[Edaily BAEK JU-A Reporter Kim Hyun-jae] As the new criminal justice system—centered on the complete separation of investigation and prosecution—is fully implemented, handling cases left over from the former prosecution service is expected to be the first challenge.

The Public Prosecution Service must transfer investigations related to MBK Partners and the family of former President Roh Tae-woo to other investigative agencies if it fails to conclude them within 90 days. Decisions on how to handle approximately 180,000 unsolved cases—most of which have been referred—and whether to conduct supplementary investigations also remain pending. As the Major Crimes Investigation Agency (MCIA) begins assigning new criminal complaints, the need for interagency cooperation in case handover and follow-up investigations appears to be growing.

Prosecution Service: “We Will Conclude Cases Initiated by the Prosecution to the Greatest Extent Possible”

According to legal circles on the 7th, the Prosecution Service has classified the cases under its jurisdiction into the following categories: △ cases involving existing cases identified by the prosecution that will be transferred immediately; △ cases that will be investigated during a 90-day grace period before transfer; and △ cases to be processed within the grace period.

Although the principle is to transfer ongoing investigations to the competent authorities following the abolition of prosecutors’ investigative authority on the 2nd, the Public Prosecution Service has allowed investigations to continue until December 30 for cases where the statute of limitations is imminent or where continued investigation is unavoidable. Case transfers will be carried out sequentially in consultation with the Central Investigation Agency, the police, special judicial police, and the Coast Guard.

Among the cases the Prosecution Service will continue to investigate, the alleged fraud involving MBK Partners’ Homeplus electronic short-term bonds stands out. Four executives, including MBK Chairman Kim Byung-ju, are suspected of issuing and selling 82 billion won worth of asset-backed electronic short-term bonds while concealing the possibility of a downgrade in Homeplus’s credit rating, despite having foreseen it.

The former Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (headed by Chief Prosecutor Lee Sang-hyuk) questioned Chairman Kim as a suspect on the 10th of last month. Although a decision was expected before the transition to the Prosecution Service, it was reported that the process was delayed due to conflicting opinions between the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office’s decision not to indict and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

An investigation is also underway into allegations that the family of former President Roh Tae-woo concealed slush funds. On August 21, the former Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office’s Criminal Proceeds Recovery Division (headed by Chief Prosecutor So Jeong-su) conducted raids on Mrs. Kim Ok-sook’s residence in Yeonhui-dong, Seoul, as well as the East Asia Culture Center and the Roh Tae-woo Center.

The lead came from a memo regarding slush funds submitted by Noh So-young, director of the Art Center Navi, during the appellate proceedings of her divorce lawsuit against SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won. The memo, written by Mrs. Kim, contained details totaling 90.4 billion won, including an entry for “30 billion won from Sunkyung.” The investigation team is verifying the flow of funds by notifying Director Noh of her summons as a witness and questioning center officials.

The Prosecution Service will also continue to handle cases related to the June 3 local elections, for which the statute of limitations expires on December 3. An official from the Prosecution Service stated, “Our internal plan is to resolve as many cases as possible that the prosecution has already begun investigating.” However, the actual number of cases transferred may vary depending on the progress of each case and whether they can be concluded within the grace period.

Central Investigation Agency Begins Assigning Complaints and Accusations

The Central Investigation Agency is taking its first steps in investigations by assigning new criminal complaints. On the 6th, it assigned a case—in which the CEO of Company A, a small-to-medium-sized export firm, filed a complaint against 45 former and current prosecutors on charges including perversion of justice—to the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau (Director Kim Jeong-hwan). Company A claims that the prosecution neglected the case for eight years, starting in 2018, without summoning suspects or questioning the complainant.

A separate case in which Company A filed a complaint against seven private equity firms on charges of embezzlement and breach of trust under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes was assigned to the Economic Crimes Investigation Bureau. Company A’s CEO and approximately 2,000 other victims are calling for a compulsory investigation, alleging that these private equity firms illegally seized assets worth 2 trillion won—including stakes in Chinese factories and international patents—thereby driving the company into bankruptcy.

Apart from the referral of cases initiated through public complaints, handling the backlog of cases referred by other agencies remains a challenge. As of the end of last month, the number of pending cases at prosecutors’ offices nationwide stood at 186,307—an increase of 21,485 cases (13.0%) compared to the end of August and 45,794 cases (32.6%) compared to the end of June.

Most of these pending cases are cases referred by the police and other agencies, which differ from cases identified by prosecutors that are to be transferred to the Central Investigation Agency and similar bodies. Not all of the approximately 180,000 cases are eligible for transfer or require the investigation to be completed within 90 days. Since prosecutors review the case files to decide whether to indict, decline to indict, or request supplementary investigations, the scope and timing of any additional investigations are still difficult to determine.

An official from the Prosecution Service stated, “Each time a prosecutor reviews a case, they decide whether to proceed immediately or request a supplementary investigation,” adding, “It is impossible to know in advance when or how these cases will be handled in the future.” The official continued, “Cooperation between the Prosecution Service and investigative agencies, such as the police, is necessary to ensure that case processing is not delayed due to future requests for supplementary investigations.”

Meanwhile, the Prosecution Service is reorganizing its existing Prosecutorial Investigation Deliberation Committee into a Case Deliberation Committee. This body will deliberate on cases that attract significant public attention or raise concerns about fairness. The committee, which previously consisted of 150 to 250 members and was located solely at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, will be expanded to include 50 to 200 members at each of the six regional prosecution offices nationwide, for a total of 300 to 1,200 members. Matters subject to review include requests for or re-requests of arrest warrants, the filing of indictments, and decisions on whether to file appeals.

The controversy stems from the fact that, under the Presidential Decree, the heads of the regional prosecution offices may deem it necessary to review whether to dismiss charges in cases currently under trial. This has raised concerns that it is a strategic move to pave the way for the dismissal of charges in the case involving President Lee Jae-myung.

Attorney B, a former prosecutor, stated, “Establishing a larger-scale Case Review Committee within the Prosecution Service—which has already been stripped of its investigative powers—cannot help but be interpreted as having political motives.” However, some argue that such criticism is an overinterpretation, as the committee’s conclusions are not binding.