"Thought It Was a High-Paying Part-Time Job"... Why "I Didn't Know" Doesn't Work for Voice Phishing Cash Collectors

Recently, cases have been surging in which ordinary people are recruited through online job sites, Telegram, and the like under the pretext of high-income part-time work or simple errands, and are then used as cash collectors or money launderers for voice phishing. Those arrested by the police often plead their innocence, saying "I didn't know it was a voice phishing crime" or "I only transferred money as instructed."

However, in courts, there are countless cases where, even for mere participants, heavy prison sentences are handed down in consideration of the gravity of voice phishing crime. The reason such excuses do not work is that a firm legal standard is applied that strictly holds collectors and launderers accountable as accomplices.

The most frequently disputed issue in voice phishing cases is whether a conspiratorial co-principal relationship is established. Many suspects deny an accomplice relationship, saying they did not directly deceive victims like call center staff and did not know the entire plan of the crime. However, under criminal law, conspiracy is not recognized only when a meticulous overall scheme has been arranged in advance. The Supreme Court holds that when two or more persons contribute to a crime, a conspiratorial relationship is established even with only a sequential and tacit meeting of minds. In other words, if one carries out a crime while recognizing that one is playing a divided-up role in an organized crime, one is held to have the intent to realize the entire crime and bears heavy criminal responsibility even for the acts of other accomplices, even if one did not know the specific fraud method.

Furthermore, the argument that one merely moved money that was already deposited after the fraud crime had ended, so it is nothing more than mere subsequent participation or aiding, is also thoroughly rejected in court. Voice phishing organizations necessarily go through a money laundering process—dispersing and transferring the victim's money to multiple "borrowed-name" accounts or disguising it as normal transactions—in order to evade the tracking of investigative agencies and to acquire the swindled money. Typically, a criminal organization commences the deception, that is, the actual crime, only after securing a money laundering person in advance.

Therefore, the court judges that the acts of collectors and launderers constitute an essential contribution absolutely necessary for the completion of the crime and the realization of profit. If one participated with the awareness of helping with money laundering, the establishment of accomplice liability for the crime of fraud is not hindered at all, even if the specific laundering act was carried out after the victim's money had been transferred to the account and the fraud had already reached completion.

In fact, among cases the author recently handled, there was an example in which someone performed the role of receiving voice phishing victim money into his own account, then withdrawing it and transferring it to a third account. The defendant tested the account's withdrawal availability every day and, under detailed instructions from higher-ups via Telegram and strict control of his movements, reported the transfer receipts. During the trial, the defendant argued that he had never conspired in the crime and was therefore nothing more than a subsequent accomplice or a mere aider. He further staunchly denied the charges, saying he had no idea the deposited money was criminal proceeds and had no purpose of disguising it as legitimate property.

However, the court's judgment was resolute. The court found that the money laundering act performed by the defendant constituted an essential contribution absolutely necessary for the completion of the voice phishing crime and the realization of profit, and recognized him as a co-principal of fraud. In addition, considering comprehensively that the defendant received instructions covertly and was paid an excessively high fee relative to the difficulty of the work, along with the fact that he himself had suspected it was voice phishing money, the court judged that the defendant had willful negligence (dolus eventualis) in that he was sufficiently aware, according to social norms, that the money was illegal. Based on this, the court found the defendant guilty, holding that he clearly recognized it was criminal proceeds and had the purpose of disguising it.

Daeryun LLC Attorney Im Da-on said, "Even if one jumped in thinking it was a simple high-paying part-time job, investigative agencies and courts are strictly applying the legal doctrine of willful negligence even to low-level collectors and launderers, in consideration of the characteristics and harm of voice phishing crime," adding, "If you become unexpectedly involved in a case, it is very dangerous to remain at a general-principle response of merely pleading your innocence and claiming you are also a victim."

He continued, "Amid circumstances sufficient to suspect that one is handling criminal proceeds, an emotional denial can instead appear as an unrepentant attitude and become grounds for aggravated punishment. Therefore, receiving the assistance of a criminal law specialist attorney from the early stages of a case, objectively analyzing the specific content of the work instructions one received, the period of participation, and the profit obtained, and meticulously preparing room for legal argument is the most realistic way to prevent the worst outcome."

[Read Full Article]
"Thought It Was a High-Paying Part-Time Job"... Why "I Didn't Know" Doesn't Work for Voice Phishing Cash Collectors (Go to Link)