TheBlock
South Korean police have charged 26 local users of the crypto prediction platform Polymarket with illegal gambling, referring 18 of them to prosecutors. The combined wagers placed by the group totalled about 17.6 billion won ($12.7 million), with one individual accounting for roughly 5.7 billion won ($4.1 million) in cumulative stakes. The bookings come from the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency's cyber investigation unit, which concluded that yes-or-no event contracts on Polymarket constitute gambling under Article 246 of South Korea's Criminal Act.
Why it matters
The framing matters because it sets the legal precedent Korean authorities will apply to event-contract trading. Police argued that users stake assets on outcomes they cannot control, which fits the gambling definition under Article 246. The 26 defendants pushed back, claiming Polymarket functions as a derivatives market because contracts trade on an order book and can be closed before expiry. That distinction is the central question if the cases go to court.
Market impact
The enforcement follows South Korea's media regulator ordering a domestic block on Polymarket roughly a month earlier on the same grounds. Polymarket's defence has been structural: it argues it is non-custodial, does not accept Korean won payments, and has stopped offering Korean-language services. None of those arguments has stuck with regulators so far, and the criminal bookings extend the pressure from access restrictions to personal liability for users. Prediction-market platforms and their Korean user bases now face the prospect that trading activity, not just platform availability, can draw criminal prosecution.
Frequently asked questions
-
How much did the charged Polymarket users wager in total?
The 26 individuals placed combined wagers of about 17.6 billion won ($12.7 million), with one accounting for roughly 5.7 billion won ($4.1 million) in cumulative stakes.
-
What law did South Korean police cite in the Polymarket case?
Police cited Article 246 of South Korea's Criminal Act, arguing that users stake assets on outcomes they cannot control, which fits the definition of gambling.
-
Why do the defendants argue Polymarket is not gambling?
They contend Polymarket functions as a derivatives market because contracts trade on an order book and can be closed before they expire.
-
When did South Korea first restrict access to Polymarket?
South Korea's media regulator ordered a domestic block on Polymarket roughly a month before the criminal charges were filed.
-
What is Polymarket's defence against the gambling classification?
Polymarket has argued it is non-custodial, does not accept Korean won payments, and has stopped offering Korean-language services to local users.
WuBlockchain
CoinDesk
Crypto News
CryptoSlate
WatcherGuru
Crypto Rank News