Scammer's Death: Can the Family Receive Money? ... Court's Ruling Revealed

Family's Financial Relationships Must Be Examined Closely

If an investment fraud perpetrator commits suicide after the crime, do the perpetrator's heirs have an obligation to repay the debt? The court ruled that the heirs must repay the victims. Although the bereaved families claimed that they had "renounced inheritance" and therefore had no repayment responsibility, the court did not accept this argument.

According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation on the 13th, Judge Park Geun-jeong of the Goyang Branch of Uijeongbu District Court ruled in an investment refund lawsuit filed by victim A against B, the heir of the deceased perpetrator, stating, "B must pay A 79 million KRW in investment funds."

In January of last year, A signed a contract to acquire an online shopping mall operated by B's husband and to receive online business consulting services, paying 79 million KRW. In return, A received a promise that if the net profit of the online shopping mall did not reach 30 million KRW within three months, the entire investment of 79 million KRW would be refunded.

(This photo is not directly related to the article.) [Photo by Pixabay]

However, after three months, A's shopping mall did not reach a net profit of 30 million KRW, and in May of last year, A demanded a refund of the investment from B's husband. B's husband did not return the money and committed suicide five days later.

Subsequently, with the assistance of the Legal Aid Corporation, A filed a claim against the deceased B's husband for the investment amount of 79 million KRW and delayed damages. B and their children refused repayment, claiming that they had filed for renunciation of inheritance and that the renunciation had been accepted, but the court did not accept this.

The Corporation investigated the perpetrator's assets and confirmed that most of the assets generated through economic activities by B and her husband were registered under B's name. They also detected circumstances where money flowed from the perpetrator's account to B's account after the perpetrator's death. Ultimately, the Corporation judged that the couple formed an economic community and lived together, recognizing their repayment responsibility.

The court stated, "Although B received an inheritance renunciation acceptance judgment, the inheritance is deemed to have been accepted because the inherited property was disposed of arbitrarily," and ruled that B must pay the originally promised investment refund of 79 million KRW plus delayed interest.

The Corporation stated that if the perpetrator has family members forming an economic community, it is necessary to closely examine their financial relationships. It also added that careful review is needed to determine whether there are any statutory simple acceptance reasons such as disposal or improper consumption of inherited property.

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