“They say the scammer can’t be caught. What about my money?”
A claim for damages against the owner of the bank account used in the scam

Hello, this is Kwon & Partners Law Office.
In voice phishing and online transfer scams, the account that receives the money is usually not the scammer’s, but a bank account in a third party’s name, a so-called “nominee account.” Scam rings are rarely caught, so to recover losses, victims often have to pursue the account holder who handed the account over.
Today we explain the issues in a damages lawsuit against an account holder who handed over the account to get a loan. This is a case commentary based on court filings made before any judgment, not a report of the lawsuit’s result.

Victim A was deceived by a scammer and sent money to a bank account they were told to use. But the account belonged not to the scammer but to B, a freelancer in their 30s.

B, in a situation where a normal bank loan was hard to get, contacted a so-called “work loan” broker, someone who promises to fake income documents to get you a loan. B then handed over their ID, account number, and all access media (the bankbook, passwords, and authentication tools). In the lawsuit, A’s side argued that the broker had even said it would create income proof higher than the real income and that it was not registered as a loan broker, yet B made not even minimal checks, such as calling the company, looking up the business, or visiting the office.

B admits receiving a summary order for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act over this transfer of the account. But B was not punished for the fraud itself. Through a legal team that included Kwon & Partners, A filed a lawsuit against B seeking damages equal to the lost money.

B argued, “I only handed over the account to get a work loan,” “I was not punished for fraud,” and “The victim did not send the money because it was my account, so I am not responsible.” That gave three key issues.

① Was handing over the account itself unlawful?
The Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits transferring or lending access media such as bankbooks and passwords. The Supreme Court has held that even a chance to get a loan can count as the “consideration” for lending access media (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, June 27, 2019). So “I got no money” alone does not remove the unlawfulness.

② Must someone pay even if not punished for fraud?
Criminal punishment and civil liability follow different standards. In civil cases, “aiding” by making a wrongful act easier is joint tort, and the Supreme Court holds that aiding through negligence also counts (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da234985, May 12, 2016). A’s side did not say “B committed the fraud.” It said “B made the fraud easier by handing over the account.”

③ Could B foresee the misuse, and is there causation?
When someone who cannot get a loan hands all access media to a broker they do not know, an ordinary person can foresee that the account may be used for crime. And without B’s account, the crime would have been hard to complete, so causation can be found, A argued.

In the written brief, A’s counsel answered in four ways, aiming at “someone who can be held responsible, instead of a scammer who cannot be caught.”

First, we set the basis of liability correctly. We did not claim that B committed the fraud. We built the claim on the Supreme Court principle that making a fraud easier by handing over an account, that is, “aiding through negligence,” is also joint tort in civil law.

Second, we confronted the “it was just a work loan” defense. We pointed to B’s own admission of the summary order, the fact that B checked nothing even though the broker disclosed the fake income documents and lack of registration, and that the risk was widely known, as shown by the Financial Supervisory Service’s consumer warning on work loans.

Third, we used the bank’s warnings as evidence. When opening an account, banks collect a confirmation that the holder will not hand it over, and warn that doing so can lead to criminal punishment and civil damages. If B handed it over despite such notice, B could foresee that it might be used for crime.

Fourth, we also addressed the causation defense. The loss arose from the scammer’s deception, the victim’s mistake, the existence and use of the nominee account, and the transfer, combined. Our framing: B is liable not “because B is the account holder,” but because B handed over ID, account, and access media, letting them be used in the crime.