The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Establishes Guidelines to Prevent Self-Investigation by Public Officials

Guidelines have been established to prevent conflicts of interest in situations such as self-investigation, audits, and investigations conducted by public officials.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced on the morning of the 9th that it has established guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest such as self-investigation, audit, and investigation by public officials, and has provided them to public institutions. [Image source=Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission]

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) announced on the 9th that it has prepared guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest involving public officials’ self-investigation, audits, and investigations related to the obligation to report and recuse in cases of private interests, and has informed over 17,000 public institutions.

Article 5 of the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act stipulates that if a public official’s related party in the performance of duties has a private interest, the official must report this fact and recuse themselves. Additionally, even if there is no obligation to report or recuse, a public official may voluntarily apply for recusal if there are concerns about fair performance of duties due to personal relationships or other reasons.

The guidelines were prepared based on discussions at consultative meetings held in May and July, involving conflict of interest prevention officers from 12 related agencies responsible for investigation, audit, and inquiry tasks. A key point is that a public official cannot handle investigations of cases where they or their family members are the reporting party, complainant, or accused party.

In particular, if a minister of a central government ministry or their family members are being investigated by an external agency, and the minister receives reports or gives instructions regarding that investigation, it is considered that the minister is conducting an investigation involving a private interest party, thus triggering the obligation to report and recuse. In other words, unless it is clearly evident that the minister is not a related party, the minister has general command and supervision authority over the external agency, so if a private interest party is being investigated by the external agency, the minister must submit a private interest party report and recusal application to the agency’s conflict of interest prevention officer.

Furthermore, a public official must recuse themselves from duties where they investigate a target they have personally accused or reported, as this could undermine fairness and allow for tangible or intangible benefits.

On the other hand, if a person under investigation by a public official files a complaint, accusation, or petition against the official due to dissatisfaction with the investigation, the situation differs. Since the public official does not become a related party who directly gains benefits or suffers disadvantages by investigating the case, there is no obligation for the official to report or recuse.

Recusal by a public official means refraining from involvement in matters that could influence decisions, directions, or content related to the relevant duties. Therefore, the official must not be involved in reporting or giving instructions on the recused duties and must also avoid any ancillary tasks to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings. This recusal obligation continues until the case is concluded or the final decision on the relevant duties is made. Once the official’s agency head has taken action, the official cannot withdraw their report or recusal application.

Jung Seung-yoon, Vice Chairman and Secretary General of the ACRC, stated, "The Conflict of Interest Prevention Act is an effective anti-corruption control device that prohibits public officials from pursuing private interests in conflict of interest situations that are prone to corruption. The ACRC will continue to do its best to establish clear interpretative standards and create an efficient system operation foundation so that the 2 million public officials subject to the Act can understand the law and fulfill their obligations without difficulty."

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