CIO proposes direct legal codification of investigation procedures, expanded jurisdiction

South Korea's Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) is advocating for significant amendments to its governing act, aiming to solidify its investigative procedures and expand its jurisdiction. The CIO has submitted a proposal to the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee suggesting that key investigation protocols, such as emergency arrests, detention durations, and search and seizure procedures, be directly codified within the CIO Act itself.

“

We submitted the CIO Act amendment proposal to the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 25th.

Kim Baek-ki, the CIO's spokesperson, stated on July 28 that the proposed revisions would clarify legal interpretations and minimize disputes over procedural matters. The current framework often relies on interpretations derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to potential ambiguities. The CIO's proposal includes adding approximately 40 articles related to investigation procedures directly into its own law.

Furthermore, the CIO has recommended the creation of a new "additional investigation referral" process. This would apply when prosecutors from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office deem further investigation necessary after receiving a case from the CIO for indictment. Currently, the concept of "supplementary investigation requests" exists between judicial police officers and prosecutors. The CIO's proposal aims to establish a distinct procedure for collaboration between CIO prosecutors and prosecutors from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, ensuring a structured way to handle requests for additional investigative work.

“

By amending the CIO Act to directly stipulate existing Code of Criminal Procedure provisions, we can clarify legal interpretations and minimize disputes.

In a separate but related development, the CIO has also proposed that high-ranking officials within the yet-to-be-established Serious Crime Investigation Agency (SCIA) should fall under the CIO's investigative purview. The current CIO Act defines its jurisdiction to include public officials at Grade 3 or higher, but does not explicitly list SCIA personnel. The CIO argues that consistency in jurisdiction is necessary, especially as investigative authority is expected to shift from the prosecution service to the SCIA.

“

The concept of supplementary investigation requests originates from the relationship between prosecutors and judicial police officers, not between CIO prosecutors and Supreme Prosecutors' Office prosecutors.

The CIO also indicated that it plans to address issues concerning the treatment and tenure of its own investigators. While not included in the recent submission, the CIO believes that the compensation and treatment standards for its investigators should be benchmarked against those of SCIA investigators, rather than prosecutors, given the evolving landscape of investigative agencies. Concerns have also been raised internally about the six-year term limit for CIO investigators potentially hindering talent acquisition and long-term institutional stability.

“

High-ranking officials of the SCIA should be included within the scope of CIO investigations, just as Grade 3 or higher officials in agencies like the Board of Audit and Inspection are.