So-called "lobbying allegations over approval of a COVID-19 treatment clinical trial" have led to a series of complaints filed against Minister of Justice nominee Kim Seung-won.
According to legal sources on the 6th, the civic group Committee for the Livelihoods of Ordinary People (Seominwi) filed a complaint with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on the 4th accusing the nominee Kim of violating the anti-graft law and brokering bribery, among other charges.
Former People Power Party Seoul city council member Lee Jong-bae also said on the 4th that he had reported the nominee Kim and former Minister of Food and Drug Safety Kim Gang-lip to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency through the National Petition System on charges including abuse of authority, violation of the anti-graft law, and dereliction of duty.
At issue are allegations that in 2021 the nominee Kim, through a broker, a person surnamed Yang, received a request from a person surnamed Kang, the head of Genencell, a company developing a COVID-19 treatment, and asked the then Minister of Food and Drug Safety to swiftly approve a clinical trial of the treatment.
Seominwi argued in the complaint that the nominee Kim's request to the Minister to "please take good care" of approving Genencell's clinical trial amounted to abuse of authority.
Lee also said, "If the nominee Kim demanded approval of Genencell's clinical trial plan without supplementing the materials and without conducting safety and efficacy reviews, it could constitute a violation of the anti-graft law."
Earlier, prosecutors investigated the case but placed the nominee Kim on suspended indictment in Dec. 2024.
According to the non-indictment decision released that day by the nominee Kim's confirmation hearing preparation team, prosecutors said, "The criminal facts are acknowledged," but also noted, "It is hard to conclude that the request itself was illegal, given that the intent was to ask for expedited processing of the clinical trial plan approval."
They added, "It was confirmed that the review proceeded in accordance with procedures without violating regulations or manuals, no actual exchange of the bribe in this case took place, and the promised amount was relatively small, among other considerations."
In legal circles, the response is that, in principle, the case can be reinvestigated. Unlike a court ruling, a suspended indictment by prosecutors does not carry res judicata (the binding force of a final judgment). However, the key will likely be whether investigators can find new evidence sufficient to overturn the previous determination.