[Reporter’s Notebook] Lime·Optimus Investigation and Prosecution Reform

Choi Seok-jin, Head of the Legal Affairs Team.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Allegations have surfaced that the prosecution deliberately delayed a full-scale investigation despite confirming evidence of lobbying by Lime and Optimus Asset Management officials to political circles, which caused astronomical losses through fraudulent fund sales.

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office investigation team secured documents during the Optimus raid in June-July that listed the number and some real names of suspected lobbying targets, including the Blue House and ruling party lawmakers, and even obtained related testimonies. However, it was revealed that Prosecutor General Lee Seong-yoon did not report these facts to Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol.

Similarly, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, which is investigating the Lime case, reportedly obtained testimony around the same time from Kim Bong-hyun, former chairman of Star Mobility and the key financier of Lime, stating that he delivered 50 million won to Kang Ki-jung, then Senior Secretary for Political Affairs at the Blue House, but this was not even recorded in the investigation report.

These facts were disclosed through media reports and court testimonies, and the prosecution seems to somewhat acknowledge their validity. The substance of the lobbying allegations, which had been continuously raised since the early stages of the two cases, was confirmed through channels other than the prosecution’s investigation results.

Coincidentally, January, when Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae abolished the Joint Securities Crime Investigation Team at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, a 'financial and securities crime-focused prosecution office,' coincided with the time when the Lime scandal broke out and the prosecution’s investigation began.

Furthermore, in subsequent personnel reshuffles, Minister Choo appointed prosecutors classified as pro-government, including Prosecutor General Lee, to key positions such as heads or deputy heads of major prosecution offices.

On the other hand, she replaced even the senior officials around Prosecutor General Yoon with prosecutors from the ‘Lee Seong-yoon line’ who had worked closely with Prosecutor General Lee, and abolished the position of the Investigation Information Policy Officer, who reported nationwide investigation information to Prosecutor General Yoon, effectively reducing him to a figurehead.

In the current prosecution, where evidence and testimonies that could trigger a scandal were not reported to the prosecution chief and omitted from investigation records, it might be the changed image of the prosecution that this government and Minister Choo envisioned.

In such circumstances, if the prosecution later announces an investigation result stating ‘there was no substance to the lobbying allegations,’ how many people would truly believe it?

If the government wanted a prosecution that could adjust the intensity of investigations depending on the regime’s preferences, where the strict hierarchical discipline represented by the ‘principle of unity of prosecutors’ no longer exists, and as a result is incapable of discovering substantive truth, then the current government’s prosecution reform seems almost successful.

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