K-Pop Boy Group Member’s Father Under Investigation For Fraud

A CEO was recently placed under investigation for a massive ₩290 billion KRW (about $211 million USD) fraudulent investment scheme. He made headlines after it was made known that his son is an active K-Pop boy group member. The CEO had requested his travel ban be lifted, citing his second son’s career as a K-Pop idol as proof he wouldn’t flee the country — but the court didn’t buy it.

The Seoul Administrative Court recently rejected the appeal filed by the head of data platform company B, identified as Mr. A, who is accused of violating the Act on Regulation of Conducting Similar Receiving of Money and the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud). Mr. A allegedly collected over ₩292 billion KRW (about $212 million USD) from victims over a period of one year and five months, beginning in September 2022, by promising high returns through his “C Platform.”

In April 2024, at the request of the police, the Ministry of Justice imposed a travel ban on Mr. A, which has since been renewed monthly. When prosecutors took over the case, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit on March 12 to challenge the latest extension of his travel restriction.

In court, Mr. A argued that he had fully cooperated with the investigation, had family residing in Korea — including a second son who is an active idol singer — and therefore posed no flight risk. He also claimed the travel ban severely hindered his company’s international operations and could cause substantial financial damage.

However, Judge Cho Min Sik of the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. In the ruling, the judge emphasized the gravity of the allegations, the number of victims involved, and the likelihood that the investigation would be prolonged.

The court pointed out that Mr. A had frequently traveled abroad prior to the initial travel ban, raising legitimate concerns about him evading further summons if allowed to leave the country. Regarding the idol son, the judge noted that his public career did not eliminate the possibility of Mr. A fleeing overseas.

As for the claim that the company would suffer from the CEO’s inability to travel, the court found no sufficient evidence showing that international business operations absolutely required Mr. A’s physical presence abroad, or that any concrete losses had resulted from the ban.

The case remains under active investigation by prosecutors, with the travel ban still firmly in place.