[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 has the potential for independent management, transferability, and actual control over its economic value, is subject to seizure by courts or investigative authorities. Furthermore, it may be subject to forfeiture if the legal requirements are met." (Supreme Court, December 11, 2025)

"The defendant embezzled a large sum of more than 22 billion won and has already converted and disposed of it into a form such as virtual assets, which are virtually impossible to trace. In reality, it seems unlikely that the hidden proceeds of the crime can be tracked down and discovered. The victimized company already requested preservation of collection at the investigation stage, and the application for an order of compensation was dismissed as the defendant returned part of the embezzled amount, making it unsuitable for rights relief. Civil litigation is not a viable means of recovering damages, as the company is facing financial crisis due to prolonged and accumulated economic losses and management difficulties, and thus lacks sufficient time." (Daejeon District Court, February 12, 2026)

Although the Supreme Court presented the legal principle that seizure and forfeiture are possible based on the actual control over virtual assets, tracking infrastructure and follow-up management remain inadequate. While the number of cases involving temporary freezing of criminal proceeds has been increasing every year, it has been confirmed that judicial authorities have not even begun compiling management statistics to track the actual status of asset recovery.

According to materials submitted by the office of Assemblyman Yoon Kunyoung of the Democratic Party of Korea, citing data from the National Police Agency, the number of arrests for crimes involving virtual assets between January and May 2026 was 1,258 cases. By type, there were 4 cases of unauthorized fundraising/multi-level marketing, 59 cases of illegal exchange activities such as embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud, and violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, and 1,195 cases of other fraud. Among them, illegal exchange activities alone in the first five months of this year significantly exceeded the entire total for last year (4 cases). The annual number of arrests has also been on the rise: 235 cases in 2021, 108 cases in 2022, 257 cases in 2023, 482 cases in 2024, and 3,373 cases in 2025.

Pre-indictment confiscation and preservation of criminal proceeds by the police, which is the temporary freezing of assets before criminal organizations can move funds, occurred 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 yearly damages and number of victims from virtual asset crimes were as follows: 3.1282 trillion won and 8,891 victims in 2021, 1.0192 trillion won and 3,407 victims in 2022, 1.0415 trillion won and 4,377 victims in 2023, 1.1109 trillion won and 8,206 victims in 2024, 443 billion won and 4,058 victims last year, and 23.6 billion won and 219 victims from January to May this year.

In contrast to the surge in applications for preservation measures at the initial stage of crimes, the follow-up management system is virtually non-existent. The Ministry of Justice has stated that it does not separately categorize or manage the status of asset preservation and recovery for specific property types, such as virtual assets. The reason cited is that a single preservation measure often involves multiple types of assets, making it difficult to determine the exact scale accounted for by virtual assets.

Key statistics, such as the total amount of assets actually recovered after final judgment in cases involving crimes such as virtual asset fraud, and the actual recovery rate compared to damages, are also not being compiled or managed at all. While investigative agencies are accelerating the temporary freezing of criminal proceeds, there is no national-level statistics or monitoring system to track how much virtual assets are actually recovered and returned to victim companies or investors after a final court ruling.

Industry participants point out the structural limitations of investigative authorities. An official from the virtual asset industry, who requested anonymity, said, "While domestic and foreign exchanges cooperate up to the asset freezing stage, the judicial process becomes lengthy and difficult when it comes to confiscation and forfeiture." The official further explained that once the police investigation is underway, funds have often already been transferred to overseas exchanges, making tracking impossible without their cooperation. "The golden time for responding to virtual asset crimes is 24 hours, but local police stations lack personnel for tracking, so cases are transferred to provincial police agencies, which leads to a backlog of work," the official said. "It is difficult to build investigative expertise in this environment, and there are no institutional incentives to encourage it," he added.

Experts stress the urgent need for public-private cooperation and the establishment of investigative infrastructure. Kim Youngseok, CEO of Bonanza Factory, stated, "Just as the bank account number is immediately checked when voice phishing is reported at a local police station, there should be infrastructure to instantly check for the presence of a virtual asset wallet to enable a rapid response," adding, "Legal provisions supporting cooperation between virtual asset intelligence companies and overseas exchanges are also necessary."

There are also calls for concurrent legal reform. Professor Cho Jaewoo of the Department of Social Sciences at Hansung University said, "The Basic Digital Asset Bill does not contain provisions on confiscation and seizure, so judicial measures such as collection and preservation should be addressed in a separate law."

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