Attention Drug Fools: Your Scam is Well-Known!

by Brendon Carr

I just got off the phone with my friend Jeff Harrison of Pusan Pacific Law Offices, the pre-eminent (only?) American lawyer in Pusan, and author of two excellent blogs Ruminations in Korea and Blues Got a Hold on Me. It’s always great fun when I have the occasion to speak with Jeff.

Today’s fun involves a type of case I’ve been seeing a lot of lately: English teachers who “mistakenly” receive a package full of marijuana through the post. The package is sent to their address, but to a different name. If the occupant of the apartment is “Joe Jones” (hi, Joe!), the package might be addressed to “Joe Johnson”. Apparently this is to provide some deniability—Jeez, officer, I just don’t know who would play this kind of trick on me. But I’m Joe Jones, see, not Joe Johnson. What a crazy mixup! This year I’ve heard from four English teachers with the same mixup. Jeff’s been getting a lot of these same calls down in Pusan. We’ve heard it enough that we know the punchline to the joke before the setup is complete.

Jeff’s down in Pusan, and the latest “potential client” is in Incheon. So Jeff isn’t going to handle the case. Neither am I, really. I’m in the car on my way to a meeting that should be done around 9:00 p.m. tonight—if my secretary doesn’t give out my cell phone number I should be able to avoid the call from the English teacher who’s working his way down a list from the Embassy.

(UPDATE 12/25: No matter how many times I call or write the Embassy asking to be taken off that damned list, they will not delete my name and phone number. Years ago, I thought it was cool to be on the Embassy’s lawyers’ list, but now I know it’s a source of unending nuisance calls. Please don’t call me with your drug-arrest problem!)

The police, prosecutors, and judges aren’t fools. If Jeff and I can see through this thin cover, do you imagine that official Korea hasn’t been able to figure it out? I think there must be some Hophead Central Internet forum for English teachers to give each other shitty advice on how to pull off some scam or another. Another recent criminal inquiry—please, no more criminal inquiries!—had me listening to some guy ask whether shaving off all his body hair would help him beat a drug test. He had heard that it would, no doubt from the same brain trust that came up with the “Oops! Wrong Name!” cover story. I don’t know, dude—this question is a bit outside my area of expertise. But I say go for it. The airflow is probably refreshing and you might also enjoy the extra ”Optical Inch”.

My most sincere advice? Don’t smoke pot in Korea. But if you must (I’ve been a lawyer long enough to know that these idiots can’t lay off the weed even if they know the danger of arrest and jail time is very high), when you’re caught, just admit it. Especially when talking to your lawyer or some guy you think you might sucker into being your lawyer. We already know you’re lying so you might as well give it up.

UPDATE 9/13: A commenter on the Marmot’s Hole helpfully offered up the story of Cullen Thomas, “Brother One Cell”, who spent 3-1/2 years in Korean prison after his own clever implementation of the “Oops! Wrong Name!” scam. In 1993, Thomas shipped himself two kilos of hashish from the Philippines via general-delivery post restante to a fake name at the Central Post Office. There’s a book titled “Brother One Cell” on Amazon and probably at Korean bookstores (I bet purchasing this book in Korea gets you put on a watchlist—better shave off your eyebrows just to be safe!), and you can read a GQ story with an excerpt from Thomas’ book on the author’s own website.

He shipped himself the hash in cocoa tins. Where have I heard that one before?

September 12, 2007 | Filed Under That Guy (Don't Be), Blogging, Criminal Law

Comments

26 Responses to This Entry

  1. NKHusband on

    What a classic case of an attorney! Avoiding a client that is in trouble.  If you were a doctor, you wouldn’t be allowed to practice. As an attorney, you shouldn’t be allowed to either.

    I hope when you get busted for something, every attorney avoids you too.  BTW I’m sending a copy of this blog to the U.S. Embassy in a hope they will take your name off of their attorney list!

  2. Hamilton on

    NK Husband,

    You object to lawyers with moral principals? Bwahahahaha, what a moroon. BTW good luck with your drug case!

    An attorney has every right to avoid a client that lies to him, just as a doctor will avoid a patient who lies about his medical history, sexual activity, diet, etc etc. This isn’t an emergency room with a gunshot wounded civilian being wheeled in, you can’t help some people.

  3. Richardson on

    You know some jerk will send you a “Brendan Card” package now…

  4. Cienfuegos on

    The embassy’s attorney referral list is probably in alphabetical order. Your life might be easier if you change your surname to Zelinsky or Zorn.

  5. Todd on

    Brendan-- good article.  Two bones of contention, or rather requests.  Please don’t assume that ALL English teachers are like that, when it is a distinct minority, and please don’t give those losers advice (assuming they can read).  As a long-time English teacher, who a.) rarely drinks and never does drugs b.) acts responsibly and c.) is culturally sensitive, I get sick and tired of these morons coming over, and would like nothing better than for them to start to realize that Korea is not the place for them. 

