The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) Abandons Conditional Transfers and Selective Indictments... Revised Case Handling Rules to Take Effect Tomorrow

Kim Jin-wook, Chief of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency. / Photo by Dong-joo Yoon doso7@

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA) has decided to delete the provision for the "conditional transfer of prosecution rights" (conditional transfer authority), which was one of the main causes of conflict with the prosecution since its launch, and will no longer exercise this authority.

Additionally, the "selective registration" system, which caused controversy over political bias as the HCIA opened investigations into several complaints related to President-elect Yoon Seok-yeol, will also be abolished.

The Human Rights Investigation Policy Officer system, introduced to resolve human rights violations caused by indiscriminate access to communication data and illegal searches and seizures targeting opposition politicians and journalists, will also be implemented.

The HCIA announced on the 13th that it will implement the revised "HCIA Case Handling Rules," which include these changes, after publishing them in the official gazette on the 14th.

The revised Case Handling Rules, which delete the conditional transfer and selective registration provisions, were publicly announced by the HCIA on January 26. Furthermore, following the revision of the Case Handling Rules, the partial amendment to the "HCIA Organization Rules," which abolishes the position of Case Investigation Analyst and establishes the position of Human Rights Investigation Research Officer, was announced on the 3rd. Based on feedback received during the public comment period, the HCIA stated that the title of the Human Rights Investigation Research Officer was changed to Human Rights Investigation Policy Officer.

Deletion of the 'Conditional Transfer' Provision That Clashed with the Prosecution... Prosecution Decides Whether to Prosecute Cases Transferred to Them

The amendment first deletes the proviso of Article 25, Paragraph 2, Clause 1(b), and Article 14, Paragraph 3, Clause 1(b) of the Case Handling Rules, which allowed the head of the HCIA to transfer cases to other investigative agencies while requesting that the case be transferred back to the HCIA after the investigation is completed, as well as Article 24, Paragraph 3, which allowed requesting the suspension of investigative procedures by other agencies.

These provisions allowed the HCIA to transfer cases, over which it has both investigative and prosecutorial authority, to the prosecution while reserving the right to prosecute. These clauses were intentionally included when the HCIA established and promulgated the Case Handling Rules amid escalating conflicts with the prosecution over whether conditional transfer was permissible under the HCIA Act.

The issue originated with the case involving Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won, who was implicated in the illegal deportation related to Kim Hak-ui. The HCIA, having received the case from the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, conditionally transferred it back to Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, requesting that the prosecution decide on whether to prosecute and send the case back to the HCIA after completing the investigation.

However, the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office rejected this as an "absurd and unprecedented logic," completed its own investigation, and prosecuted the prosecutor, intensifying the conflict between the HCIA and the prosecution. In court, Prosecutor Lee requested dismissal of the indictment, arguing that the prosecution's prosecution violated the HCIA Act because the HCIA should have prosecuted the case, but the court did not accept this.

The HCIA tried to resolve the issue by explicitly including the provision in the rules, but the prosecution did not comply, and the courts did not side with the HCIA, rendering the provisions effectively meaningless.

Nevertheless, in January, the HCIA published the "HCIA Act Commentary," concluding that the HCIA head can conditionally transfer investigative authority to the prosecution while reserving prosecutorial authority. Although the HCIA clarified that the commentary did not represent the official position, it stated that the commentary was published for reference in performing duties.

After one year since its launch, the HCIA has failed to produce significant investigative results and has been embroiled in controversies over illegal investigations and political bias. This move can be seen as the HCIA lowering itself and eliminating conflict factors with other investigative agencies.

At the time of the public announcement, the HCIA explained the background, stating, "Although conditional transfer is necessary to resolve issues such as the prosecution's 'covering for their own,' to build a cooperative relationship with other investigative agencies, the conditional transfer issue, which has been a source of conflict with the prosecution, will be resolved through amendments to the HCIA Act that explicitly stipulate conditional transfer or future judicial decisions."

Abolition of the 'Selective Registration' System Where the HCIA Chief Decides Whether to Register Cases... Immediate Assignment of Case Numbers to Complaints and Accusations

Meanwhile, the "selective registration" system, which was the cause of political neutrality controversies surrounding the HCIA, will also be abolished. Until now, the HCIA has gone through an investigation and analysis phase after receiving cases, with the chief directly deciding whether to register the case. This led to accusations of bias when the HCIA registered four cases related to President-elect Yoon, who was an opposition presidential candidate. The revised rules stipulate that, like the prosecution and police, all complaints and accusations will be automatically registered upon receipt.

HCIA Chief Kim Jin-wook apologized at the 1st anniversary ceremony on the 21st, saying, "I regret 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 would no longer be involved in case registration.

For example, until now, when a complaint or accusation was received, it was first accepted as a "received case" and assigned to an investigation and analysis prosecutor. Only cases for which the investigation and analysis prosecutor decided to register after preliminary investigation and analysis were assigned a new case number and allocated to an investigative prosecutor.

However, going forward, upon receipt of complaints or accusations, case numbers will be assigned immediately without separate judgment on the necessity of starting an investigation.

Introduction of Investigation-Prosecution Separation Case Decision System

According to the revised rules, a system for deciding investigation-prosecution separation cases will be introduced, reducing the burden on the prosecution department, and only cases designated by the chief will involve the prosecution department in the final disposition of cases.

For general cases that are not investigation-prosecution separation cases, the investigative prosecutor assigned to the case will decide whether to prosecute after concluding the investigation under the chief's supervision and guidance, aiming for prompt case handling.

The HCIA stated, that while maintaining the current investigation-prosecution separation system under the existing Case Handling Rules, it introduced this system because adopting a unified registration system with other investigative agencies as described above would excessively increase the burden on prosecution prosecutors and hinder efficient case handling.

Additionally, the revised rules delete Article 25, Paragraph 3, which allowed the police to request arrest and detention warrants for securing suspects from the HCIA instead of the prosecution when investigating judges or prosecutors. This provision was also opposed by the prosecution. However, the HCIA maintained that warrants for searches and seizures or requests for communication fact verification materials for investigations can still be requested by the police through the HCIA to the court as before.

Investigation Authority Adjustment Likely Inevitable After President Yoon's Inauguration

Meanwhile, it is expected that the investigative authority between the HCIA and the prosecution will inevitably be readjusted after President-elect Yoon takes office.

During his candidacy, Yoon criticized the HCIA Act provision granting the HCIA priority investigative authority over crimes committed by high-ranking officials as a "poisonous clause."

With the Democratic Party holding a majority in the National Assembly, it is realistically difficult to amend laws such as the Prosecutors' Office Act or the HCIA Act. However, it is entirely possible to expand the prosecution's authority through presidential decrees or Ministry of Justice ordinances or to readjust the HCIA's authority through revisions to HCIA rules, notifications, or directives.

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