Ministry of Interior and Safety's agency setup team accepts public comment on decree through July 6

Decree would require other investigative agencies to report serious crimes discovered during probes to new agency's chief

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials at the Government Gwacheon Complex in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi Province. [Herald DB]
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials at the Government Gwacheon Complex in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi Province. [Herald DB]

By Choi Eui-jong, The Herald Business

As the Prosecution Service is set to be reorganized into a public prosecution office and a new Serious Crimes Investigation Office established in October, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials has formally objected to a draft enforcement decree for the new agency. The decree would require investigative bodies to report serious crimes discovered during investigations to the head of the new office.

The CIO held a briefing Monday morning at its office in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi Province, announcing that it had delivered to the Ministry of Interior and Safety's Serious Crimes Investigation Office establishment support team its opposition to Article 12 of the draft enforcement decree for the "Act on the Organization and Operation of the Serious Crimes Investigation Office." The opposition was filed Sunday.

Earlier, the Ministry of Interior and Safety announced on June 21 that it would accept public comment on the draft enforcement decree — which sets out detailed operational guidelines for the new agency — from June 22 through July 6. The draft decree stipulates that the head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Office would be appointed by the president upon the recommendation of a nine-member candidate recommendation committee, following a nomination by the interior minister and a confirmation hearing before the National Assembly.

The CIO took issue with Article 12 of the draft decree, which states that other investigative agencies must report to the head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Office any serious crimes — or crimes falling under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the act — discovered in the course of their investigations, while allowing exceptions when a complaint or accusation is unclear or when there is no practical benefit to investigating.

Under the draft decree, most crimes targeting high-ranking officials that fall within the CIO's jurisdiction — except abuse of authority — would also qualify as serious crimes subject to investigation by the new agency. The CIO's position is that, if the decree is adopted as written, it would be required to report to the new agency virtually all of its cases except those involving abuse of authority as the sole charge.

The CIO cited three grounds for its opposition: the provision conflicts with the intent of Articles 3(3) and 22 of the CIO Act, which enshrine the office's independence; requiring blanket notification for all crimes within the new agency's investigative scope runs counter to the CIO's priority investigative authority and the purpose of the notification regime; and crimes committed by civil servants belonging to the new agency should be excluded from the notification requirement.

"The Serious Crimes Investigation Office operates under the direction of the interior minister, and if the decree stands, it will come to know about most of the cases the CIO is investigating under confidentiality," a CIO official said. "That includes the president, Assembly members, the director of the National Intelligence Service and even the interior minister. If that information travels up the chain of command, it hollows out the CIO's independence."

Article 3(3) of the CIO Act prohibits the president and presidential secretariat civil servants from interfering in any way with the CIO's affairs. Article 22 of the same act guarantees the office's independence by barring its staff from receiving any outside instructions or interference.

The CIO maintains that the "notification regime" established under the CIO Act was designed as a mechanism directed toward the CIO as the agency holding priority investigative authority. Article 24(2) of the CIO Act provides that when another investigative agency discovers crimes involving high-ranking officials in the course of its investigation, it must immediately notify the CIO.

"If the Serious Crimes Investigation Office discovers a relevant case during its investigation, it should notify the CIO and await a response on whether the CIO will take it up," a CIO official said. "The appropriate approach to avoiding duplicate investigations is a one-way notification from the new agency to the CIO, followed by a set of follow-up measures — not a two-way system. It is therefore reasonable to exclude CIO cases from the notification requirement."

The CIO also said crimes committed by civil servants belonging to the Serious Crimes Investigation Office should be excluded from the notification requirement. Requiring other investigative agencies to report such crimes to the new agency would itself seriously undermine the fairness and confidentiality of those investigations, the office argued.

"This is not about the CIO unilaterally pushing its own position or about inter-agency interests — the CIO's independence and priority investigative authority are established by law, which is why we submitted our amendment," a CIO official added. "We hope the remaining comment period will allow for discussion based on those principles."


bell@heraldcorp.com