Obtaining complete no-prosecution decision against allegations of fraudulent sale of financial products by major securities firm related to Las Vegas resort development

The White-Collar Crime Practice Group at Lee & Ko achieved a significant victory representing Company A, a leading domestic securities firm, which had been accused by several complainant companies of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes and the Capital Markets Act. The allegations stemmed from the sale of financial products tied to mezzanine loan receivables associated with a Las Vegas resort development project in the U.S. The complainants alleged that Company A failed to properly explain the concept of “DIL (Deed in Lieu)”, a method of collateral realization unique to U.S. mezzanine loan structures. Despite these claims, Lee & Ko successfully secured a full non-prosecution decision from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. Lee & Ko also prevailed in defending against the complainants’ appeals and petitions for adjudication before the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office and the Seoul High Court, resulting in the dismissal of all related challenges.

This case involved the unforeseen outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the suspension of the Las Vegas resort development project. As a result, defaults occurred sequentially on both the senior loan and the mezzanine loan associated with the project. Ultimately, the senior borrower executed a DIL, transferring the development property, which served as collateral, to the lender. Consequently, the mezzanine loan could not be recovered, leading to a complete loss of the investment in the financial product related to this case, which was worth tens of billions of Korean won.

In this case, Lee & Ko’s White-Collar Crime Practice Group conducted an in-depth analysis not only of Korea’s Capital Markets Act but also of U.S. legal literature and Nevada state law. Lee & Ko argued in detail before the prosecution that a DIL is not a special provision in the loan agreement but a commonly used legal mechanism in the U.S., and therefore not a critical factor in deciding whether to invest in the financial product. They further demonstrated that the DIL-related provision in the relevant contractual documents had no connection to the decision to invest in the financial product or to the resulting investment loss. Lee & Ko also presented that investing in mezzanine debt inherently carries the risk of principal loss, and the complainants were fully informed of this risk. As such, there was neither any deceptive act constituting fraud nor any use of unfair means, schemes, or artifices under the Capital Markets Act. By establishing these facts, Lee & Ko successfully cleared its client of criminal liability. As a result, Company A secured a more favorable position in the related civil litigation as well.