TSN KOREA  - KIM  |  Following successive reports by Yonhap News and Break News, controversy over "protecting their own" has erupted after Gangseo Police Station declined to refer to prosecutors a serving police officer accused of taking part, together with his mother, in a multi-billion-won fraud scheme — amid criticism that investigators failed to properly trace the key funds.
 

Prosecutors have demanded a supplementary investigation, but because the structure requires police to re-investigate a case in which the suspect is a serving police officer, the dispute over fairness is expected to intensify.
 

According to the legal community and the National Assembly's Public Administration and Security Committee, the Incheon Metropolitan Police Agency decided not to refer (finding no charges) Officer A, a serving officer attached to Seoul's Gangseo Police Station, who had been accused of conspiring with and aiding his mother B, a shaman, in a fraud scheme totaling 203 separate acts and 2,182,890,000 won (approximately 2.18 billion won) since 2004 — charges including fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes.

Only the fraud charges against B, Officer A's mother, were referred to prosecutors.
 

Officer A provided bank accounts in his own name on behalf of B, who was in credit default at the time, and intensively acquired and sold seven pieces of real estate under his own name in the Incheon and Gyeonggi areas. The combined maximum secured claim amount of the mortgages established in the course of loans collateralized by those properties alone reaches 4.625 billion won.
 

Police acknowledged that A had lent his name to B, but concluded there was insufficient evidence that he had conspired in the fraud or obtained any financial benefit.
 

Legal experts say the investigation fell short. Given the allegations that the accounts and real estate in A's name were actually used in the crimes, they argue investigators should have established — through financial transaction records — who actually used the accounts, where the victims' money went, and to whom the property acquisition funds, mortgage loan proceeds and sale proceeds ultimately accrued.
 

In particular, since these property transactions and collateralized loans were repeated from A's twenties, while he served as a patrolman and senior patrolman, experts say investigators should have verified who actually bore the acquisition funds and the loan principal and interest. Given that real estate and financial transactions inherently require the titleholder's identity verification and consent, ruling out A's possible involvement on the basis of "mere name-lending" alone is premature, they argue.
 

The victims' side filed a formal objection, stating that police failed to properly conduct financial tracing on the accounts in A's name and did not verify who actually used the accounts — including internet banking access logs and who held the passbooks, cards and OTP devices.
 

Police are also reported not to have checked A's public official property registration records. If A declared the relevant real estate as his own assets after becoming subject to the property registration obligation, that would contradict the claim that he merely lent his name to B.
 

Conversely, if he failed to register real estate held in his own name, that could constitute a violation of the Public Service Ethics Act. In other words, the presence or absence of a public official property registration is objective material for determining who was the substantive owner and manager of the real estate held in A's name.
 

Following the victims' objection, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office demanded a supplementary investigation, and the Incheon Metropolitan Police Agency, which handled the initial investigation, is currently re-investigating.

The problem is that police must re-investigate a case in which the suspect is a serving police officer. The very investigative body that declined to refer A in the first investigation must now, at the prosecution's demand, once again determine whether A was involved in the crimes.
 

Legal observers argue that precisely because the suspect is a serving officer, the case demands stricter financial tracing and more objective investigative procedures than an ordinary case, in order to head off disputes over fairness.

"If the supplementary investigation again fails to properly clarify the flow of funds surrounding the accounts and real estate in A's name, the 'protecting their own' controversy could grow even larger," one legal source said. "Concerns about a shoddy investigation following the transfer of investigative authority will be unavoidable."

Attention now turns to whether the investigation will proceed transparently enough to escape the controversy over investigative flaws, negligence and shielding of colleagues.