[30 Days to the Launch of the Public Corruption Investigation Office] A Completely New Path... No Overseas Cases to Refer To

No Precedent for Independent Investigation Agency... Hong Kong's ICAC and UK's SFO Are Somewhat Similar

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] "There are no overseas cases to refer to." The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) is an organization that is difficult to find similar cases worldwide. It is hard to find conditions for success abroad. Ultimately, the new path of the CIO is one that South Korea is pioneering and has been entrusted with the historic responsibility of setting a precedent.

In the 'Study on the CIO' published by the Korea Institute of Criminology Policy last December, Kim Young-joong, a senior researcher at the institute, who examined cases mainly from OECD member countries, said, "There is no country that has a completely separate and independent investigative agency like the CIO," and "The CIO prioritizes the purpose of checking the prosecution, and there are no cases created for such a purpose."

Still, somewhat similar institutions include Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office (SFO). If only considering the investigation of corruption crimes by high-ranking officials, Romania's National Anti-corruption Directorate (NAD) is similar. The CIO Establishment Preparation Team under the Prime Minister's Office is also known to have separately organized and reviewed materials on the cases of Hong Kong and the UK recently.

Hong Kong's ICAC is only similar to the CIO in terms of establishment background. Established in 1974, the ICAC is an independent agency directly under the Chief Executive, with investigative authority only and no prosecutorial power, making it difficult to compare with our CIO. Cases investigated by the ICAC are prosecuted by prosecutors under the Department of Justice. The UK's SFO shares the characteristic of being an independent agency with both investigative and prosecutorial powers like the CIO, but differs in that its target crimes are mainly corporate crimes. Although the SFO is under the Ministry of Justice, the Minister appoints the director and only manages and supervises, without any involvement in investigation or prosecution, ensuring the SFO's independence.

Other agencies such as Norway's Economic and Environmental Crime Prosecutor's Office, New Zealand's Serious Fraud Office, and Spain's Special Prosecutor's Office for Corruption and Organized Crime also have both investigative and prosecutorial powers similar to the CIO, but they belong to the police (Norway), Ministry of Justice (Spain), etc., and thus differ from the CIO that the Korean government is promoting.

In the '2019 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)' released by Transparency International (TI) last January, countries without separate corruption investigation agencies such as Germany (80 points, 9th), Japan (73 points, 20th), the United States and France (69 points, 23rd) all scored higher than South Korea (59 points, 39th). This means that establishing a separate corruption investigation agency is not necessarily a guarantee of public officials' integrity. Tanzania has established and operates the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCB) with both investigative and prosecutorial powers for corruption, but its CPI score is 37, ranking 96th out of 180 countries, in the lower-middle tier.

Meanwhile, the UK and France, representative countries of the 'citizen revolution' that overcame absolute monarchy and ushered in the era of democracy, are notable special cases as they guarantee the 'private prosecution right,' allowing individual citizens to sue corrupt public officials.

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