Position on the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission’s Decision to Close the Luxury Handbag Case
The Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (hereafter referred to as the “Commission”) announced yesterday that it had closed the case involving First Lady Kim Keon-hee’s receipt of luxury handbags, stating, “There are no penalty provisions under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (the ‘Act’) for the spouse of a public official, and therefore, we have decided to close the case.” Despite extending the handling period twice since the December 2023 report by the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and delaying the decision, the Commission has reached an unacceptable conclusion. While it is well-known that the Act lacks penalty provisions for public officials’ spouses, it raises the question: what was the Commission doing for six months before deciding to close the case on these grounds?
The absence of penalty provisions for public officials’ spouses does not make it lawful for them to accept gifts. The Act explicitly prohibits the receipt of gifts related to the public official’s duties by their spouses. Furthermore, public officials are required to “promptly report in writing if they become aware that their spouse has received prohibited gifts or has been promised or offered such gifts” and to “promptly return the gifts to the provider, express intent to refuse them, or ensure their return or refusal.” Given the significant public interest and social influence surrounding the First Lady’s actions, handling this matter rigorously is central to the rule of law. The absence of penalty provisions for spouses and the difficulty of prosecuting a sitting president during their term should not be grounds for dismissing the case. Confirming the illegality of such actions is a duty the Commission, as the primary anti-corruption agency, must fulfill.
The critical issues, in this case, are whether the luxury handbags and other items received by Kim Keon-hee were related to the duties of a public official, the timing of the President’s awareness of the gifts, and how they were handled thereafter. The Act requires that prohibited gifts be reported or returned without delay. “Without delay” means “without unnecessary postponement.” According to reports, legal measures such as returning the gifts have not yet been taken. By ignoring these key aspects and closing the case under the pretext of the lack of penalty provisions for spouses, the Commission has neglected its role.
While the Commission may have declared the case closed with an unconvincing rationale, the matter is far from over. The case has also been referred to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, where an investigation is ongoing. If the Commission has abandoned its responsibility, the prosecutors must conduct a swift and thorough investigation into allegations of influence peddling under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes concerning the First Lady.
Finally, we urge the Commission to reflect on its disregard for public trust as the nation’s primary anti-corruption agency. It must promptly disclose all findings and reviews conducted so far to the public and fulfill its minimal accountability obligations.
June 11, 2024
Transparency International – Korea Chapter