    This isn’t spring break!  So many of them seem to think it is though, and it is embarrassing.  As a serious teacher, it is also a downright INSULT to me, and others who take their jobs seriously, that we get lumped into the same group as these idiots.  Hats off to you and Jeff for being unwilling to deal with their self-manufactured problems.

    I say deport anyone with pierced tongues, lips, eyebrows, “tribal” tattoos on their arms, more than 2 sets of ear piercings, men with hair beyond their shoulders, and women with shaved heads (OK, I have not seen that yet), AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT TEACHING IN KOREA IS ALL ABOUT GETTING ENOUGH MONEY TO MOLEST THE LOCAL WOMEN, DO DRUGS, DO STUPID SH!T THAT MAKES ALL FOREIGNERS LOOK BAD, AND DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT KOREANS OR THEIR CULTURE.

  6. Todd on

    #1-- Attorneys can and should have the right to defend whomever they want.  These vermin have got themselves into trouble and so I have no sympathy, nor should anyone else.

  7. downloader on

    Brendon:

    Excellent article - idiots - they are everywhere. 

    I believe that everyone is entitled to a fair defense, however, there has to be something to defend - if not my innocence, then a bad law, overzelous prosocution, overly harsh punishment… something - I wouldn’t want a lawyer who didn’t believe in me or at least believe in some aspect of my case.

    So while everyone is entitled to a defense, they are not entitled to one from you.

  8. Cienfuegos on

    Does anybody know what the actual laws are regarding the consumption of marijuana in Korea?

    I’m confused, since it’s obviously illegal to smoke it. However, I watched a show a few weeks ago where a group of Korean farmers were growing it and using it in all sorts of creative ways, including consuming it in various ways strictly for it’s medicinal or narcotic effect. Besides separating the fibers for commercial purposes, there was a lot of reefer tea and inhaling of ganja steam.

  9. Brendon Carr on

    Personally, I’m a libertarian and I think people ought to have the right to smoke pot if they want to. It’s not for me, but as long as smoking pot is not mandatory and there are efforts to keep impaired people off the road or out of the operating theatre (and the good news with marijuana is it tends to keep its users in their Mom’s basement), I think it ought to be legal.

    But hey, guess what? It’s not legal in the Republic of Korea. And I’m not invested enough in the libertarian fantasy to ask my colleagues to take on the entire system. Especially not for the wages these characters want to pay. (But even with a full fee, there are usually other reasons not to associate with pot-smoking English teachers.) Therefore I think the best course of action is for them to obey the laws and stop trying to think up “clever” schemes to get over on The Man. The Man always wins.

  10. tbonetylr on

    Let’s face it Carr, you don’t really deserve to be on the American Embassy list of Attorneys.  Even if you had a real victim in your terms you would and have denied them of a defense and/or counter-lawsuit.  You did it with me, so I know you don’t care about the English Teacher simply because you price us out of your service range. 

    Yes that’s right, you quoted me $40,000 to represent me for a small time case.  Without you I battled the ordeal myself and although I was discriminated(which you couldn’t have stopped) against completely, I somehow received a somewhat favorable Judgement in the Korean court.

    You told me..."I don’t represent employees, only employers.” Those kind of words don’t deserve you the right to be on the American Embassy list of Attorneys and you know it!

  11. Brendon Carr on

    Yes, my employment law practice is almost exclusively a management-side practice. I and my colleagues advise multinational companies in English on compliance with laws and help them defend themselves against claims. The reason I am a management-side advisor is pretty simple—companies generally care about compliance with the law, employees do not (except when it’s their ox being gored), and the companies can also pay their attorneys. They pay well, in fact. By contrast, individuals have no budget for legal services and Korean law does not authorize any kind of fee-assignment system which would enable us to force employers to pay our fees for employee-side work. This is not a circumstance of my own creation, by the way.

    But it does set up a decision for us—we can work for English teachers and not get paid, or not work and not get paid. In that circumstance, I choose to not work and not get paid. Sorry. (In actual fact, the choice is between working and not getting paid, and turning away good clients who do want to pay us, or telling you to go away.) Whether or not your case is “small time” or not, there is in fact a cost in out of pocket expense for a law firm to accept the case and assign it even to to our lowest-cost attorneys. We have rent, staff wages, utilities, taxes and attorney salaries to pay. Businesses recognize this, while individuals like you generally do not.

    There is also the “nuisance factor” in pricing legal services. That is to say, where the potential client makes it clear from the initial conversation that he is going to be an incredible pain in the ass, sometimes a professional will quote a price that is coldly calculated to get rid of the nuisance. If my recollection is correct that was, I’m sad to say, what went on when we spoke in the spring. I’m glad to hear your case turned out favorably.

