The adequacy of a police investigation into improper hiring at an Incheon city-affiliated senior employment center is facing renewed scrutiny after the Board of Audit and Inspection officially confirmed that a former Incheon deputy mayor violated the Anti-Graft Act by improperly intervening in the center's secretary-general hiring process.
Last year, the anti-corruption and financial crimes unit of the Incheon Metropolitan Police Agency investigated the case but limited its inquiry to obstruction-of-business charges against the center's director. The unit did not expand its investigation to cover the alleged hiring solicitation or potential violations of the Anti-Graft Act.
A whistleblower who filed the original complaint and center employees had presented police with circumstantial evidence supporting possible application of the Anti-Graft Act during the investigation, yet police confined their probe to the obstruction charge.
Statements and circumstances related to former deputy mayor's alleged hiring intervention
The whistleblower's side said they had conveyed statements and circumstantial evidence related to the former deputy mayor's alleged hiring intervention to police, but that police did not expand the inquiry into possible Anti-Graft Act violations.
The audit board's official confirmation of the former deputy mayor's hiring intervention has since brought renewed attention to the concerns raised at the time.
The audit findings could also prompt calls for a reexamination of the completeness and adequacy of the original police investigation, beyond the question of fairness in public-institution hiring.
Particularly notable is that the audit board has now officially acknowledged what had long been alleged — that outside power influenced the hiring process — raising questions about why the police investigation failed to establish that fact.
Audit confirms hiring intervention; police never applied Anti-Graft Act
The case originated from allegations that hiring procedures for the center's secretary-general position were manipulated to favor a specific candidate.
After completing its investigation, police focused on procedural interference and applied only obstruction-of-business charges against the center's director.
The audit board, however, confirmed that the former deputy mayor had intervened in the hiring process and determined the conduct constituted a violation of the Anti-Graft Act.
In effect, the two bodies reached different conclusions on the same set of facts: the audit board recognized the hiring intervention as a violation, while police did not treat it as grounds for criminal punishment.
The core of the controversy, however, is not simply that the two bodies reached different conclusions.
As an administrative audit body and a criminal investigative agency respectively, the two institutions operate under different legal standards.
The key question is whether police adequately examined the possibility of an Anti-Graft Act violation at the time.
If police had access to relevant statements and materials yet did not consider applying the Anti-Graft Act, the investigation will be difficult to defend against accusations of negligence.
Conversely, if the audit board secured new evidence or testimony after the police investigation concluded, the divergence between the two bodies' findings could be partly explained.
Ultimately, a fair assessment of the investigation's adequacy will require a review of the evidence available at the time and the scope of the inquiry.
Different conclusions on the same case
The audit board's findings lend fresh weight to the concerns raised when the case was first investigated.
Now that the audit board has officially confirmed the hiring intervention, scrutiny of how thoroughly police examined the former deputy mayor's role — and whether they considered applying the Anti-Graft Act — has become unavoidable.
Legal observers note that while the audit board and police serve different functions — administrative oversight and criminal investigation, respectively — an objective explanation is needed for why the audit board found an Anti-Graft Act violation in the same case where police applied only obstruction-of-business charges.
The audit findings have also prompted calls to verify how thoroughly police reviewed the materials and statements provided by the whistleblower and other parties, and whether they in fact assessed the possibility of applying the Anti-Graft Act.
Some observers note, however, that the evidence available during the police investigation may simply have been insufficient to prove an Anti-Graft Act violation, or that the audit board may have secured additional evidence or testimony afterward. They say a comprehensive comparison of the original investigation records and the audit findings is needed before any judgment can be made.
An official at the Incheon Metropolitan Police Agency's anti-corruption and financial crimes unit said the center director had been indicted on obstruction-of-business charges, while the investigation into the alleged improper hiring of the secretary-general was closed without indictment due to insufficient evidence. "We did look into the matter of the former deputy mayor's alleged solicitation, but as far as I know, we concluded the investigation on obstruction-of-business grounds because it did not constitute grounds for criminal punishment," the official said.
gilbert@heraldcorp.com
