The world is engulfed in anger and frustration over the revelation of the late Chun Doo-hwan’s grandson’s slush funds. The grandson informed of numerous corruption allegations.
However, even if the disclosure is true, the Korean law cannot collect the slush funds. This is because the door to Chujing was firmly closed due to the death of Chun Doo-hwan. Why is the law like this? Let’s put the anger and frustration aside for a moment. We need to look at the current problems and create a future so that this does not happen again. that’s what we have to do
Jaehyun Seung Senior Research Fellow, Korea Institute of Criminal and Legal Policy
The law that can collect slush funds from Mr. Jeon is the ‘Special Act on Confiscation of Public Official Crimes’. As the law was amended in 2013, it allowed collection of third parties who acquired it after knowing that it was Mr. Jeon’s slush fund. After the revision of the law, the prosecution conducted an extensive investigation.
It is 220.5 billion won in fines received at the time of the final judgment in 1997. Of these, as of 2022, the prosecution has recovered 58.2% of them, leaving 92.2 billion won unpaid.
However, with the death of Mr. Jeon in November 2021, the door to Chujing was closed. In the ‘Prosecution Enforcement Rules on Property Type, etc.’, if the party dies, the case is closed as ‘unenforceable’. The first door is closed.
Accordingly, the prosecution focused on the ‘Special Confiscation Act on Public Official Crimes’ and tried to collect property acquired by a living third party. But this time the Supreme Court rejected it. Article 478 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that “a fine or additional collection judged pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes relating to confiscation, taxation, resale, or other public charges may be executed against the inherited property if the person who received the judgment dies after the judgment becomes final.” there is.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that additional collection cannot be made to inherited property in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there is no special provision in the ‘Act on Special Cases concerning Confiscation of Public Official Crimes’, which states that “an additional collection can be made on inherited property”. The door to Chujing is completely closed.
However, my opinion is a bit different. Although the law stipulates that only confiscation can be enforced on inherited property, confiscation and collection are two sides of the same coin. If you received a gold bar as a crime, if you have the gold bar, confiscate it. Therefore, the inclusion of additional charges in the confiscation of the Criminal Procedure Act can be seen as an ‘extended interpretation’ that is permitted, rather than an ‘analogy’ that is prohibited.
Fortunately, an amendment to Article 478 of the Criminal Act is now up in the National Assembly. Even if this law is passed, there may be debate again about whether it can be applied retrospectively to Mr. Jeon.
However, this bill must be passed in order to raise the morality of the highest ranks of the Republic of Korea and prevent illegal property formation, not Mr. Jeon’s personal problem.
If it is impossible to collect Mr. Jeon, is there no other method of collection? A shift in thinking is needed. First, according to the ‘Act on the Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds’, concealment of criminal proceeds is punished. Proceeds of crime are also subject to confiscation. Therefore, if you know the current criminal proceeds of Mr. Jeon and conceal them, you will be punished. However, the statute of limitations is 7 years. It is common to see that the statute of limitations starts from the time the concealment is committed. However, the statute of limitations does not proceed if the concealment is regarded as a ‘continued criminal’. Let’s take a look at the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s worth a try.
Next, according to the ‘Foreign Exchange Transactions Act’, foreign exchange, securities, precious metals, real estate, and means of domestic payment acquired through violation of payment method reporting may be confiscated or collected. Therefore, if there is foreign currency that was illegally remitted to the grandson, it is not subject to donation, but the state should confiscate or collect it.
In modern history, the meaning of the ‘5·18 Democratization Movement’ is unique. The realization of justice does not just happen. It is possible to risk one’s life Only then can a government be trusted.