The prosecution service, which had stood for 78 years since the founding of the government, has faded into history, and the Major Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Office were launched on the 2nd. But both agencies are without a head, and problems such as staff shortages and incomplete computer systems are serious enough to leave the public deeply uneasy about whether criminal investigations and victim relief will function properly. The opening ceremony for the Major Crimes Investigation Agency was thrown into confusion because personnel and organizational arrangements had not been completed — appointees were not even notified of their work locations on time. Considering that the revised Government Organization Act passed a year ago, leaving ample time to handle personnel matters and build infrastructure, this can only be called a botched launch.
Only on that day did the government belatedly submit to the National Assembly a request for a confirmation hearing on Kim Ji-yong, the nominee to head the Major Crimes Investigation Agency. Internal strife is deepening, with some lawmakers of the governing party objecting to Kim as a "pro-Yoon prosecutor," leaving it unclear when the appointment will be made. That is why some say the aftereffects of launching an agency before it was ready could persist for a considerable time.
The Major Crimes Investigation Agency, which takes over the investigative duties of the abolished prosecution service, handles six categories of major crime — including corruption and offenses involving the economy, the defense industry, cyberspace and drugs — as well as the crime of distorting the law. With a staffing ceiling of 2,800, it is a mammoth organization. The concern is that in its early days the agency may put off investigations into politically sensitive cases while concentrating on easier targets: business executives and companies. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office fair trade investigation division had 17 staff, but the agency's antitrust investigation bureau has about 129 — more than seven times as many. The agency has also allocated as much as 80% of its investigative spending, including special activity expenses, to major economic crime cases. Nor can the possibility be ruled out that it will focus on corporate investigations out of an awareness of competition with the police, whose investigative powers have been further strengthened.
The governing party and the government are now pouring out excessive regulatory bills and policies aimed at companies. They passed a bill imposing fines of up to 5% of operating profit for workplace deaths, and they are considering business suspension orders for repeated collusion. Against this backdrop, if the Major Crimes Investigation Agency also devotes itself to overreaching corporate investigations, a chilling effect on business activity is all but certain. As the number of agencies and procedures companies must deal with grows, criminal justice risk and legal costs are bound to rise. It is only natural for the agency to concentrate its investigative capacity on corporate and economic crime. But it must guard against excessive investigations driven by a desire to assert its presence after launch or to run up a record of cases.