    We had a “real victim” once—Kenzi Snider. And we happily defended her without charge (except for a small amount for out-of-pocket expense incurred for translations of the massive court file). But she was accused of a murder she pretty clearly didn’t commit.

  12. downloader on

    I doubt very much if they just arrest anyone who answers the door when the package is delivered.  With any case there would be additional investigations - phone calls, passport check, travels to drug friendly countries, etc.  If someone is going to have drugs delivered to their houses, they probably aren’t bright enough to hide the other clues and indicators.

    As I remember in the Cullen book (excellent read), when he went to the post office to pick up the package, he saw a couple of guys (undercover police) hanging about, the fake name on the list was written in RED (big tip off), and the clerk was visibly shocked when Cullen pointed to that name… Sorry, not the brightest bulb in the box, and guilty.

    I hate to say it, but unlike what you see on TV, the vast majority of people who are arrested are guilty - a lot of investigation typically goes into a case before an arrest is made.  In real life there are very few “Perry Mason” moments…

    But yes, there are some people who are innocent and get arrested, convicted, and serve time… but I doubt that this is the case here… just stupid people doing stupid things.

    And as a criminal justice teacher once told, “Nobody ever gets arrested the first time they commit a crime” - why do we speed on the highways - we didn’t get a ticket the first time we did it.  I doubt this was the first time this guy ever obtained drugs - but it my be the first time he got caught…

  13. Gene Zorm on

    “I say deport anyone with pierced tongues, lips, eyebrows, “tribal” tattoos on their arms, more than 2 sets of ear piercings, men with hair beyond their shoulders, and women with shaved heads (OK, I have not seen that yet), AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT TEACHING IN KOREA IS ALL ABOUT GETTING ENOUGH MONEY TO MOLEST THE LOCAL WOMEN, DO DRUGS, DO STUPID SH!T THAT MAKES ALL FOREIGNERS LOOK BAD, AND DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT KOREANS OR THEIR CULTURE”

    this guy is spot on.  they should also deport people with small noses and dark skin.

  14. Joe Jones on

    Thanks for outing me, BC!

  15. Syd B on

    “The reason I am a management-side advisor is pretty simple—companies generally care about compliance with the law, employees do not (except when it’s their ox being gored), and the companies can also pay their attorneys.”

    Korean companies care about compliance with the law more than their employees?

  16. Brendon Carr on

    Syd B, thanks for your comment. I was actually thinking of making a clarification to this point myself.

    My perception of Korean companies is that they are still very much in “law-avoidance” mode. They do not care so much about compliance, but rather with not being burdened by the law and any impact it may have on their operations. Western companies—multinational corporations and foreign investors—are very much interested in compliance and making sure they do not break the law. There is often a very interesting tension between a compliance-driven organization outside Korea, and the avoidance-driven Korean employees of that organization.

    Hagwons by the way, are in most cases not companies. They are indvidual persons, and rank among the worst employers in Korea. They obviously are not compliance-oriented.

  17. Douglas McIntosh on

    Brendon,

    I absolutely agree with you that when a person is in a foreign country they must obey the host country’s law. This is not open to debate, as it’s a black and white issue and no matter how much you disagree with that country’s laws, you have a legal, moral and ethical obligation to obey them. If not, get out. Your condemnation of the pot heads is clear and justifiable, if a bit snarky.

    But I don’t remember you condemning the Korean missionaries on the Marmot’s Hole in such a bold and forceful manner, despite the fact that they were clearly engaged in criminal behavior in Afghanistan.  In fact, I recall a rather wistful and sneaking admiration with their underhanded and duplicitous activities. After all they were trying to lure Afghan Muslims into apostasy, an act that resulted in the murder of two of their number, weeks of harsh captivity for the rest (plus all the other crap), but, as memory serves, no condemnation from you. Surely, that sort of ass-hattery, regardless of motivation, deserves vitriolic abuse. Now, you are a lawyer, trained in logic, argument and American law, how do you rationalize your condemnation of one, but your apparent admiration of the other?

  18. Brendon Carr on

    It’s simple: Christian missionaries don’t annoy me personally, whereas drug criminals seek me out to waste my time.

    Also, let’s be real here—sallying forth to spread the Gospel, despite the known dangers of doing so, is a different enterprise from smoking hash from a crumpled-up Coke can in some Hongdae back alley, despite the known dangers of doing so. It just is.

  19. Potential Customer on

    Brendan, given your attitude toward the potheads and unwillingness to accept their cases, why would you send tbonetylr an email quoting him $5k?  That’s obviously within an English teacher’s affordability, and only gives the guy hope and motivates him to put the effort into coming to visit you at your office.

    Then after he makes that effort and gets his hopes up about being able to afford decent representation, you drop the hammer and give him the nuisance quote of $40k?  If that actually is the sequence of events, it’s understandable why he’d be pissed at how you handled it. 

