We successfully represented a client who was indicted on fraud charges. The client requested the complainant, who operated a staffing agency, to dispatch workers to a construction site operated by the client’s company, which manufactures and installs steel structures. The client had promised to pay workers’ wages if the complainant did so. The complainant subsequently dispatched workers on several occasions but was not paid. Prosecutors alleged that our client had no intention or financial ability to pay the workers’ wages at the time of request and therefore charged the client with fraud.

In defending the client, we argued that the client had maintained a consistent business relationship with the complainant for approximately five years and had paid wages to dispatched workers. Although client was unable to pay wages on this occasion, it was due to a temporary cash shortage and not the result of any intent to defraud. We also cited Supreme Court Decision 85Do1498 rendered on September 24, 1985, in support of the client’s claims. We further emphasized that the complainant’s statements lacked credibility, noting that the complainant had initially concealed its longstanding business relationship with the client and only altered its account after objective evidence of their business dealings emerged during the investigation.

In addition, we pointed to evidence showing that the client had continuously paid workers’ wages in the past, and explained that the temporary shortfall resulted from force majeure events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and monsoon-related delays.

The court acknowledged the evidence establishing the longstanding business relationship between the client and the complainant, as well as the client’s history of wage payments. The court also found that the complainant’s changing statements diminished their probative value. In this regard, the court rendered a not guilty verdict.