The Supreme Court has ruled that 243 million won ($168,000) in cash found at the home of a member of a Cambodia-based investment fraud ring can be forfeited. The ring defrauded about 300 people of 6.1 billion won ($4.2 million). The ruling holds that because victims cannot realistically trace the money themselves to recover their losses, the state may seize crime-victim property and return it to them.
The Supreme Court's First Division, with Justice Ma Yong-ju as presiding judge, recently upheld a lower court ruling that sentenced a defendant identified as A to four years in prison and ordered the forfeiture of about 243.25 million won in seized cash. A had been indicted on charges of fraud and violating the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission.
A was put on trial on charges of joining a Cambodia-based investment fraud ring around May and June 2024, managing lower-tier members and taking part in laundering criminal proceeds.
Within the organization, A handled member management, compiling the names, nicknames, tiers and investment amounts of lower-tier members and responding to inquiries. Investigators found that A and other members of the ring took about 6.1 billion won from 321 victims between March 3 and May 12, 2025. During the investigation, a total of 243,253,000 won in cash — stored in bundles of 100 fifty-thousand-won notes — was seized from A's home and vehicle.
The ring promoted a gambling site posing as a well-known overseas resort and told investors that "betting against the favorite in soccer matches yields a profit with a 93.75% probability, with the principal also guaranteed." In reality, it was a Ponzi scheme that paid returns to existing investors using money from new ones.
The central issue at trial was whether the seized money could be treated as crime-victim property and forfeited. Under current law, property obtained from victims through property crimes such as fraud cannot in principle be forfeited. However, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Forfeiture and Recovery of Corrupt Property allows forfeiture and collection in exceptional cases where victims face severe difficulty recovering their losses because they cannot readily exercise claims for the return of property or for damages against the offender.
The trial court sentenced A to four years and six months in prison but did not order forfeiture of the seized cash. It accepted that the money was crime-victim property rather than A's own assets, but held that the evidence submitted by the prosecution was not enough to conclude that the case amounted to one of "severe difficulty" in recovering victims' losses.
The appeals court, by contrast, ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of seized cash while reducing the sentence to four years, taking into account factors including A's settlements with 71 victims during the appeal.
The appeals court found the forfeiture requirements met, citing the organized and premeditated nature of the crimes and the repeated laundering of criminal proceeds. It noted in particular that because the ring was based in Cambodia and laundered funds using cryptocurrency and other means, a substantial portion of the proceeds was likely moved abroad. On that basis, it concluded that it would be extremely difficult in practice for victims to individually trace the flow of the proceeds and exercise civil claims for return of property or damages.
The Supreme Court upheld that finding. It ruled that the lower court had not "failed to conduct the necessary examination, exceeded the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of logic and experience, or misapprehended the legal principles on forfeiture under Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Forfeiture and Recovery of Corrupt Property."
A Supreme Court official said forfeiture and collection of crime-victim property is "a preliminary step for prosecutors to secure the property and then return it to victims to make them whole," adding that "this forfeiture is not about the state taking the seized cash, but about returning it to the victims."