🚨 Right to Request Case Transfer: Core Authority and Controversy in Public Official Crime Investigation

Today Korean Social News | 2025.04.18

📌 CIO's 'Right to Request Case Transfer' Under Scrutiny Again... Trust Recovery Difficult Without System Improvement

💬 There are growing concerns that institutional improvement should be prioritized regarding strengthening the investigative powers of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). In particular, the "right to request case transfer" exercised by the CIO chief when taking over cases from other investigative agencies continues to face constitutional controversy as it can be used arbitrarily. During the investigation related to former President Yoon Seok-yeol, this authority was exercised without a review process, drawing significant criticism, and some judges on the Constitutional Court have mentioned the possibility of unconstitutionality. Currently, there is an external review procedure through regulations, but it has no legal effect, so the controversy remains.

Summary

• The right to request case transfer allows the CIO to bring cases under investigation by other agencies under its jurisdiction.
• This authority is a mechanism to guarantee the CIO's independent investigation, but there are concerns about arbitrary exercise and constitutional controversies.
• Institutional improvements are needed to enhance the transparency and objectivity of exercising the right to request case transfer.

1️⃣ Definition

The right to request case transfer refers to the authority of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) to request the transfer of cases under investigation by other investigative agencies. Simply put, it's the authority for the CIO to bring cases being investigated by the police or prosecution under its own investigative jurisdiction.

The right to request case transfer is an important institutional mechanism that ensures the CIO can independently investigate crimes by high-ranking public officials.

💡 Why is it important?

• The right to request case transfer is a key means to practically guarantee the CIO's independent investigative authority.
• How this authority is exercised directly affects the relationship between investigative agencies and the distribution of power.
• Fair and transparent exercise of the right to request case transfer is the foundation of public trust in the CIO.

2️⃣ Structure and Characteristics of the Right to Request Case Transfer

📕 Legal Basis and Procedure

• The right to request case transfer is an authority specified in the CIO Act. The right to request case transfer is based on Article 24 of the "Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials" (CIO Act). According to this law, the CIO chief may request the transfer of a case from another investigative agency if they determine that the case falls under the CIO's investigative jurisdiction. The investigative agency receiving the transfer request must hand over the case under investigation to the CIO, which is mandatory. However, there is a procedure for the prosecution or police to raise objections to the transfer request. The final authority to decide on the transfer rests with the CIO chief, which is a provision to ensure the CIO's independent investigation.

• There is a certain procedure in the process of exercising the right to request case transfer. The general procedure for exercising the right to request case transfer is as follows. First, the CIO becomes aware of cases under investigation by other agencies that fall under CIO jurisdiction through media reports or reports. Second, the CIO chief reviews whether the case falls under the CIO's investigative targets. Third, the decision to request a transfer is made through an internal review process. Fourth, the CIO chief officially requests the transfer of the case to the relevant investigative agency. Fifth, the agency receiving the transfer request hands over the case along with related materials to the CIO. Sixth, if necessary, investigative information sharing and cooperation takes place between the original investigative agency and the CIO. However, the CIO chief's discretion can play a significant role in this process, making objective and fair procedural operation an important challenge.

📕 Characteristics and Issues of the Current System

• The right to request case transfer has several characteristics and issues. The main characteristics of the right to request case transfer are as follows. First, it is a strong authority of the CIO chief. The CIO chief has the final decision-making power on transfers, and other investigative agencies must comply. Second, it functions to coordinate competing investigative powers. It plays a role in clarifying which agency leads investigations into high-ranking official crimes that multiple agencies might simultaneously be interested in. Third, maintaining political neutrality is important. The right to request case transfer should not be exercised favorably or unfavorably toward specific political factions or individuals. Fourth, there is potential for conflict with other investigative agencies. Institutional friction can occur when the CIO takes over cases that were being intensively investigated by the prosecution or police.

• There are various issues surrounding the right to request case transfer. The main issues regarding the right to request case transfer are as follows. First, there is the problem of objectivity and transparency in exercising authority. There are concerns about the possibility of the CIO chief arbitrarily requesting transfers. Second, constitutional controversies continue. There are claims that it excessively restricts the prosecution's investigative authority and concerns that it may violate the principle of separation of powers. Third, there is difficulty in ensuring political neutrality. Political influence may affect the CIO chief's appointment process, so the exercise of the right to request case transfer might be influenced by political judgments. Fourth, there are concerns about investigation delays after transfer. The overall investigation period may be extended when an ongoing investigation is halted due to transfer and started anew. Fifth, there are criticisms of inadequate cooperation systems with other investigative agencies. Although smooth information sharing and cooperation should take place after transfer, this is often difficult in reality.

