime, why he couldn’t extricate himself after realizing something was amiss, and how diligently and honestly he had lived his whole life.

This concept may be difficult to comprehend, but even if you genuinely believe in your innocence, expressing it without considering the legal context may lead to negative outcomes in court. Understanding this distinction can be a successful starting point for you. Of course, the decision to admit guilt and the specific methods of presenting an appeal should be carefully determined and strategized.

Proving Innocence: Overcoming Sparse Evidence

Establishing our client’s alibi was another matter of utmost importance. He was under greater suspicion because he had traveled to places with inconvenient transportation and communication, and he was unable to prove his innocence on his own. Moreover, despite the scarcity of CCTV footage, as he primarily traveled to rural areas, we logically structured the evidence to persuade the court, which played a pivotal role in securing a favorable judgment. 

Final Victory Against the Odds 

As a result, despite the felony associated with possessing numerous cards under others’ name, our client was ultimately sentenced to 10 months in prison, but with the suspension of execution of sentence (집행유예). This is a system that sentences a defendant to a punishment, but postpones the execution of that punishment for a period of time, and if the defendant does nothing during that time, the punishment is not executed. In other words, even though the defendant was found guilty, the court will not send him to jail, but will monitor him, and if he does not cause trouble for a while, he will be forgiven.

This case demonstrates that by thoroughly understanding individual circumstances and employing tailored defense strategies accordingly, it is possible to achieve favorable outcomes even in highly disadvantageous criminal cases.

We plan to continue this series, showcasing how we have protected the rights of our clients in cases that seemed nearly impossible to win.

Also, you can refer to the following posts related to this case:

• Voice Phishing Job Scams in Korea
• Detention Period in Korea: How long I should be held in detention center?