[Exclusive] Over 3,000 Virtual Asset Crimes... No Statistics on Coin Recovery [Coin Lawless Zone] ③

Number of Asset Freezing Cases Before Indictment Quadruples in Five Years

Ministry of Justice Does Not Track Recovery Rates or Amounts

Urgent Need for Public-Private Cooperation and Investigative Infrastructure

"Bitcoin, as an electronic token that possesses the potential for independent management, is tradable, and enables substantial control over its economic value, falls within the scope of property subject to seizure by courts or investigative agencies. Furthermore, if the legal requirements are met, it may also be subject to forfeiture." (Supreme Court, December 11, 2025)

"The defendant embezzled a large sum of money amounting to approximately 22 billion won and already converted and disposed of it in a form such as virtual assets, which are virtually impossible to trace. It does not seem realistic to expect the hidden criminal proceeds to be tracked down and found. The victim company had already requested the preservation of assets for potential recovery during the investigation phase, and the claim for a compensation order was dismissed as the defendant partially returned the embezzled amount, rendering it inadequate for legal remedy. A civil lawsuit is also not a timely option for recovery, given the accumulated economic damage, prolonged management difficulties, and the company’s current financial crisis." (Daejeon District Court, February 12, 2026)

Although the Supreme Court established the legal principle that seizure and forfeiture of virtual assets is possible based on substantial control, the infrastructure for tracking and subsequent management remains insufficient. While the number of temporary freezing orders, which prevent criminals from dissipating funds, is increasing each year, the judicial authorities have not even compiled management statistics to track how much is actually recovered.

According to data submitted by the office of Assemblyman Yoon Gunyoung of the Democratic Party to the National Police Agency on July 8, there were 1,258 cases of illegal crimes involving virtual assets detected from January to May this year. By type, there were 4 cases of unauthorized fundraising or multi-level marketing, 59 cases of illegal activities involving exchanges such as embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud, and violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, and 1,195 other fraud-related cases. Among these, illegal activities involving exchanges in just the first five months of this year have already far exceeded the total number of such cases last year (4 cases). The annual number of detected cases has been on the rise: 235 in 2021, 108 in 2022, 257 in 2023, 482 in 2024, and 3,373 in 2025.

The number and value of pre-indictment asset freezes and preservation orders issued by the police before criminals could move funds were as follows: 858 cases (835.1 billion won) in 2021; 1,204 cases (438.9 billion won) in 2022; 1,829 cases (506 billion won) in 2023; 2,963 cases (1.2684 trillion won) in 2024; 3,400 cases (850 billion won) last year; and 1,596 cases (124.4 billion won) from January to May this year.

The amount of damage and number of victims from virtual asset crimes by year were: 3.1282 trillion won and 8,891 people in 2021; 1.0192 trillion won and 3,407 people in 2022; 1.0415 trillion won and 4,377 people in 2023; 1.1109 trillion won and 8,206 people in 2024; 443 billion won and 4,058 people last year; and 23.6 billion won and 219 people from January to May this year.

While there is a surge in preservation applications at the initial stage of criminal investigations, follow-up management systems remain virtually defenseless. The Ministry of Justice has stated that it does not separately classify or manage crime asset preservation and recovery for specific property types such as virtual assets. This is because, in many cases, multiple types of assets are mixed in a single preservation order, making it difficult to specifically calculate the portion accounted for by virtual assets.

Core statistics—such as the total amount of final assets actually recovered and the actual recovery rate compared to damages after a final court decision in virtual asset crime cases—are also not being compiled or managed at all. While investigative agencies are rapidly freezing criminal funds, there is no national-level substantive data or monitoring system to track how much virtual asset property is eventually recovered and returned to victim companies or investors after final court decisions.

Industry insiders point out the structural limitations of investigative agencies. One official from the virtual asset industry, who requested anonymity, said, "Domestic and overseas exchanges cooperate up to the stage of freezing assets, but when it comes to confiscation and forfeiture, the legal process becomes prolonged and difficult." They also noted that by the time the police investigation is underway, funds often have already been transferred to overseas exchanges, making it impossible to track them without exchange cooperation. This source explained, "The golden time for responding to virtual asset crimes is 24 hours, but local police stations lack personnel for tracking, so investigations are transferred to provincial police agencies, causing work backlogs. It is difficult to foster investigative expertise in this environment, and there is no institutional incentive to encourage such efforts."

Experts emphasize that public-private cooperation and the establishment of investigative infrastructure are urgently needed. Kim Youngseok, CEO of Bonanza Factory, stated, "Just as banks quickly check account numbers when a voice phishing report is filed at a local police station, there must be infrastructure to immediately check for the existence of a virtual asset wallet to enable rapid response." He stressed, "There also needs to be legal provisions to support cooperation between virtual asset intelligence companies and overseas exchanges."

Calls have also been made for legislative amendments. Professor Jaeu Cho of the Department of Social Sciences at Hansung University said, "The Digital Asset Basic Act does not include provisions regarding forfeiture or seizure, so judicial measures such as recovery or preservation must be addressed in a separate piece of legislation."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.