Repeated Exploitation of Loopholes in Voice Phishing Laws... Scam Victims Urge "Close the Gaps" [The Pitfalls of Side Jobs] ④

The Law Meant to Protect Victims Is Powerless Against Side Job Scams
Examining the Loopholes in the System

"Side job scams, such as team mission scams, are excluded from relief because they are classified as investment or general fraud. However, side job scams are clearly a type of telecommunications financial fraud (voice phishing), and the system needs to be improved so that victims are included as eligible for relief." (Excerpt from a National Consent Petition submitted by Oh OO on November 6, 2025)

Laws established to prevent and recover damages from voice phishing are repeatedly proving ineffective against online scams, such as side job scams. Scammers exploit the pretense of a 'quid pro quo relationship,' making it difficult for victims to recover their losses. Victims of side job scams are urging improvements to the relevant system to fill the gaps in social protection.

The current Special Act on the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages (Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act) defines voice phishing as deceiving victims through electronic communication devices, such as smartphones, to cause financial losses. A typical example of voice phishing is a call impersonating the prosecutor's office or the Financial Supervisory Service, demanding money via mobile phone. In the late 2000s, as voice phishing damage increased due to a fictitious character known as "Manager Kim Mi-young," the National Assembly enacted the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act in 2011. The goal was to prevent voice phishing and facilitate rapid recovery for victims. Under Article 4 of the Act, financial institutions must suspend payments if an account is suspected of being used for voice phishing.

However, not all fraudulent acts committed using electronic communication devices are classified as voice phishing. According to Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act, acts "disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services" are excluded from the definition of voice phishing. This includes cases where scammers pretend to offer goods or services, receive money, and then disappear. For the same reason, side job scams are also excluded from the definition of voice phishing. Perpetrators of side job scams are charged with general fraud, not under the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act.

Even if the scam occurs online... If there is a quid pro quo, it is excluded from voice phishing

When the 18th National Assembly enacted the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act in 2010, lawmakers did not raise significant issues about the phrase "disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services." According to the minutes of the National Policy Committee's plenary session on September 29, 2010, lawmakers focused on the obligation of financial institutions to suspend payments and the payment of refunds to voice phishing victims. During the legislative process, there was no notable disagreement between parties. Lee Sacheol, then chairman of the subcommittee for legal review and a member of the Grand National Party (predecessor of the People Power Party), stated at the plenary session, "We have established a special relief procedure for ordinary citizens who have suffered from voice phishing, as an alternative to civil litigation," adding, "We collected opinions from related agencies such as the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice, Financial Services Commission, Financial Supervisory Service, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Korea Federation of Banks, as sufficient coordination with the judicial system was necessary."

The background for including this phrase can be inferred from a recent Supreme Court ruling. In October last year, the Supreme Court, in a case involving the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act, stated, "The reason for excluding acts disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services from voice phishing is to exclude ordinary online transactions involving goods or services from the scope of regulation," and explained that "it refers to cases where there is a quid pro quo for financial gain." In other words, the phrase was included to clearly separate typical online transaction fraud, where there is an exchange of value, from voice phishing.

Proliferation of new scams such as side job fraud... Difficulties in recovering damages through payment suspension

The problem is that there is a growing number of cases exploiting the loopholes in the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act, which has been in place for over a decade. Online, scammers target large numbers of people, but by exchanging small sums of money to create the appearance of a quid pro quo, they can avoid being classified as voice phishing. Not only side job scams involving the exchange of labor and monetary compensation, but also new types of scams such as romance scams and no-show scams, are excluded from voice phishing because they involve a quid pro quo.

Daeun Kim (49, female), a victim of a side job scam, is being interviewed at a location in Seoul on the 24th. Photo by Jinhyung Kang

Because of this provision, it is difficult for victims of side job scams to recover their losses. Since these cases are not classified as voice phishing, payment suspension of the perpetrator's account cannot be implemented. If the case qualifies as voice phishing, the victim can immediately request payment suspension of the criminal's account through the bank or with police assistance. Even if the case does not qualify as voice phishing, it is possible to apply for payment suspension under the Act on Reporting and Use of Specific Financial Transaction Information, but only if strict conditions are met. The financial transaction must be linked to money laundering or terrorism, and the financial institution must report it to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

The recovery process is also significantly slower. The Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act requires financial institutions to immediately suspend payments if there is reasonable suspicion that an account is being used for voice phishing. Victims of voice phishing can apply for relief and recover their funds within two months from the date of public notice of the commencement of the claim extinction procedure. In contrast, victims of side job scams must realistically go through civil or criminal litigation to recover their losses. According to the 2025 Judicial Yearbook of the Supreme Court, the average time for a civil case to reach a verdict in the first instance at courts nationwide last year was 437.3 days, which is more than one year.

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