South Korean Crypto Traders Sent $3 Billion Overseas to Exploit Kimichi Premium
Recently, South Korean media reported that a group of crypto traders sent around $3 billion overseas in order to profit from the “Kimichi Premium.” Surprisingly, despite their alleged actions, the court found 14 out of 16 traders not guilty.
How the Traders Operated
These traders supposedly used local banks to send the money under the pretense of foreign exchange remittances. However, they would then use the funds to buy cryptocurrencies abroad and send them back to domestic exchanges for profit.
The Kimichi Premium is a phenomenon where crypto assets are more expensive in South Korea due to regulations, creating an arbitrage opportunity.
The Prosecution’s Charges and Defense Arguments
The prosecution charged 16 people with violating financial laws and accused them of illegally transferring foreign currency overseas to exploit the Kimichi Premium. The defendants argued that they were platform users, not virtual asset business operators, and claimed innocence.
The bank involved also distanced itself from the case, stating that it carried out the transactions based on false evidence provided by the defendants.
Court Rules Not Guilty
The court agreed with most defendants’ arguments and acquitted 14 out of 16 individuals. The judge stated that their actions did not violate the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and that they were not virtual asset business operators. The prosecution has already filed an appeal against the ruling.
Hot Take: Court Acquits South Korean Crypto Traders Involved in Kimichi Premium Case
A group of South Korean crypto traders accused of sending $3 billion overseas to exploit the Kimichi Premium have been found not guilty by a local court. The traders allegedly used local banks to send the money abroad, purchase cryptocurrencies, and then sell them on domestic exchanges for profit. However, the court ruled that their actions did not violate financial laws and that they were not virtual asset business operators. This decision has sparked controversy and dissatisfaction from the prosecution, who have filed an appeal. It remains to be seen how the higher courts will handle this case.
By
By
By