The joint investigation headquarters (JIH) of prosecutors and police, which has responded to major crimes such as drugs, voice phishing, and financial crimes, is at a crossroads of survival in Oct. with the abolition of the Prosecution Service.
The government is reviewing plans to create a "joint investigations division" within the Serious Crimes Investigation Office (SCIO) or to operate a so-called "Gong-Jung-Gyeong (Public Prosecution Office–SCIO–police) JIH" in which prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office also take part. However, some noted that if prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office, which has no investigative authority, are involved in investigations, controversy over legality and the admissibility of evidence would be unavoidable.
◇Nine JIHs nationwide... legal basis for existence shaken starting in Oct.
According to legal sources on the 10th, the Ministry of Justice recently asked the Supreme Prosecutors' Office for its views on how to operate the JIH after the abolition of the Prosecution Service. This followed President Lee Jae-myung's instruction on the 5th to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety to consult on future operation plans for major JIHs.
Currently, nine JIHs investigating drugs, voice phishing, and financial and fiscal crimes are operating nationwide. It is an organization where personnel from relevant agencies, including the prosecution-centered police and the Korea Customs Service, gather in one place to investigate.
The strength of the JIH is that the expertise and authority of each agency can be投入 in real time into a single case. In the case of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office drug crime JIH, when the Korea Customs Service detects smuggling information, the police track suspects, prosecutors apply for warrants, and review legal theories. The drug crime JIH, within six months of its launch, busted eight drug rings, booked 235 people, and detained 109 key figures.
However, once prosecutors' investigative authority disappears in Oct., operating the JIH as it is now will be difficult. In the current JIH, prosecutors coordinate investigative direction from the outset, apply for warrants, and review legal theories. If prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office play the same role, controversy that they effectively took part in investigations could arise, and even the admissibility of evidence obtained could be at issue.
Mutual secondments between prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Office and investigators of the SCIO are also restricted, making it difficult to work together in a single organization as they do now. During the amendment process for the Criminal Procedure Act, the Ministry of Justice asked the National Assembly to provide a legal basis allowing prosecutors to support joint investigations by related agencies, but it was not reflected.
◇MOIS reviews "joint investigations division and Gong-Jung-Gyeong"... Ministry of Justice says "admissibility problem"
MOIS is first pushing a plan to create a "joint investigations division" within the SCIO with personnel from the police, National Tax Service, Financial Services Commission (FSC), and the Korea Customs Service. The idea is to set up a voice phishing, finance, and virtual asset division in Seoul, a national fiscal crime division in Daejeon, and a drug division in Suwon.
However, in that case, prosecutors who had handled legal review and warrant applications from the early stages of investigations in the existing JIHs would be excluded. In response, MOIS is also reviewing operating a "Gong-Jung-Gyeong JIH" with participation by prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office.
Yoon Ho-jung, Minister of the Interior and Safety, said in a briefing on the 5th that even if prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office do not directly investigate, they could participate by conducting legal reviews and offering advice, and by applying for warrants.
The Ministry of Justice is pointing to legal limits. Jung Sung-ho, Minister of Justice, said, "If prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office, who are barred from conducting investigations, participate in investigations, problems with admissibility of evidence arise," and added, "If this is not clarified in investigative rules and the like, issues could occur during the maintenance of prosecution."
◇Blurred line between "legal support" and "involvement in investigations"... "need to codify"
Legal sources say a legal basis is ultimately needed to clearly delineate the line between "legal support" and "involvement in investigations" by prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office.
Lee Sung-il, a Konkuk University law school professor, said, "To avoid controversy that legal advice by prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office constitutes involvement in investigations, the investigative agency should formally request advice and prosecutors should also leave written responses," adding, "In a JIH where multiple agencies investigate in real time in one space, that is practically difficult."
He added, "To practically operate the JIH, it is necessary to clearly provide in the Criminal Procedure Act or a separate law an exception rule that recognizes certain investigative authority for seconded prosecutors."