Group convicted of withdrawing fraud proceeds in cash and handing them over; longest prison term is 18 months

[Financial News] A court sentenced a group involved in laundering criminal proceeds, including by withdrawing fraud proceeds in cash and handing them over, to prison terms. The higher-level money-laundering operative received a suspended sentence, while a lower-level accomplice was given an actual prison term due to B’s extensive criminal record and substantial involvement in the crime.
According to legal circles on the 15th, Presiding Judge Yang Hwan-seung of the Criminal Division 1 of Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced defendants A and B, who were indicted on charges including fraud and violating the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, to 18 months in prison each. The court suspended A’s sentence for two years, but sentenced B to prison without suspension.
Co-defendant C was sentenced to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, while D was sentenced to six months, suspended for one year. The compensation applicant’s application was dismissed.
They were accused, among other things, of participating in laundering criminal proceeds by withdrawing fraud victims’ money in cash and handing it over to higher-level money-laundering operatives.
The court found that A was a higher-level money-laundering operative than B. It determined that B and C withdrew the victims’ money in cash at A’s direction and then handed it over to A.
A was the only defendant to deny involvement in the crime. A argued that the accomplices’ statements were contradictory and that, apart from their statements, there was insufficient evidence directly supporting the charges.
However, the court found that A had participated in the crime, citing the accomplices’ consistent statements, indirect and circumstantial evidence, and final guilty verdicts in related cases.
In particular, the court cited the fact that A had made the same argument in a related case with the same criminal structure and roles, differing only in the dates of the crimes and the victims, but the guilty verdict in that case had become final.
The court pointed out, “If the defendant were truly unrelated to the charges, they should be able to offer a reasonably persuasive explanation for the incriminating evidence,” adding, “Although the court asked them and gave them an opportunity, they did not provide a persuasive answer regarding the evidence against him.”
B, who admitted to the crime, was found to be a lower-level money-laundering operative than A, but still received an actual prison term. The court considered B’s extensive criminal record and substantial degree of involvement in the crime to be unfavorable sentencing factors.
The court said, “B has a very extensive criminal record, and the actual nature and degree of B’s involvement are far greater than what is described in the criminal facts.” B’s offenses of instigating and making false accusations also weighed against him at sentencing.
D’s offenses of instigating and making false accusations were also considered unfavorable sentencing factors. However, the fact that the defendants who admitted to the crimes, including B, were remorseful was taken into account in their favor.
Explaining why it imposed different sentences despite sentencing A and B to the same 18 months in prison, the court said, “B themselves will know well why A was recognized as a higher-level money-laundering operative than B, yet A received a suspended sentence while B received an actual prison term.” It then told A, “I hope you will accept this as an appropriate consequence of your own choices and wrongdoing, and refrain from contesting this case any further.”
[email protected] Lee Dong-hyeok Reporter