Judicial decisions in money laundering cases: the Influence of monetary compensation and sentencing guidelines in South Korea

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the impact of sentencing guideline factors on judges’ decisions regarding in/out and the length of imprisonment for individuals convicted of money laundering-related offenses in South Korea. Analyzing a dataset of 413 cases involving money mule activities from 2021, the research employs binary logistic regression and negative binomial regression models to establish an association between predictors and sentencing outcomes. The study found that defendants who provided monetary compensation to their victims were significantly more likely to be placed on probation than those who did not. Additionally, it was found that monetary compensation to victims had the most significant impact on the decisions regarding the length of imprisonment among the factors outlined in the sentencing guidelines. This finding serves as a warning sign for prospective job seekers, revealing the potentially dire ramifications of involvement in money laundering crimes.

Keywords:

• sentencing guideline factors
• sentencing outcomes
• monetary compensation
• money mules
• South Korea

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. In all the analyses performed in this study, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values of all independent variables were less than 3.5.

2. The residuals exhibited heteroscedasticity as indicated by the studentized Breusch-Pagan test (BP = 32.031***). Additionally, the data did not meet the assumption of normality, as evidenced by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test (W = 0.981***).

3. Following the overdispersion test, it was observed that the dispersion value exceeded 1 (dispersion = 2.365***), indicating that the residuals displayed a tendency toward overdispersion.

4. According to the probation guidelines set by the sentencing commission of South Korea, decisions are guided by the number of differences between mitigating and aggravating factors. When there are more than two differences, deciding in favor of the greater number is recommended. For example, probation is recommended if there are more than two mitigating factors. Out of 93 cases meeting this criterion, the recommendation was followed. However, if the difference is less than two, the judge exercises discretion in deciding on probation or imprisonment based on all affirmative and adverse elements.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sunmin Hong

Sunmin Hong is a doctoral student in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at The University of Texas at Dallas. His research primarily focuses on cybercrime and offender demographics.

Diana Rodriguez

Diana Rodriguez is an adjunct professor in the Criminology Program at The Lone Star College at Montgomery County. Her research focuses on alternatives to punishment and restorative justice.