Guilty Verdict for Using One-Day Loans to Create Bank Balance Certificates for Naturalization

Who this helps

This may help people curious about how a bank balance certificate used in a naturalization application was treated in a criminal case. It may also help those wondering what crime applied to people who lent the money and had the certificates made.

Case overview

Court

Seoul Southern District Court

Posted on original board

Jul 4, 2012 (Wed)

Topic

Criminal Cases

Original title (Korean)

귀화요건을 충족하기 위해 일시적으로 빌린 돈으로 만든 예금잔고증명서를 첨부하여 귀화허가를 신청한 경우 위계에 의한…

The two defendants lent 30,000,000 KRW for a day to foreigners who had no ability to support themselves. The foreigners obtained bank balance certificates with that money and attached them to their naturalization applications. The defendants received interest. The defendants argued that the official in charge had approved the applications by readily trusting the certificates without further investigation, so obstruction of official duties by deceit was not established.

Is it obstruction of official duties to make a balance certificate with money borrowed for one day to meet naturalization requirements?

The two defendants lent 30 million won for one day to foreigners who had no means of supporting themselves, and they received interest. The foreigners used the money to get bank balance certificates and attached them to their naturalization applications. The defendants argued that the official simply trusted the certificates without further checks, so no crime occurred. The court found that they obstructed the lawful duties of the naturalization official by deception.

How the court ruled

The court found that both defendants obstructed the lawful duties of the official in charge of naturalization approval by deceit. The sentences below cover not only this offense but also both defendants' unregistered moneylending and interest-cap violations and one defendant's violation of the Administrative Scriveners Act. One defendant was sentenced to 2 years in prison, suspended for 3 years, with 240 hours of community service. The other was sentenced to 8 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, with 120 hours of community service.

What to check in a similar situation

What documents are required for a naturalization review, and how the review is done, can be checked with immigration and foreigner offices. The progress and content of a criminal case can be checked with the court handling it.

• Find support centers
• Emergency phone numbers
• Contacts: Korea Legal Aid Corporation 132

Terms explained

Obstruction of official duties by deception

This is a crime that applies when someone uses tricks or a false situation to stop a public official from properly doing their work.

Bank balance certificate

This is a document showing how much money is in a bank account. In this case, it was attached to naturalization applications.

Suspended sentence

The court sets a prison term but postpones carrying it out for a set period.

Community service

This is an order to carry out unpaid work for society for a set number of hours.

More rulings on this topic

• Ruling sentencing a defendant to 1 year in prison for illegal entry, illegal stay and aiding another person's illegal entry · Busan District Court
• Students' submission of bank balance certificate found to be an application by improper means · Seoul Eastern District Court
• Court upholds departure order for foreign national fined for drunk driving · Daegu District Court

See all 28 rulings on Criminal Cases →

Frequently asked questions

Who was punished in this case?

Two defendants who lent money to foreigners for one day and received interest were punished. One of them was a Vietnamese person who had been naturalized.

How did the court rule?

The court found that the defendants obstructed the lawful duties of the naturalization official by deception. The sentences also reflect other charges: unregistered moneylending and violating interest rate limits, plus a violation of the Administrative Agent Act by one defendant.

Does this result apply as is to similar cases?

No. This ruling is a decision on that particular case and does not apply as is to other cases.