Prosecutors investigated a senior official at the Board of Audit and Inspection on suspicion of taking about 1.5 billion won in bribes, but declined to indict on charges related to 1.29 billion won worth of bribes. The result came after the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which handed over the case, rejected the prosecution's request for supplementary investigation, and the court also did not accept the prosecution's supplementary investigation.
The Criminal Division 5 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (chief prosecutor Jeong Jae-shin) said on the 22nd it indicted only on 290 million won worth of bribery charges against a Board of Audit and Inspection senior official, identified only as A, who is suspected of taking a total of about 1.58 billion won in bribes from private construction firms, and declined to indict on the remaining 1.29 billion won worth of bribery charges.
According to prosecutors, A is suspected of taking a total of about 1.58 billion won in bribes over 19 instances by having private construction firms that won contracts from the agencies A oversaw place orders for electrical work with an electrical contracting company A operates, and of embezzling a total of 1.32 billion won in corporate funds.
Even so, the reason prosecutors could indict only part of the amount was that supplementary investigation of the CIO was not possible. The case began in Oct. 2021 when the Board of Audit and Inspection asked the CIO to investigate. On Nov. 6, 2023, the CIO sought an arrest warrant for A from the court. But the court rejected it, citing insufficient substantiation, among other reasons. The bench said, "It is difficult to see that sufficient direct evidence has been secured to recognize that the construction contract was concluded through A's involvement."
Although the arrest warrant was rejected for lack of substantiation, the CIO did not conduct supplementary investigation into the reasons for rejection other than some inquiries of donors, and on Nov. 24 of the same year sent the case to prosecutors.
After receiving the case, prosecutors on Jan. 12 of the following year asked the CIO for supplementary investigation. The point was that additional investigation was needed because the court had rejected the arrest warrant for lack of substantiation, among other reasons. But the CIO refused, saying "the prosecution has no legal authority to request supplementary investigation."
In the end, prosecutors decided to carry out supplementary investigation themselves and sought search and seizure warrants and communication warrants from the court. However, the court also rejected the applications, saying "there is no legal basis for granting prosecutors additional investigative authority over CIO cases."
Prosecutors investigated A's case for about two years and four months, but could not pick up speed because both the request for and conduct of supplementary investigation became impossible. Ultimately, in June last year they first indicted only the bribery charges for which the statute of limitations was imminent, and on this day declined to indict on the 1.29 billion won bribery charges.
Prosecutors said that although this case is a bold and premeditated corruption crime by a Board of Audit and Inspection senior official, it was difficult to swiftly uncover the full scope of the crime because a prosecutor could not ask the CIO for supplementary investigation or conduct it directly.
According to prosecutors, the CIO received copies of the records needed for additional investigation from the prosecution in September last year, but has not sent any materials back so far. From the prosecution's standpoint, they said they had no choice but to indict only some offenses for which the charges were sufficiently proven and decline to indict on a considerable portion of the rest.
A prosecution official said, "This case shows the problems that can arise if the prosecutor who decides whether to file charges is not institutionally backed by the right to request supplementary investigation and if the prosecution's authority to conduct supplementary investigation is not recognized."
The official added, "In non-complaint and non-accusation cases that lack remedies such as appeals and objections, there is no proper mechanism to check the investigative authority, so the punishment of criminals depends solely on the will or capacity of the primary investigative body, making precise institutional design necessary."
Prosecutors plan to review whether to reinstate the declined portions if the CIO later sends additional supplementary materials.