Key Issues with the Right to Request Case Transfer

1. Arbitrary exercise of authority: Possibility of biased transfers based on the CIO chief's discretion
2. Constitutional controversy: Criticism that it excessively restricts the authority of other investigative agencies
3. Political neutrality: Concerns about transfer decisions based on political considerations
4. Procedural transparency: Issues with the lack of transparency in the decision-making process
5. Investigation efficiency: Possibility of delays due to case transfers
6. Inter-agency conflict: Conflicts over investigative authority with the prosecution and police
7. Lack of check mechanisms: Insufficient mechanisms to check abuse of the CIO chief's authority
8. Legal stability: Confusion from sudden transfers of cases under investigation
9. Objection procedures: Absence of effective means to object to transfer decisions
10. Public trust: Decline in overall trust in the CIO due to mistrust in the transfer process

3️⃣ Key Issues and Improvement Measures

✅ Problems with Exercising the Right to Request Case Transfer

• Arbitrariness and lack of transparency in exercising the right to request case transfer are criticized. The biggest problem in the current process of exercising the right to request case transfer is the possibility of arbitrary decisions based on the CIO chief's discretion. The CIO Act does not specify detailed criteria or procedures for exercising the right to request case transfer, leaving much to the CIO chief's judgment. This raises concerns that transfer decisions might be influenced by political considerations or personal tendencies. Questions are often raised about whether transfer decisions related to political figures from ruling and opposition parties are made fairly. It is also problematic that the decision-making process is not transparently disclosed, making it difficult for outsiders to verify its validity. In some cases, controversies arose when transfers were made suddenly without sufficient explanation of the grounds and process for the decision. Such lack of transparency diminishes public trust in the CIO.

• There are legal issues and constitutional controversies with the right to request case transfer. The right to request case transfer has sparked various controversies from a constitutional perspective. Some legal experts argue that it could damage the principle of separation of powers by granting excessively strong authority to the CIO chief. In particular, concerns have been raised that it might be unconstitutional as it can unilaterally restrict the investigative powers of other agencies like the prosecution and police. Some judges on the Constitutional Court have also mentioned the possibility that the right to request case transfer might be unconstitutional. There is also the possibility that the basic rights of suspects or victims might be infringed when cases are suddenly and unwillingly transferred to another agency. Additionally, the lack of effective objection procedures for transfer decisions could be problematic under the rule of law. Thus, while the purpose of the right to request case transfer is understandable, its specific operation involves various legal issues.

✅ System Improvement Measures and Challenges

• There are measures to strengthen the objectivity and transparency of exercising the right to request case transfer. The following approaches are being discussed to improve the issues with the right to request case transfer system. First, clear transfer criteria need to be established. The characteristics, priorities, and judgment criteria for cases eligible for transfer should be specifically defined through the CIO Act or enforcement decrees. Second, the introduction of an independent review procedure is important. The current system of external expert participation in reviews, which is only at the level of internal regulations, should be legalized, and substantive reviews should be ensured. Third, principles for disclosing transfer decisions should be established. The reasons for transfer requests and the decision-making process should be transparently disclosed to improve understanding among the public and other investigative agencies. Fourth, strengthening objection procedures is necessary. When the prosecution or police raise objections to transfer decisions, a procedure for fair review of these objections should be established. Fifth, regular operational reporting and evaluation should take place. The status of exercising the right to request case transfer should be regularly reported to the National Assembly, and improvement points should be identified through external evaluation.

• Establishing a cooperation and coordination system between investigative agencies is necessary. For the right to request case transfer to function effectively, a smooth cooperation system between the CIO and other investigative agencies is essential. First, operating regular consultative bodies between investigative agencies could be helpful. Regular consultative bodies involving the CIO, prosecution, and police need to coordinate investigative targets and scope and share information. Second, establishing pre-consultation procedures is important. Informal consultations with the relevant investigative agency before formal transfer requests could be considered to minimize conflicts. Third, a post-transfer information sharing system is needed. A system for systematically sharing existing investigative materials and information should be established for smooth investigation of transferred cases. Fourth, promoting joint investigations could be helpful. When necessary, joint investigations between the CIO and other investigative agencies could be considered to utilize each agency's expertise. Fifth, legal frameworks for investigative authority coordination should be established. The CIO Act, Prosecutors' Office Act, Police Act, and other relevant laws should be comprehensively revised to clarify the investigative authority system and prevent unnecessary conflicts.

4️⃣ Related Terms Explanation

🔎 Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO)

• The CIO is an agency that independently investigates corruption crimes by high-ranking officials.
• The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) is an independent investigative agency that investigates corruption crimes and related crimes by high-ranking officials and files and maintains charges. Launched on January 21, 2021, the CIO specializes in corruption crimes and job-related crimes by high-ranking officials, including the President, National Assembly members, high-ranking civil servants, judges, and prosecutors. The CIO consists of the CIO chief, deputy chief, CIO prosecutors, and investigators, with the CIO chief appointed by the President after a confirmation hearing by the National Assembly. The main characteristics of the CIO are that it has both investigative and indictment powers, it is an independent investigative agency separate from the prosecution, and it has priority jurisdiction over the investigation of high-ranking official crimes by other investigative agencies. The main purpose of establishing the CIO was to create a specialized institution that could independently investigate power-related corruption by high-ranking officials, amid criticism that existing investigative agencies were not free from political influence. Since its launch, evaluations of the CIO's political neutrality and investigative capabilities have been mixed, and discussions on coordinating investigative powers with the prosecution and police continue.

