Cho Hee-dae’s official business expense allegations assigned to the CIO and Serious Crimes Investigation Agency; no case transfer requested

[Financial News] The complaint over allegations concerning Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae’s use of official business expenses has been assigned to both the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, but neither agency has asked the other to transfer the case to date, according to reports. As both agencies are handling similar allegations, whether the scope of their investigations will be adjusted is drawing attention.
According to a review of Financial News reporting on the 21st, neither the CIO nor the Seoul Regional Serious Crimes Investigation Agency has asked the other to transfer the case related to Chief Justice Cho’s official business expense allegations or received such a request.
On the 19th, the Seoul Regional Serious Crimes Investigation Agency assigned to its Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau a case stemming from a complaint filed by the civic group Citizens’ Action for Establishing Judicial Justice against Chief Justice Cho, Noh Gyeong-pil, head of the National Court Administration, and others. The complaint includes allegations of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights through abuse of authority, occupational breach of trust, loss to the national treasury under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.
Six complaint cases related to Chief Justice Cho have also been filed with the CIO. They have been assigned among several investigation divisions according to the alleged offenses and the contents of the complaints. The cases involve different matters, including allegations concerning the use of official business expenses and the crime of distortion of law. The case concerning official business expenses was assigned to Investigation Division 1, headed by Chief Prosecutor Na Chang-su.
However, it remains unclear to what extent the specific alleged criminal conduct in the cases assigned to the two agencies overlaps. The Seoul Serious Crimes Investigation Agency likewise says further confirmation is needed to determine whether its case concerns the same alleged criminal conduct as the CIO case. The mere assignment of the cases does not establish that a full-scale duplicate investigation into the same alleged conduct is underway.
Article 24 of the current Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials Act (CIO Act) requires other investigative agencies to notify the CIO when they become aware of crimes involving high-ranking officials, and allows the CIO chief to request a case transfer if certain conditions are met. The Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act also contains provisions on case transfers involving other investigative agencies.
It has not yet been confirmed whether the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency notified the CIO that it had become aware of the case. Separate from the fact that related cases have been assigned to both agencies, it remains to be confirmed whether any concrete procedures have begun to transfer the case or adjust the scope of the investigations.
A lawyer who previously served as a senior prosecutor said, “The issue going forward is whether the alleged criminal conduct in the cases handled by the two agencies actually overlaps and whether, for any overlapping parts, the cases will be transferred or the scope of the investigations adjusted,” adding, “However, based on the facts confirmed so far, it is difficult to conclude that a conflict over investigative authority has arisen or that duplicate investigations are underway.”
[email protected] Yu Seon-jun Reporter