The Anti-Corruption Commission on Kim Geon-hee's 'Luxury Bag Acceptance' Controversy: "No Legal Sanctions Specified"

'Intentional Evasion' Controversy, Speaks Out
"No Authority to Investigate Reported Party"
On Criticism of Delay, "Postponed Until After Election"

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) made a sudden public release of the resolution on the 9th to correct public misunderstandings regarding the conclusion decision on First Lady Kim Geon-hee's 'luxury bag acceptance' case.

With this decision, the entire text of the resolution was disclosed except for parts containing information about the report details, collaborators, and stakeholders. This is the first time a resolution related to a reported case has been made public.

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

First, the ACRC clarified that the conclusion decision does not support claims such as 'the spouse of a public official is allowed to accept gifts.' The Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act) primarily regulates public officials, and does not restrict the acceptance of gifts by the spouse of a public official when unrelated to the official’s duties. Since the spouse of a public official may have private social or economic relationships or friendships, the law does not regulate the spouse’s everyday life activities unrelated to the official’s duties.

The ACRC stated, "This decision was concluded because there are no sanction provisions under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act for the spouse of a public official, and under the constitutional principle of legality, sanctions cannot be imposed; therefore, there was no need for an investigation based on punishment. This does not mean that the spouse of a public official is allowed to accept gifts related to the official’s duties."

Regarding misunderstandings that the investigation of the accused was deliberately avoided, the ACRC also clarified that this is not true. The ACRC does not have the authority to investigate the accused in cases reported under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. Article 59, Paragraph 5 of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission allows for the submission of materials and opportunities to state opinions to protect the accused’s right to defense, but even this is difficult to apply in reported cases under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

The ACRC said, "Although we do not have legal authority to investigate the accused, forcibly investigating them could be considered an abuse of authority. However, within the authority granted by laws and regulations, we thoroughly verified facts with related agencies and stakeholders."

The ACRC also addressed criticism regarding the delay in the decision on this reported case. They explained, "Ahead of the April general elections, we intended to handle this politically sensitive case carefully. Therefore, we inevitably postponed investigation and related procedures until after the election. After the election, we promptly confirmed the relevant legal issues and facts, and the decision was made through the ACRC’s subcommittee and plenary committee."

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