🔎 Coordination of Investigative Powers

• Coordination of investigative powers refers to adjusting the authority distribution among investigative agencies such as the prosecution, police, and CIO.
• Coordination of investigative powers refers to redistributing and adjusting investigative authorities and roles among various investigative agencies such as the prosecution, police, and CIO. Since 2020, the prosecution's supervisory power over investigations has been abolished, primary investigative authority has been given to the police, and the prosecution has maintained direct investigative authority over certain major crimes. With the launch of the CIO in 2021, a new investigative entity for high-ranking official crimes emerged, necessitating a new system for coordinating jurisdiction and investigative roles between agencies. The main purpose of coordinating investigative powers is to distribute authority that was excessively concentrated in one agency to achieve checks and balances, and to build an efficient investigative system by utilizing each agency's expertise. However, conflicts between agencies can arise in the process of distributing authority, and issues such as overlapping investigations or gaps in coverage can emerge. In particular, the CIO's right to request case transfer functions as a mechanism to ensure the CIO's priority investigative authority within this investigative power coordination system, but it raises various issues in establishing relationships with other investigative agencies. Coordination of investigative powers is not simply a technical issue but an important task that seeks to balance values such as separation of powers, rule of law, and efficient crime investigation.

🔎 Indictment Authority

• Indictment authority is the power to decide whether to bring criminal suspects to trial.
• Indictment authority refers to the power to decide whether to bring criminal suspects to trial based on investigation results. Traditionally, indictment authority was the exclusive right of the prosecution, but with the establishment of the CIO, the CIO also gained indictment authority for certain crimes involving high-ranking officials. The exercise of indictment authority is broadly divided into indictment and non-indictment. Indictment is further divided into detention indictment and non-detention indictment, while non-indictment includes categories such as no suspicion, insufficient evidence, and suspension of indictment. The exercise of indictment authority is an important power that determines the beginning of criminal justice procedures, and how it is exercised greatly affects individual freedom and rights. The indictment authority held by the CIO, along with the right to request case transfer, is considered one of the CIO's strong powers, and it is particularly important in that the CIO can independently indict cases that the prosecution might not want to indict. However, the CIO's indictment authority is limited to high-ranking officials and those related to them. The appropriate exercise of indictment authority is a core element of the rule of law, and internal and external control mechanisms to prevent abuse of authority are important. Attention and checks on whether the CIO's authority, which includes both the right to request case transfer and indictment authority, is being properly exercised will continue.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Does the CIO investigate all crimes by high-ranking officials?

A: No, the CIO does not investigate all crimes by high-ranking officials. According to the CIO Act, the CIO has investigative authority limited to specific types of crimes. The main investigative targets are corruption crimes and job-related crimes by high-ranking officials, including the President, National Assembly members, high-ranking civil servants, judges, and prosecutors. Specifically, these include bribery, abuse of power, embezzlement of public funds, and election-related crimes. Additionally, civilians related to these crimes can also be subjects of investigation. However, not all crimes by high-ranking officials fall under CIO jurisdiction. For example, simple traffic accidents or general criminal cases are still investigated by the police or prosecution. There is also an annual limit on the number of cases the CIO can investigate, so it cannot handle all cases. The CIO is designed to focus primarily on important and complex power-related corruption cases. Therefore, routine criminal investigations are still handled by the police and prosecution, and the principle is for the CIO to concentrate its investigative resources on serious corruption cases involving high-ranking officials.

Q: Is there no way to object to the exercise of the right to request case transfer?

A: In the current system, there is a procedure to object to the exercise of the right to request case transfer, but it has limitations in effectiveness. According to the CIO Act, the investigative agency (prosecution or police) receiving the transfer request can submit an opinion to the CIO if they have an objection to the request. However, the final decision-making power still lies with the CIO chief, so there is no guarantee that the objection will be accepted. While consultation between the two agencies may take place during this process, if no agreement is reached, the CIO's decision takes precedence. From the perspective of suspects or victims, there is no established legal procedure to directly object to the transfer decision itself. However, if it is determined that basic rights were violated during the transfer process, there may be a way to file a constitutional complaint. Currently, some are arguing that more effective objection procedures should be established. For example, proposals such as having an independent third-party agency review the transfer or having courts examine the legality of transfer decisions are being discussed. Many experts agree that appropriate check mechanisms are necessary for the exercise of the right to request case transfer to be transparent and fair.