The prosecution's narcotics investigation system, which has directly investigated about 1,000 drug offenders each year, will change significantly starting next month. That is because the amended Criminal Procedure Act, centered on abolishing prosecutors' investigative authority, takes effect on Oct. 2. From now on, the Corruption Investigation Office for Serious Crimes (CIO) and the police will take charge of drug investigations.
In legal circles, there are concerns that an investigative vacuum could arise if the handover of the international cooperation network and overseas intelligence network the prosecution has built over 37 years is not carried out properly. There are also concerns that interagency consultations and procedures could become more complicated in "controlled deliveries," an investigative technique used to track drugs seized by customs.
According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the 3rd, the prosecution directly detected and cracked down on 4,823 drug offenders over the five years from 2021 to 2025. Of these, 1,209 were arrested. Last year, prosecutors directly detected and cracked down on 977 people, of whom 509 (52.1%) were supply offenders such as illicit manufacturing, smuggling, and trafficking. This means the prosecution's drug investigations have gone beyond catching simple users to tracking domestic and international supply chains.
◇ Concern over gaps in the 37-year international drug cooperation network
The biggest concern is international cooperation and overseas intelligence. After creating the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's narcotics division in 1989, the prosecution began hosting the Anti-Drug Liaison Officials' Meeting for International Cooperation (ADLOMICO) the following year and has cooperated with overseas investigative agencies. This year as well, more than 250 officials from drug enforcement authorities in 29 countries attended ADLOMICO, held in Seoul on the 1st and 2nd.
In 2012, it established the Asia-Pacific Information Coordination Centre for Combating Drug Crimes (APICC) to share drug crime information with ASEAN countries. It also operates a system of dispatching prosecution investigators to judicial agencies in major drug-sending countries such as Thailand and Vietnam to exchange information in real time.
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office intends to maintain the international cooperation channels it has built over 37 years even after the launch of the Office of Public Prosecution. However, it is unclear how smoothly the CIO, which will have actual investigative authority, will be able to utilize the existing networks and information.
Cheon Ki-hong, a managing attorney at YK Law Firm and former head of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office narcotics division, said, "It will not be easy in a short period to transfer not only the international cooperation network built over decades but also the know-how of securing high-quality information and connecting it to investigations."
◇ Controlled deliveries, a "speed game" in drug investigations, are also a variable
Controlled deliveries are also a variable. In a controlled delivery, when customs detects narcotics, investigators do not immediately seize them but move them as if they are being delivered normally, then arrest at the scene the collector or distributor who receives the package.
The current "Special Act on the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc." (Narcotics Trafficking Prevention Act) stipulates that prosecutors may request customs to release suspected narcotics items. Until now, because prosecutors directly led drug investigations, when narcotics were found by customs, related procedures could proceed quickly.
However, once prosecutors' direct investigative authority disappears, the roles of the main body for drug investigations and customs' special judicial police will be separated. After customs discovers narcotics, additional interagency consultations may be required in the process of notifying the investigative agency and proceeding with follow-up procedures such as warrant applications.
A prosecution official said, "Speed is the key in controlled deliveries," adding, "If interagency consultations and warrant application procedures increase and delay the investigation, drug organizations may catch on and flee."
◇ Investigations by the CIO, but import requests by prosecutors?… debate over authority and responsibility
Another task is how to define the legal subject responsible for controlled deliveries. Since prosecutors' direct investigative authority and investigative responsibility will disappear starting in October, there is likely to be controversy over whether it is appropriate under current law for prosecutors, who are not the investigative body, to continue exercising the authority to request import.
Lee Sung-il, a professor at Konkuk University Law School, said, "If prosecutors who do not bear investigative responsibility continue to exercise the authority to request import, there is a risk of violating due process because investigative authority and responsibility would be inconsistent."
On the other hand, some argue that the authority to request import should be viewed not as prosecutors' investigative power but as a judicial control function over compulsory investigations. Attorney Cheon said, "The authority to request import is a procedure akin to a warrant," adding, "Even if prosecutors are not the investigative body, a legality control function like filing for warrants should be maintained."
The Ministry of Justice said of follow-up systems related to drug investigations, including controlled deliveries, "We are at the stage of streamlining detailed systems related to the new criminal justice framework, so it is difficult to present a specific position at this time."