Can it be applied to allegations of fraud and similar reception?

The full story of the Terra-Luna coin crash is now expected to be overshadowed in court.

The prosecution showed a willingness to launch an investigation, and investors began to take legal action.

All that remains is to apply any charges.

So far, allegations of 'fraud' and 'similar reception' seem likely.



First, you must prove 'intentional' in order to apply an allegation of fraud.

To put it simply, Terraform Labs CEO Kwon Do-hyung has to prove that he has been recruiting investors and conducting business even though he knows that the Terra-Luna coin ecosystem will not be maintained.

Next, we need to find out whether CEO Kwon has “benefited” from this situation.



It's easier in the case of pseudo-receipt allegations.

You need to look at whether you have raised money with the promise of a return that exceeds your investment in the future.

In this case, the publicity that "If you deposit coins, we guarantee an interest rate of 20%" may be a problem.



However, there are still many mountains to climb.

This is because we have to uncover the fact that there were loopholes in the algorithms of two coins that were listed on famous exchanges around the world and were once ranked in the top 10 by market capitalization.



The situation is a little more complicated in the case of pseudo-receipt allegations.

The premise that virtual currency is equivalent to 'cash' must be established.

This is because under the current law, 'investment' or 'money' must be received in order to be recognized as an act of similar reception.


<Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipts> Article 2



1. The act of receiving 'investment' after


promising to pay the entire amount or an amount in excess of the investment in the future.

The act of receiving 'money' in the name of deposits, installments, installments, deposits, etc. under an agreement to pay


... hereinafter omitted


In the case of Terra Luna, when you invest in coins, you receive interest in coins.

If you interpret virtual currency as 'investment' or 'money' in a broad sense, there will be no problem, but you may be criticized for over-interpreting it.


Limitations of 'tinkering prescription' revealed

It is clear why there are voices that it is difficult to even properly punish investors in the midst of an increasing number of investors who have lost all their fortunes overnight.

This is because the government has only announced tinkering measures.

Prior to the Terra-Luna incident, problems such as 'preemptive buying', 'market price manipulation', and 'Ponzi fraud' were repeated in the virtual currency market for several years.

However, whenever there was a problem, there was only an announcement that “a solution would be prepared”, but there was no fundamental solution.

The 'Special Financial Information Act (Special Money Act)' is the only virtual currency-related law, but even this is focused only on 'anti-money laundering'.



First, it is pointed out that making ICOs impossible in Korea has boosted work.

Since all cryptocurrency foundations have 'offshore companies' in Singapore or Hong Kong, etc., it is not easy to notice any problems in advance or lead to future investigations.

Since there is no obligation to submit an audit report and basic investigations such as search and seizure are difficult, it is difficult to find out whether the foundation was operating properly.



Another problem is that the listing procedure was entrusted to the cryptocurrency exchange.

In the past, problems such as 'heap listings' caused problems, and the exchange raised the threshold for listing, but the problem of 'transparency' is constantly being raised.

In Exchange A, it is listed without any problem, and in Exchange B, there are cases where it fails to pass the listing examination.

There is no legal basis for holding the exchange accountable even if a problem occurs in a listed foundation.

The situation of 'listing is easy, regulation is difficult' is repeated,



It is also a problem that we have not decided what 'virtual currency' should be defined as.

As a result, there is inevitably a controversy over whether the aforementioned 'investment' and 'money' can be viewed.

The cryptocurrency market is changing rapidly, and various problems are occurring according to the speed, but the situation is being busy only to follow.


So what about NFTs?

On the 24th, at the party government meeting, members of the National Assembly including members of the virtual currency exchange attended and took measures.

Some lawmakers rebuked the financial authorities and officials at the cryptocurrency exchange, saying, "What have you done so far?"

However, doubts remain as to whether a proper discussion was held at this party's meeting.

This is because the point that cryptocurrency investors have been making has been repeated.

In the press release released by each ministry after the end of the party government meeting, there seems to be nothing special other than the statement that "we will bring virtual assets to the legal framework and manage them well".



If so, has there been any discussion about NFT (Non-Fungible Token), which has been growing rapidly lately?

Just looking at the press release, it doesn't seem like it was handled properly.

Although large domestic companies are also rushing into the NFT market, research has shown that the market size will reach 100 trillion won by 2025.



Although it is not receiving much attention, various problems surrounding NFT are emerging in the market recently.

They make fakes and sell them at a high price, or they recruit investors and then go into hiding.

The same confusion that occurred in the early cryptocurrency market is repeating itself.

Still, it feels like the regulation on NFTs hasn't even reached the 'place of discussion' yet.

After the Terra-Luna incident, I hope that the loss of cattle and the repair of the barn will not be repeated.

Keywords: