Kim Ji-yong, head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, answers lawmakers’ questions at a comprehensive parliamentary audit on Oct. 26. Yonhap NewsThe Major Crimes Investigation Agency has decided to directly accept applications for “criminal leniency,” a program that grants reductions in criminal penalties to companies that voluntarily report their involvement in cartel cases. Previously, prosecutors handled everything from receiving applications to investigating and deciding on indictments and reduced sentencing recommendations. But following the separation of investigation and prosecution functions, both the Public Prosecution Office and the Major Crimes Investigation Agency have moved to accept such applications. The two agencies have yet to finish negotiating their respective roles and the criteria for accepting applications. Companies that previously had to file separately with the Fair Trade Commission and prosecutors must now also deal with the Major Crimes Investigation Agency. With the agency expanding its antitrust investigation staff, concerns are mounting that multiple intake channels could lead to competition among agencies to investigate companies.Yet jurisdiction over the serious crimes the agency is supposed to handle remains unclear. The Seoul Regional Major Crimes Investigation Agency notified police on the 23rd that it would not open an investigation into an artificial intelligence hacking case involving a financial institution. The agency explained that police had already made substantial progress and that international cooperation was under way, making it reasonable for police to continue handling the case. There is merit in considering continuity of investigation. Police, however, had judged the case to be a serious crime and referred it to the agency, citing grounds including an authoritative interpretation by the Financial Services Commission that the affected financial institution’s systems could qualify as “electronic financial infrastructure.” When agencies disagree over whether a case falls within their scope and responsibility becomes blurred, the inevitable result is cases being passed back and forth. It is hard to avoid the criticism that agencies are shifting serious crimes onto one another while rushing to investigate companies. The Major Crimes Investigation Agency must explain how much direct intake will improve investigative efficiency and how it will prevent confusion among companies.Leniency works only when companies can predict the benefits of voluntary reporting. The order in which applications are received affects exemption from indictment and reduced sentencing recommendations. If the ranking of reports differs from agency to agency, companies will have no choice but to apply to multiple bodies at once. Even if the Major Crimes Investigation Agency accepts a report, the authority to decide on indictment and sentencing recommendations rests with the Public Prosecution Office. If the criteria linking intake to penalty reduction decisions remain unclear, a system meant to encourage voluntary reporting could instead increase uncertainty. Cartels must be detected and punished rigorously. All the more reason that reporting procedures and reduction criteria must be clear. The separation of investigation and prosecution cannot serve as a justification for adding to companies’ procedural burdens and costs. The government must consolidate criminal leniency intake into a single channel and clarify how it links to Fair Trade Commission filings, along with the criteria for recognizing the timing and ranking of applications. Confusion among investigative agencies must not be passed on as a burden for companies.
Click Here For The Original Source.
——————————————————–
