Will the Corruption Investigation Office Act's 'Toxic Clauses' Be Revised?

Notification of High-Ranking Official Involvement Case
Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Public Officials Corruption Investigation Act
Prosecutor and Police Investigation Agencies Continue to Oppose
Advisory Committee Also Demands Objectification of Scope

Nam Gi-myeong, head of the Preparatory Group for the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (PCA), is presiding over the first meeting of the PCA Preparatory Group Advisory Committee held on the 10th at the Government Seoul Office in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] It is known that the Preparatory Committee for the establishment of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Gong-su-cheo) received criticism from the advisory committee regarding Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Gong-su-cheo Act, drawing legal circles' attention to its future actions.

This is the controversial clause that requires other investigative agencies, when recognizing that a high-ranking official is involved during their criminal investigation, to immediately notify the Gong-su-cheo. The prosecution strongly opposed this, calling it a toxic clause.

According to the legal community on the 27th, the Preparatory Committee held its third meeting with the advisory committee at the Government Seoul Office Building the day before. At this meeting, the advisory committee reportedly expressed the opinion that "the scope stipulated in Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Gong-su-cheo Act should be objectively defined through consultation with investigative bodies." The intention is to clarify through discussions with related agencies the timing when other investigative agencies notify the Gong-su-cheo and whether the entire investigation content or only part of it should be reported. Along with this, it was also conveyed that notifying the Gong-su-cheo from the investigation initiation stage, even before any suspicion is found, is inappropriate in terms of investigative efficiency.

Once the Preparatory Committee collects the advisory committee's opinions, it is likely to proceed with a procedure to receive related opinions from investigative agencies such as the prosecution and police. Attention is focused on whether conflicts with investigative agencies can be resolved through this. The prosecution and police have expressed concerns that the clause grants the Gong-su-cheo overwhelming authority, potentially causing confusion in the current investigative system. Since the prosecution was excluded from the composition of the Preparatory Committee and advisory committee, making it difficult to express opinions, this is expected to be an opportunity for them to actively convey their stance.

Besides this, the Preparatory Committee and advisory committee also discussed the public relations method for cases handled by the Gong-su-cheo. Most officials agreed that public relations should be conducted in a manner similar to the Ministry of Justice's directive "Regulations on Prohibition of Disclosure of Criminal Cases," which keeps all suspicions and investigation details confidential and allows limited disclosure after prosecution in accordance with the public's right to know. The next fourth advisory committee meeting will be held on the 30th of next month at the Government Seoul Office Building.

Meanwhile, it is known that the Preparatory Committee has begun reviewing cases from advanced foreign countries about 50 days before the Gong-su-cheo's launch. According to legal community officials, the Preparatory Committee recently requested the Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice to prepare detailed materials summarizing advanced foreign cases similar to the Gong-su-cheo. The Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice is expected to prepare and deliver the materials to the Preparatory Committee within this week.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.