South Korea's Major Crimes Investigation Agency will take over on the 20th its first cases initiated by the Seoul Central Prosecution Service, marking the start of preparations for its first investigation since opening. But with the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services, known as KICS, and other infrastructure still incomplete, and with revisions to the laws and rules that provide the legal basis for its investigations running behind, concerns are mounting over administrative confusion.
The Seoul Central Prosecution Service will transfer the cases it had been investigating to the agency on the 20th, legal sources said on the 18th. The handover comes just two weeks after the agency opened on the 2nd. Because KICS and other systems are not properly in place, the case files will be carried over by agency vehicles rather than transmitted electronically. The number of prosecution-initiated cases being transferred for now is said to be small.
An official at the prosecution service said the two sides had agreed to hand over several cases that had been under investigation at the former Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. "Prosecutors review the case records and decide on transfers case by case, so for the time being the agency will be coming to pick up case records frequently," the official said.
The problem is that with KICS and other infrastructure incomplete, the agency must handle investigative work largely by hand. The agency is borrowing the police version of KICS. But it can use only essential functions such as case intake and assignment, while referrals to prosecutors and case disposition will be possible only in December. For now, that means staff must collect case records in person from the prosecution service and other bodies. When compulsory measures such as search and seizure or detention are needed, applications must be filed as paper warrants. That is why Kim Ji-yong, the agency's first commissioner, ordered the creation of a task force dedicated to early stabilization of personnel, facilities and systems when he reported for his first day of work on the 16th.
A legal source familiar with the agency's situation said floor-by-floor construction had not been completed, leaving it without a single properly equipped video interview room. "There is no budget even for the investigative expenses paid to individual investigators, so it is unclear whether compulsory measures such as search and seizure will be possible going forward," the source said.
Revisions to laws that underpin investigations, including controlled delivery, are also behind schedule. Controlled delivery is an investigative technique in which narcotics smuggled in through airports or ports are deliberately allowed to move under the surveillance of investigators in order to track and arrest recipients and distribution networks. It was carried out under the direction of prosecutors in line with Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, which allows measures such as customs procedures to be taken at a prosecutor's request. But with prosecutors' investigative powers abolished entirely, the practice is now impossible. A revision that would shift the authority to request controlled delivery from prosecutors to judicial police officers was introduced in August but remains pending at the National Assembly.
A legal source well versed in narcotics investigations said that although investigation and prosecution have been separated, the legal authority to request investigative steps such as controlled delivery still rests with prosecutors. "Smuggling is surging among narcotics crimes, yet the legal revisions have not been made," the source said. According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office monthly narcotics report, 1,290 people were caught smuggling narcotics through July this year, up about 33% from 970 in the same period a year earlier.
Discussions between the investigation agency, the prosecution service and ministries including the National Tax Service over referrals of cases are also still under way. The tax agency has already notified staff internally of criteria for referring cases to the new agency or to the police. Cases falling under Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, which covers aggravated punishment for tax evasion, go to regional offices of the investigation agency, while others go to the police. But the notice added a proviso that during the agency's early settling-in period, referrals will be made after prior consultation with the relevant division of the regional office in order to ensure investigations proceed smoothly.
One legal source said the tax agency had set an internal threshold of 2 billion won ($1.4 million), with cases above that going to the investigation agency and those below to the police. "But the criteria for referring cases within the agency are not clear, so some confusion may result," the source said. "Ministries need to reach agreement on details such as referral standards, but that has not happened. Some time has passed since the new criminal justice system was launched, yet the National Tax Service and the Korea Customs Service are still in talks with the investigation agency and the prosecution service."