"Did the 'Failed Year' Evaluation Spur It? The Corruption Investigation Office Eases Up... Decides to Abandon 'Conditional Referral' and 'Selective Prosecution'"

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials./Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA) has effectively abandoned the HCIA chief’s authority to “conditionally transfer prosecution rights” (conditional transfer) following conflicts with the prosecution over cases such as that of Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won. Additionally, the agency has decided to abolish the “selective registration” system, whereby the chief would decide which cases among complaints and accusations to investigate and register.

This move is interpreted as a response to repeated political neutrality controversies and criticism from political and legal circles regarding the HCIA’s incompetence.

On the 26th, the HCIA announced a legislative notice for amendments to the “HCIA Case Handling Regulations” (hereafter, the Regulations) reflecting these changes.

The amendment first deletes the proviso in Article 25, Paragraph 2, and Article 14, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 1, Item (b), which allowed the chief to request that cases transferred to other investigative agencies be transferred back to the HCIA after investigation completion, as well as Article 24, Paragraph 3, which allowed the chief to request suspension of investigative procedures by other agencies.

These provisions permitted the HCIA to transfer cases, in which it holds both investigative and prosecutorial authority, to the prosecution while reserving prosecution rights. They were intentionally included when the HCIA established and promulgated the case handling regulations amid completely opposing interpretations between the HCIA and the prosecution on whether conditional transfers were permissible under the HCIA Act.

The issue originated with the case of Prosecutor Lee, involved in the illegal deportation of Kim Hak-ui. After receiving the case from the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, the HCIA conditionally transferred it back to Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, requesting that prosecution decisions be reserved by the HCIA and that the case be sent back after investigation completion.

However, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rejected this as an “unheard-of and absurd logic,” completed its own investigation, and prosecuted Prosecutor Lee, escalating conflicts between the HCIA and the prosecution. Prosecutor Lee requested the court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prosecution’s indictment violated the HCIA Act since the HCIA should have prosecuted the case, but the court did not accept this.

The HCIA attempted to resolve the issue by explicitly including provisions in the regulations, but the prosecution did not comply, and the courts did not side with the HCIA, rendering these provisions effectively meaningless. However, the HCIA’s decision to delete these provisions itself signifies a meaningful departure from its previous stance.

Recently, the HCIA published an “HCIA Act Commentary,” concluding that conditional transfers, where the HCIA chief transfers only investigative authority to the prosecution, are possible. Although the HCIA clarified that the commentary does not represent its official position, it stated that the commentary was published for reference in performing duties, making this move somewhat unusual.

The HCIA explained the background, stating, “While conditional transfers are necessary to resolve issues such as the prosecution’s ‘covering for their own,’ to build cooperative relationships with other investigative agencies, the issue of conditional transfers, which has caused conflicts with the prosecution, will be resolved through amendments to the HCIA Act to explicitly codify conditional transfers or future judicial rulings.”

Meanwhile, the HCIA has also decided to abolish the “selective registration” system, which had raised political neutrality concerns. Until now, the HCIA chief personally decided whether to register cases after the investigation and analysis phase. This led to accusations of bias when the HCIA registered four cases related to Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party’s presidential candidate. The amendment stipulates that, like the prosecution and police, all complaints and accusations will be automatically registered upon receipt.

Additionally, the amendment deletes Article 25, Paragraph 3 of the regulations, which allowed the police to request arrest or detention warrants for judges and prosecutors from the HCIA rather than the prosecution. This provision had also faced opposition from the prosecution.

However, the HCIA will maintain the current system where the police can request search warrants or requests for communication data through the HCIA to the court. The HCIA plans to collect opinions on the amended regulations until March 7 and finalize the amendments thereafter.

This move is seen as a response to political neutrality controversies and criticism from political and legal circles regarding the HCIA’s incompetence since its launch in January last year. The HCIA has faced severe criticism for insufficient investigative performance and political bias, from the controversy over the “emperor investigation” of Seoul High Prosecutor Lee Sung-yoon to recent indiscriminate communication data inquiries and unlawful searches.

Even Han Sang-hee, a professor at Konkuk University Law School and former director of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy’s Judicial Watch Center, who greatly contributed to the HCIA’s establishment, recently stated in a media interview, “The HCIA’s past year has been almost a failure. There are serious concerns about amateurish and human rights-violating investigations.”

On the 21st, HCIA Chief Kim Jin-wook apologized at the first anniversary ceremony, saying, “I am sorry for the shortcomings that did not meet the public’s expectations,” and announced that he would revise the selective registration system, which has been controversial for neutrality and independence, and refrain from involvement in case registration.

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