[비즈한국] Following prosecutors, lawyers, and police, financial fraud involving the impersonation of reporters has emerged. The victim of this impersonation is the reporter themselves. Using the reporter’s business card, the fraudster approached victims of financial crimes, extracted personal information under the guise of an investigation, and committed secondary financial fraud by collecting referral fees for lawyers. However, it seemed difficult for the police to properly investigate this new type of financial fraud. Here, I reveal my personal experience with these impersonation tactics and the issues within the response of law enforcement agencies.
Last March, I received a tip from a reader. The reader claimed that someone was impersonating me. Using my business card, the fraudster approached "financial fraud victims," extracted financial information under the pretext of conducting an interview, and collected fees for lawyer referrals. Fortunately, the whistleblower informed me of this fact before falling victim to the scam.
While scams involving the impersonation of celebrities or legal professionals are well-known, this was the first time I had encountered a case where a reporter was being impersonated. I clarified to the whistleblower that it was a scam and shared the situation with an official at the National Office of Investigation (NOI), which handles financial fraud cases.
"We have shared information internally that there is a new type of fraud, but it would be best for the reporter to file a formal complaint for obstruction of business," the NOI official advised, explaining that a complaint from the victim is necessary for a smooth investigation.
With the cooperation of the whistleblower, I organized the complaint and evidence and visited the police station under the company’s jurisdiction. When I entered the civil affairs office, presented the complaint, and handed over a USB drive containing evidence files, I was told to go to the investigation counseling center. When I went to the counseling center, they told me to go back to the civil affairs office to file the complaint.
The officer at the civil affairs office told me to write the complaint by "hand," handing me paper and a pen. As I was writing the first page, the officer suddenly said, "Oh, you can just give me what you brought," and took the documents back. It had already been over 20 minutes since I arrived at the station.
Afterward, the officer handed me a "petition receipt." The intention was to register the case as a "petition" rather than a "formal complaint." When I stated that I wanted to file a "formal complaint," they replied, "It has already been registered as a petition, and we will ask the assigned investigator if it can be changed to a complaint once they arrive," and directed me to the counseling center.
The assigned investigator arrived shortly, and the officer at the counseling center summarized the situation. Without reading the complaint or reviewing the evidence, the investigator stated, "We cannot investigate based on impersonation alone. What if this person used the information obtained through impersonation to help the victim in a good way? You should either withdraw the complaint, or I have no choice but to close the case in its current state."
In other words, they suggested "self-help" (extra-legal remedies). They claimed that they could not investigate if there was no direct monetary loss. The investigator explained, "It is better to communicate and verify things yourself. That is called self-help, and there are sufficient ways to achieve self-help." Although it was impossible to confirm whether there were other victims besides the whistleblower, the investigator asserted that an investigation was impossible. They hadn't even read a single line of the complaint. In the end, I had to withdraw the petition and leave the police station empty-handed.
If the whistleblower had been deceived by the reporter impersonator and paid a legal retainer, would a formal complaint have been established? Would the investigation have been conducted properly based on the complaint? With these questions in mind, the stories victims often told me while covering financial fraud came to mind one by one. Person A, who visited over ten police stations to find one willing to investigate; Person B, who became "bait" and paid money knowing it was a scam because the police said they couldn't catch the culprit unless a crime was currently in progress.... They all complained in unison, "The local police stations show no will to investigate."
Meanwhile, financial fraud has evolved further. Recently, secondary financial fraud impersonating lawyers is also on the rise. This involves targeting those who have already been victims of financial fraud, promising to "recover the lost funds," and collecting an upfront retainer fee. They even forge lawyers' identification cards and spoof law firm websites. These "ghost law firms" unauthorizedly steal photos and career histories of actively practicing lawyers. If a victim realizes it is a scam and refuses to send money, the fraudsters even go as far as threatening the victim by sending fake "lawsuits."
Although the Seoul Bar Association filed a collective complaint regarding lawyer impersonation last October, there has been no progress in the investigation. The Korean Bar Association stated that it is responding to such fraud through ex-officio investigations. A KBA official said, "The KBA's Legal Order Violation Supervision Center plans to discuss the issue of impersonation sites for lawyers."