[Litigation] Obtained a decision of no charges in a defamation case related to the operation of a Chinese cross-border e-commerce site.

A was preparing to operate the Korean section of an internet shopping mall operated by a famous Chinese bank when he received a proposal from B, a friend, that he would like to be in charge of outsourcing product work, and he agreed to it. After A’s efforts, test quantities of products were received and sales began, but suddenly B began to make one-sided claims about the settlement method and ratio, failed to provide materials needed for settlement for several months, and filed a lawsuit against A on charges of fraud, obstruction of business, embezzlement in the course of business, and defamation.

Law firm Veat, therefore, argued that fraud, etc. did not arise by thoroughly clarifying the relationship between A and B, the fact that B first proposed to perform outsourcing work, the fact that the settlement rate was to be determined later because it was initially a test quantity, the fact that money was sent to the supplier for settlement, and the fact that he was merely sending a reply email because B sent defamatory emails to the bank president, Korean branch manager, and cooperative companies of the bank.

And the lawyer affiliated with Law firm Veat directly attended the confrontation interrogation of A and B and pointed out the inconsistencies in B’s claims, and during the process, obtained a statement that he participated in the business on his own judgment (related to fraud charges) and a statement that he received money from A but deceived A in order to satisfy other claims (related to embezzlement in the course of business).

In the end, the defendant received a dismissal order from the Suwon Branch of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and Law firm Veat will subsequently take recovery measures for items that the product supplier has not been able to recover from B based on this.

Thank you.

Law firm Veat