"Expand Scope of Self-Initiated Investigations"... CIO Requests Legislative Amendment from Government

“SCIA Has No Investigation Target Limits
But the CIO Is Restricted to High-ranking Officials”

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has requested the government to submit a revision bill to the CIO Act, seeking to broaden the scope of cases in which it can launch investigations on its own initiative. Currently, the CIO can only investigate allegations deemed to be "directly related" to high-ranking public officials who are suspects. The agency argues that such restrictions should be eased.

At the same time, the CIO conveyed its opinion to the Prosecution Reform Task Force in February, arguing that the scope of investigations should be balanced with that of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA). The SCIA law does not impose special restrictions regarding a direct relationship with the suspect. With the number of investigative agencies set to increase, the CIO emphasized that the scope of self-initiated investigations should be unified to avoid confusion.

The revision bill to the CIO Act, which the CIO requested the Ministry of Justice to submit to the government on April 13, seeks to relax Article 2, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph (ra), which currently limits the scope of self-initiated investigations to high-ranking officials. The CIO explained the need for relaxation by stating that, even if it discovers new related allegations while investigating a suspect who gave a bribe to a high-ranking official, it cannot initiate an additional investigation. As an independent agency not affiliated with the government, the CIO cannot submit a bill to the National Assembly on its own.

Yonhap News Agency

As a representative case, the CIO cited the case of Superintendent Kim Sookjin, who was indicted on charges of accepting bribes totaling some 700 million won and laundering the money, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison at the first trial in February (Seoul Central District Court case 2024Gohap367). At the time, the CIO could only prosecute the businessman who paid bribes to Superintendent Kim for the bribery charge, and was unable to investigate allegations such as fraud or embezzlement. Although crimes like fraud and embezzlement were all committed to raise funds for the bribes, the agency could not investigate due to the issue of direct relevance. The CIO also pointed out that if these parts of the case are transferred to other investigative agencies, it could result in double jeopardy for suspects, violations of basic rights, and delays in the investigation.

The CIO also noted that there are limitations in investigating abuse of authority charges. Civil servants at level 4 or below, who are not high-ranking officials, do not fall within the CIO's investigative jurisdiction. If such an official carries out an unlawful order from a high-ranking official to a subordinate, they may become a suspect, but are excluded from investigation, leading to an unreasonable situation. The CIO does not have the authority to conduct compulsory investigations by changing their status to that of a suspect if, after being summoned as a victim or witness, they refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

The CIO pointed out that, regarding the SCIA, which will be launched in October, the SCIA Act only stipulates that the agency can investigate crimes that are directly related (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph (da)). Unlike the CIO Act, there are no provisions requiring investigations to be based on "discovery during the investigation process" or limiting them to "crimes committed by the high-ranking official concerned."

The SCIA has the same scope of investigative authority as the CIO in the realm of corruption crimes. Crimes involving judicial corruption by judges and prosecutors are also subject to investigation. Since the SCIA is also granted the right to request case transfers, which gives it priority in investigations, there are expectations that it will compete with the CIO. For this reason, the CIO insists that the criteria for direct relevance should also be unified to ensure checks and balances among investigative agencies.

No Supreme Court precedents have yet established concrete standards for direct relevance. Recently, courts have ruled that, using abuse of authority as a link, the CIO could also investigate former President Yoon Seokyeol on charges of insurrection. On the other hand, in March 2025, the court cited the lack of clear interpretation regarding the case discovery procedure and direct relevance as grounds for canceling the arrest of former President Yoon. In October 2025, the Supreme Court interpreted that "the subject of the investigation, its process, and circumstances must all be considered in aggregate" (case 2025Do6707).

However, there are also critical views of the CIO's position. A professor of criminal law at a Seoul law school commented, "This goes against the founding purpose of the CIO, which was to limit investigative authority to high-ranking public officials, and could lead to the violation of human rights by pressuring ordinary citizens in the course of uncovering crimes by civil servants." The professor also questioned, "Since the prosecution, the CIO, and independent counsels all have different founding purposes, is there really a need to unify the scope of self-initiated investigations?"

Park Seongdong, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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