South Korea Prosecutes 18 Polymarket Users in Gambling Probe

South Korean police referred 18 users to prosecutors after tracing $12.7 million in bets on the prediction market platform.
South Korean police referred 18 Polymarket users to prosecutors. The investigation covers 26 individuals involved in betting. Total wagers amounted to 17.6 billion won. This sums to 12.7 million US dollars. One user bet 5.7 billion won. That single stake equals 4.1 million dollars.
Gangwon Provincial Police conducted the probe. The National Police Agency requested the action. Data was submitted to a lawmaker’s office. Police identified users through blockchain analysis. They traced public transactions to specific wallets. This method bypassed the platform’s noncustodial design.
Legal Classification Dispute
Authorities classify these trades as illegal gambling. The Criminal Act prohibits betting on uncertain outcomes. Users argue the platform functions as a derivatives market. They claim it allows trading before settlement. A lawyer noted this defense is weak in court.
Polymarket states it does not manage user funds. It uses smart contracts for automated settlement. The platform does not hold a list of real names. It does not support payments in Korean won. It does not provide Korean language services.
Regulatory Blocking Measures
South Korea blocked access to Polymarket in August. A media review commission made the decision. They cited the platform’s winner-takes-all structure. They argued this encourages speculative gambling. The commission rejected technical exemptions. They said these do not exempt services from local law.
The probe launched in June. It was the first of its kind in the country. Police analyzed transaction volumes and user patterns. They identified 26 people for investigation. Eighteen faced formal prosecution referrals. Cointelegraph reported on the scope of the probe. The case tests legal boundaries for prediction markets.
Platform Technical Structure
Polymarket operates on a peer-to-peer model. Users buy contracts tied to real-world events. Settlement occurs automatically via code. No central party holds the assets. This structure complicates traditional enforcement methods. Police must rely on on-chain data. They cannot demand user identities from the platform.






