[Expert Contribution] Voice phishing, boundaries between perpetrators and victims… Consider the principle of responsibility

Voice phishing crimes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It is no longer possible to deceive people with crude text or slurred speech like in the past. When dealing with actual criminal cases, many of the ‘collectors’, ‘delivery agents’, and ‘account and SIM providers’ who participate in voice phishing are either newcomers to society or housewives. After registering their resumes on an internet job search site, they are hired according to the working conditions offered online. At first, the job was unrelated to voice phishing, but later on, he was in charge of delivering goods in the name of ‘supporting work of other departments.’ In addition, the methods are becoming more diverse and sophisticated, such as impersonating a financial institution by offering to arrange a low-interest loan or contacting people under the pretext of compensating for damage caused by personal information leaks from specific sites.

The problem is that even those who had no intention of participating in the crime from the beginning ultimately become suspects and defendants and are subject to criminal punishment. If it is revealed that the item delivered as ‘work support for other departments’ was an envelope containing damage money, and that the account provided by the person was used to collect money from the victims, investigative agencies often regard the person as an accomplice. On the other hand, the leader of the voice phishing organization who planned and manipulated the actual crime is not easily caught in the investigative net due to its structure.

Despite these structural vulnerabilities, legal judgments are very strict. According to recent trends, most claims that suspects and defendants were ‘not aware’ that their actions were voice phishing are not accepted. Given that warnings and promotions about voice phishing are widespread throughout society, and that the account transfer and cash collection activities themselves have a somewhat abnormal structure, most cases are found guilty on the grounds that ‘at least there was room for suspicion, but this was overlooked.’

However, it is questionable whether this uniform judgment truly complies with the principle of responsibility. Voice phishing techniques are becoming more sophisticated day by day, and is it fair to punish based on ‘recognizability’ even in cases that appear to be normal procedures? There is a need to more closely examine the individual circumstances, circumstances, and level of deception for those who are both actual victims and suspects.

[View full article]
[Expert Contribution] Voice phishing, the line between perpetrator and victim... Consider the principle of responsibility (link)