South Korean police have booked 26 Polymarket users and referred 18 of them to prosecutors as part of a gambling investigation tied to approximately ₩17.6 billion (around $12.7 million) in cu
South Korean police have booked 26 Polymarket users and referred 18 of them to prosecutors as part of a gambling investigation tied to approximately ₩17.6 billion (around $12.7 million) in cumulative bets, according to police data submitted to lawmaker Yoon Kun-young and reported by DongA Ilbo, marking one of the most concrete enforcement actions against prediction-market participants in any major jurisdiction.
Gangwon Provincial Police Agency opened a preliminary inquiry into Polymarket users on March 16, 2026, per the figures reported by DongA Ilbo. By September 15, 2026, the investigation had produced a defined enforcement funnel: 26 individuals booked, with 18 forwarded to prosecutors, a referral rate of roughly 69 percent. For related coverage, see How Liquid Network Lost $320M: DeFi Lessons for Users.
Police case funnel 26booked→18referred to prosecutors Reported police figures, as of September 15, 2026.The wager totals attributed to the booked suspects reached approximately ₩17.6 billion in cumulative bets, with a single individual responsible for approximately ₩5.7 billion, per the same police submission. Booked status does not equal conviction; it signals that police have formally placed a suspect under investigation and, in the referral cases, believe prosecutable conduct exists.
Reported wager scale ₩17.6 billion cumulative bets attributed to booked suspects Largest individual amount reported: ₩5.7 billion. Amounts are reported betting totals, not a Polymarket token-market metric.The tracing method is operationally significant: Polymarket did not hold Korean users' real-name records, so police could not request a conventional identity list from the platform. Instead, investigators relied on OSINT analysis of public blockchain transaction records, following funding and settlement flows across the chain to link wallet addresses to identifiable individuals.
The implication, relevant to any user of non-custodial crypto platforms, is that pseudonymous blockchain activity is not anonymous activity. Public ledger transparency, the same feature that makes USDC settlement auditable, also gives investigators a persistent, immutable trail that does not depend on exchange cooperation or platform disclosure. This case offers a live illustration of that asymmetry, distinct from the earlier South Korean police referral of Polymarket users to prosecutors that preceded this broader count.
Police characterize the Polymarket activity as satisfying the elements of gambling under Article 246 of South Korea's Criminal Act, arguing that participants staked economically valuable assets on outcomes outside their control, per Asiae's reporting on the police submission. Domestic access to the platform was reportedly blocked in August 2026 while the investigation continued.
Users dispute that classification, arguing the platform resembles a crypto-based derivatives venue rather than a gambling site: contracts are probability-priced, positions can be exited before settlement, and the platform operates on a non-custodial design. The legal question of whether prediction markets settled in USDC constitute gambling under Korean statute has not been resolved by a court, and the article 246 theory remains untested at the appellate level. Separately, the CFTC has opened its own Polymarket insider trading investigations in a parallel U.S. regulatory track, underscoring that the platform faces scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
The enforcement arc, from a March 2026 inquiry to a September 2026 prosecutor referral for more than two-thirds of booked suspects, suggests Gangwon Provincial Police were not treating the case as a low-priority administrative matter. The six-month timeline from inquiry to referral is consistent with a structured investigation, not a sweep based on a tip. Users who participated in prediction markets using Korean won on-ramps or Korean exchange wallets as funding sources carry the highest attribution risk, given the on-chain connectivity between regulated and unregulated layers.
South Korea has a separate, ongoing debate around crypto taxation, with a crypto tax deferral petition already passing the public review threshold, indicating that the regulatory environment around digital assets remains contested and fast-moving. Individuals with exposure to Korean-jurisdiction crypto activity should consult qualified local legal counsel rather than rely on platform-level privacy assumptions.
The 18 referred cases are now in the hands of prosecutors, who will determine whether to indict. A formal indictment would force a court ruling on whether Polymarket activity qualifies as gambling under Article 246, a decision that would set precedent for every prediction-market operator seeking Korean users. Key monitoring triggers include: any prosecutor announcement of charges, a court ruling on the Article 246 classification, and whether Polymarket issues a public statement on the domestic access block or cooperates with additional investigative requests.
Against a broader crypto backdrop where CFTC scrutiny of Polymarket continues in parallel and Bitcoin trades around $81,290 with the crypto Fear and Greed Index at 71 (Greed) as of September 19, 2026, enforcement activity of this kind signals that regulators across jurisdictions are treating prediction markets as within scope, regardless of whether the underlying instruments are denominated in stablecoins rather than fiat.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
The post South Korean Police Trace Polymarket Users in $12.7M Betting Case was initially published on Coincu.
