Series Order
Part 1 | When a Company Fails to Pay for a Transaction
Part 2 | Continued Use of a Business Name and the Transferee’s Liability
Part 3 | A Company Director’s Liability for Damages
Part 4 | The Person Hiding Behind a Company
Part 5 | What to Consider After Being Assaulted
Part 6 | What Is an Appropriate Criminal Settlement Amount?
Part 7 | If You Cannot Remember What Happened After Drinking, Could It Constitute Quasi-Rape?
Part 8 | Freelancers and Severance Pay
Part 9 | What to Consider When Assigning a Claim to Secure Business Financing
Part 10 | Can You Divorce a Foreign Spouse Who Has Disappeared?
Part 11 | Can a Tenant Terminate a Lease If the Landlord Delays Repairs?
Part 12 | Can a Subcontractor Receive Payment If the Main Contractor Disappears?
Part 13 | What to Know Before Your First Police Interview
Part 14 | Can a Buyer Recover a Deposit Before Receiving Approval for a Contract in a Land Transaction Permit Zone?
Part 15 | Is Entering Another Person’s Home While Concealing a Criminal Purpose Trespassing?
Part 16 | Impersonating Another Person on Instagram Can Lead to Criminal Punishment
Part 17 | When Does Indecent Assault Occur?
Part 18 | When Repairs Are Required After a Water Leak, Can the Tenant Decide How the Work Is Done?
Part 19 | How Far Does a Real Estate Agent’s Duty to Explain Extend?
Part 20 | Does Swearing in a Residential Area Constitute Criminal Insult?
Part 21 | Can Damages Be Claimed for Incorrect Tax Advice Without a Formal Engagement Agreement?
Part 22 | Can Families Claim Damages for the Exhumation of an Ancestral Grave?
Part 23 | How Far Does Individual Liability Extend in Cambodia-Based Scam Rings?
By Hong Seung-kwon, Attorney at Law, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
Investment fraud, romance scams and crypto-asset fraud operated from Cambodia and other parts of Southeast Asia have become a growing concern. Earlier fraud schemes often involved a few accomplices deceiving one or two victims. Recent operations bring together dozens of people in a single building or compound and divide the work into functions such as recruiting victims, conducting consultations, recommending investments, inducing transfers and laundering money. Their structure increasingly resembles that of a corporate criminal organization.
The defining feature of these organizations is their strict division of roles. One person may make the initial approach to a victim, another may take over the conversation, and others may manage investment websites or bank accounts. Several people can become involved sequentially in defrauding a single victim. Although the organization as a whole may cause substantial losses, individual members can differ significantly in their period of involvement, number of victims, decision-making authority and financial gain.
Scam compounds in Cambodia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia present an additional legal difficulty. Not everyone working inside such an organization can automatically be classified as the same type of offender. A person who initially believed the work was legitimate cannot avoid responsibility if they continued to deceive victims actively after discovering its criminal nature. Authorities must nevertheless examine when the person became aware of the crime, whether they were free to leave, whether they faced threats or surveillance, how long they participated and what authority they exercised.
Article 30 of South Korea’s Criminal Act provides that when two or more people jointly commit a crime, each is punishable as a principal offender. Establishing liability as a joint principal requires both a shared intent to commit the crime and functional control over its execution. Courts must determine such liability by examining each person’s specific position and role throughout the criminal operation.
Membership in a Cambodia-based scam organization does not automatically make an individual responsible for every crime committed by the group. The scope of liability can expand, however, when a person understands the criminal structure, performs an assigned role and carries out the scheme by relying on the actions of other members. In such circumstances, the person may be held liable as a joint principal even for crimes against victims with whom they had no direct contact.
Even when joint-principal liability is established for the organization’s broader criminal conduct, every member does not necessarily deserve the same sentence. Article 51 of the Criminal Act requires courts to consider individual factors when determining punishment, including the motive, methods and consequences of the crime and the circumstances after it was committed. Sentencing should therefore examine the number of victims directly deceived by each member, the losses involved, the duration of participation, the person’s position within the organization and whether they planned or directed the crimes. Recruitment or management of other members and the amount of criminal proceeds obtained are also important factors.
Organized crime creates enormous harm by combining the actions of many people. Its impact on society is severe, and suspects may face substantial responsibility from the investigative stage onward. The crimes committed by an organization should not be understated, but the organization’s total losses should not replace an assessment of each member’s specific responsibility.
Organized crime must be punished rigorously while ensuring that each person receives a sentence proportionate to their conduct. This requires examining the organization’s overall criminal structure alongside each member’s reasons for joining, role, authority and financial benefit. Such an individualized assessment is the starting point for assigning responsibility fairly in organized-crime cases.
About the Author
Hong Seung-kwon is an attorney at PAN Law Firm. His practice covers civil and criminal litigation as well as emerging legal issues in the digital era. He continues to examine how technological innovation, property rights and changes in regulatory policy affect law and market order.
