No Suspicion of Forgery of Private Documents or Violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act

The client was reported in connection with a matter in which the client proceeded with the contract process with the complainant concerning tax refund services, received the relevant documents, and handled the matter. The complainant alleged that the Request for Assignment of National Tax Refund was prepared and submitted without authorization and that, in the process, tax representation was performed under the name or trade name of a certified tax accountant.

The initial risk arose from the fact that a document bearing the complainant’s name had in fact been prepared and submitted. If the document had been deemed to have been prepared beyond the scope of the authorization, the matter could have constituted forgery of a private document and use of a forged document. There was also a possibility that the manner in which the client participated in the tax refund services could be deemed a violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.

Accordingly, in this matter, the critical issues examined were not merely the fact that the document had been submitted, but also the scope of the authorization at the time the document was prepared and the structure under which the tax refund services were performed.

1. Whether the Request for Assignment of National Tax Refund Was an Unauthorized Document
Forgery of a private document is not established merely by the fact that a document exists. The central issue in this matter was whether the document could be deemed to have been created without the consent or authorization of the person in whose name it was prepared. During the investigation, the authorities examined what contract the complainant had entered into in connection with the tax refund services, what documents the complainant had prepared or provided, and whether the document could be regarded as having been prepared in the course of handling the matter. After reviewing the circumstances as a whole, the police determined that it was difficult to conclude that the client had created the document without authorization.

2. Whether the Predicate for Use of a Forged Document Was Established
Use of a forged document presupposes that a forged document was used. Accordingly, the mere fact that a document was submitted to a relevant authority is insufficient; it must first be determined whether the document was forged. In this matter, it was important that the Request for Assignment of National Tax Refund could not readily be deemed a document that had been prepared without authorization and beyond the scope of the authorization. As a result, the act of submitting the document was likewise determined to be insufficient to establish use of a forged document.

3. Whether the Conduct Could Be Deemed Lending of a Certified Tax Accountant’s Name or Unauthorized Tax Representation
Whether the Certified Tax Accountant Act has been violated depends on whether a person performed tax representation by borrowing a certified tax accountant’s name or trade name, or borrowed the certified tax accountant’s license or registration certificate. Mere involvement in introducing tax refund services or proceeding with a contract does not, by itself, establish a violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. In this matter, it was necessary to distinguish the circumstances in which the client participated in the tax refund services from the actual performance of tax representation. The police determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the client had directly performed tax representation by borrowing a certified tax accountant’s name or trade name.

MEGA X organized the central issues in the matter based on the contract-related documents submitted during the investigation, the authorization relationship, and the circumstances surrounding the handling of the matter. In particular, MEGA X explained that the key issue was whether the Request for Assignment of National Tax Refund was a separate document prepared without authorization or a document prepared in the course of handling the tax refund services.

With respect to the alleged violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, MEGA X also pointed out that involvement in tax refund services alone does not automatically establish the lending of a certified tax accountant’s name or unauthorized tax representation. MEGA X presented its position focusing on whether the conduct at issue actually fell within the conduct prohibited under the Certified Tax Accountant Act and whether sufficient materials existed to substantiate the allegations.

As a result, the investigative authorities examined the elements required for each offense and determined that it was difficult to find the client subject to allegations of forgery of a private document, use of a forged document, or violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.

No Suspicion