가상자산 범죄에 있어서 자산 동결 제도 도입 제안

Abstract

Currently, discussions are being made on the establishment of a ‘Digital asset basic law', such as the preparation of regulations on issuers related to virtual assets and the prohibition of unfair trade. At this point in time, in light of the characteristics of virtual asset-related crimes, this article discusses the need to introduce an asset freezing system that can freeze criminal proceeds at the initial stage of an investigation. We analyzed the properties of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, stablecoins, and NFTs. Due to the decentralization, internationality, and anonymity of virtual assets, it is almost impossible to receive criminal proceeds after money laundering. Therefore, there is a need for a system that can freeze funds from the early stage of the investigation for thorough recovery of criminal proceeds and protection of victims. As a similar system, in the case of ‘voice phishing’, a system that can suspend payment of related accounts only with the request of a victim or an investigative agency was examined. And how it can be transformed and applied in crimes related to virtual assets was reviewed. The United States has a civil forfeiture system, which enables effective early response even in cases of Ponzi fraud involving multiple victims. In the Ponzi fraud case related to the ‘Banana Fund’ in 2020, there was a case in which more than $6.5 million of Bitcoin and Tether were confiscated in advance to reduce the damage to investors. In the long term, it is desirable for Korea to introduce a civil forfeiture system. However, this is a problem that requires the re-establishment of the confiscation system itself, and it will take a considerable amount of time for discussion of the system to settle. In order to immediately respond to crimes related to virtual assets, it is necessary to implement an emergency fund freezing system similar to the payment suspension system under ‘Special Act on Refund of Amount of Damage Caused by Telecommunications Bank Fraud’ The necessity of introducing an emergency asset freezing system for virtual asset-related crimes was discussed in the ‘Basic Act on Digital Assets’, which is being discussed for enactment. However, since it is different from the crime of ‘voice phishing’, it is necessary to be cautious so that the objection procedure through the arbitration of a neutral court that can adjust interests is democratically conducted so as not to interfere with normal economic activities.