    Why not just answer his initial email with the nuisance quote to keep him away, or better yet, just be honest and answer his email by telling him you don’t handle drug cases?

  20. Brendon Carr on

    I don’t want to comment further on anyone’s specific circumstance, but usually when I discuss with an individual client the possibility of hiring a lawyer I urge them to shop around—there are a wide range of prices possible for legal work.

    Many times there is a type of “selective hearing” that interferes with an individual’s understanding of potential costs. Often they ask about “unbundled” services—for example, asking what it would cost to get an attorney to sit with them for questioning at the police station, or sending a “scary letter” to the hagwon owner. They expect to pay for an hour or two of time. But that overlooks things like the initial client interview, initial research, and preparation that goes into being minimally prepared to do the single thing the potential client thinks he’s hiring the lawyer to do. In a potential criminal matter, there is in fact substantial value realized where the attorney can kill the attachment of charges. It’s worth money not to be arrested.

    I discuss these issues with every single person who calls. Sometimes I’ll meet with one of them. Then, when we sit and meet other facts are discovered that materially change the initial assessment of what work will be required. That affects cost. And sometimes I discover the potential client will be a pain. That affects cost too.

    Hagwon owners are the worst opponents in the world, because generally they are egotistical and completely unreasonable. Hagwon disputes present the greatest opportunity to incur costs wildly inappropriate to the value of the dispute. There is an expression I recall from rural Missouri: Don’t wrestle a pig. The pig has a great time and you end up covered in shit.

    Anyway, it doesn’t seem to me that I am a bilker. Most of my client relationships last years and years. In fact, this week I am thinking about what kind of small gift to give a corporate counsel in February to mark the 10th anniversary of us working together.

  21. downloader on

    Potential Customer:

    Customers are idiots and often lie - well, maybe lie is too harsh, but they leave out a lot of details.

    When I was doing consulting PC work in the US (along time ago), I got a guy calling me asking about upgrading their OS to Windows 95 (I told you it was a long time ago).  I quoted him a price based on several common assumputions.  I got to the site to find out they were running Commadore 64s!  Then they tried to hold me to the phone price - which would now include buying PCs, etc…

    While I don’t know the case being discussed, it is possible the client originally toned it down -for example “they caught me with some weed...” - the case in the email, and once all the details became known - “...that was a small amount of the massive quantity that I had smuggled into the country, sold to my friends and strangers, etc...” - it wasn’t worth it.

    To quote House MD, “Everybody lies”

  22. Brendon Carr on

    We may be conflating two sets of potential clients. English teachers encounter two types of legal issues: Criminal matters (usually drug-related), and civil matters (usually hagwon-related disputes over pay and benefits).

    Speaking for myself, I’m more open to assisting a foreign accused than I am to assisting an English teacher embroiled in a dispute with a hagwon owner. The reason is pretty simple: It makes more sense economically for an individual to spend money trying to avoid Korean jail than it does to wrestle with the pig. Like I said, the pig has a great time and you just end up covered in shit.

    There is no way to justify legal expense when compared to the benefit to be gained from a civil suit over small amounts of money.

  23. Doug on

    Interesting reading.  For the record, I am aware of at least one case where Mr. Carr voluntarily represented a destitute English teacher (pro bono), taking money out of his own pocket to assist the English teacher with personal living expenses – knowing he would not be paid back.  By the way Mr. Carr won the case for the English teacher.

  24. lirelou on

    Brendon, a lawyer war-story for you. We had an LL.D. in Lawrence, MA in the late 70s who was absolutely brilliant arguing cases. Viewed himself as a harmless toker, but took to representing druggies. Ended up respresenting some Colombians who put him into a compromising position and then leaned on him to “settle” an immigration case by offering a bribe to a federal judge. Spent some time in jail, and lost his license to practice. He ended up opening a bar called “Harvey’s Courthouse” which, from the bikes parked outside, appeared to draw in a lot of his former clients. Sad end for a barrister who had the talent to end up on the Superior or Supreme Judicial court, but if you play with people who roll in shit, you get splashed with it.

  25. skindleshanks on

    I’m still curious, though. If I made some enemies during my time in Korea, what would keep me from going back to Canada and mailing them a package (or several packages) of pot?

  26. dinobuddy on

    skindleshanks, I imagine the threat of you yourself being prosecuted in Canada for shipping drugs through the post would be enough of a disincentive. I’m not sure what the laws are in Canada, but it’s a felony offense here in the US; I’m sure there’s a similar rule in place up North. smile

Comments Policy: Comments to Korea Law Blog are moderated. This means abusive, or just plain stupid comments will be deleted. So don't be a jerk. It also means there may be some delay from the time you post a comment to the time it shows up here. If your comment wasn't against the policy, it will show up in a little bit.




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Please enter the word you see in the image below: