The clause of the Financial Real Name Transaction Law, which imposes a prison sentence of up to 5 years for merely demanding information related to another person's financial transactions from employees of financial institutions, has been amended. This comes three years after the Constitutional Court's ruling of unconstitutionality regarding this provision. From now on, individuals will only be punished when they demand another person's financial transaction information by dishonest means.
According to financial authorities on the 3rd, the government has amended the clause of the Financial Real Name Transaction Law that states, 'No one shall demand the provision of transaction information from anyone engaged in financial institutions,' to 'No one shall demand transaction information by false or any other dishonest means.'
Until now, it was possible to punish individuals for merely demanding information related to another person's account number and other financial transaction information from employees of financial institutions, but this has been amended to apply only to acts of demanding transaction information through false or dishonest means. Violators will face up to 5 years of imprisonment or a fine of up to 50 million won.
The government explained that the recent legal amendment limits the prohibition to acts of demanding transaction information by false or dishonest means, as per the Constitutional Court's statement on unconstitutionality, and established penalties for violations.
In February 2022, the Constitutional Court made a ruling of unconstitutionality with an 8 to 1 opinion, stating that the clause in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Financial Real Name Law, which included 'No one shall demand the provision of transaction information from anyone engaged in financial institutions,' contradicts the principle of proportionality under the Constitution.
At that time, the Constitutional Court stated, 'To subject the act of demanding the provision of financial transaction information itself to criminal punishment exceeds the necessary scope to achieve the legislative purpose and violates the principle of minimal infringement,' adding that 'broadly prohibiting the general public's demands for provision of transaction information without considering the reasons for making such demands or the nature of the act, and punishing them criminally for such demands, violates the principle of excessive restriction.'
Even if inquiring about another person's financial transaction information is illegal, it is excessive to impose criminal penalties for merely that act. It has taken three years after the unconstitutionality ruling for the law amendment to be completed. Although the relevant clause became obsolete due to the Constitutional Court's decision, the government has only recently completed the amendment process.
The unconstitutionality lawsuit regarding the relevant clause began when A was charged in a summary proceeding for demanding the provision of another person's account number from a bank employee. A submitted a request to the Seoul Central District Court, which is handling A's criminal case, arguing that criminal penalties for violating the relevant legal clause are excessive.
The presiding judges accepted this, stating, 'To criminalize the act of saying to a financial institution employee to provide another person's account number or similar financial transaction information for any reason loses the balance with respect to the degree of invasion of the right to maintain others' privacy,' and requested a ruling from the Constitutional Court.
One of the judges who opposed at the time noted, 'There are cases where the culpability of the person demanding the information is worse than that of the person providing it,' and added, 'Considering this, not punishing acts of demanding transaction information at all or establishing a lower legal penalty than that for financial staff may lead to an unbalanced outcome.'