Prosecutors' Special Activity Funds: No 'Special Activity' Use, Claims Newstapa

Controversy Erupts: Prosecutors' Special Activity Funds Allegedly Not Used for 'Special Activities,' Newstapa Claims

An investigation by Newstapa reporter Lim Seon-eung has sparked controversy, alleging that not a single instance of prosecutors' special activity funds could be traced to actual 'special activities.' This intensifies the debate surrounding the transparency of prosecutors' use of these funds and raises fundamental questions about whether taxpayer money is being spent appropriately. The lack of external oversight regarding the purpose and details of these funds has long fueled calls for increased transparency. Newstapa's claims underscore these concerns and could lead to demands for a comprehensive review of the special activity fund management system.

Some are voicing concerns that the 'black box' nature of these funds allows them to be used for purposes other than their intended ones. Prosecutors must provide a clear explanation and establish measures to improve the transparency of fund execution. If Newstapa's claims are proven true, the public will lose faith in the prosecution service, which could lead to widespread distrust of the entire organization.

On September 5, 2025, a legislative hearing on prosecutorial reform was held by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Prosecutors who investigated the 'Gun-jin Monk' Jeon Seong-bae case at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office and investigators who managed the seized 'sealed bundles' of cash testified about the events. The hearing focused on the investigation process of the Gun-jin Monk case, the origin of the seized cash, and issues in the management of the sealed bundles. Opposition lawmakers pressed prosecutors on alleged inadequacies in the initial investigation and negligence in managing seized items, demanding explanations. Ruling party lawmakers focused on confirming the legality of the investigation and whether there was any intentional concealment or manipulation during the management of the seized items. The committee aimed to resolve the various allegations surrounding the Gun-jin Monk case and emphasize the need for prosecutorial reform. The National Assembly is expected to continue monitoring the prosecution's investigations and allegations and take additional measures if necessary. Attention is focused on whether the problems revealed through this hearing will lead to the development of a system to ensure prosecutorial transparency and fairness.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party announced plans to summon Choi Jae-hyun, the deputy chief prosecutor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office who conducted the initial investigation into the Gun-jin Monk Jeon Seong-bae (65) case, to the National Assembly for questioning. This demonstrates the Democratic Party's strong commitment to uncovering the truth behind the case and resolving suspicions about the prosecution's investigation process. Choi was the chief prosecutor in the Gun-jin Monk case, belonging to the Joint Investigation Department for Virtual Asset Crimes at the Southern District Prosecutors' Office last year. He identified Jeon's involvement in the nomination process for the Yeongcheon mayoral election in 2018 and indicted Jeon without detention on January 10 this year on charges of violating the Political Funds Act. The Democratic Party is expected to focus on questioning Choi about the investigation process and results of Jeon's alleged crimes, and whether there was any external pressure or unfair instructions during the investigation. In addition, the Democratic Party plans to investigate the background of Choi's personnel transfer to confirm whether prosecutorial appointments are influenced by the regime's preferences. This move by the Democratic Party can be interpreted as part of its efforts for prosecutorial reform, and the party is expected to continue raising issues about the prosecution's abuse of power and unfair investigations.

Choi Jae-hyun was transferred to the Cheonan Branch of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office two weeks after indicting Gun-jin Monk Jeon Seong-bae on January 23, and then transferred back to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office about seven months later on the 27th of last month, after the regime changed. Choi's repeated personnel transfers have caused controversy within the prosecution service, and some speculate that Choi may have been frowned upon by his superiors for investigating the Gun-jin Monk case. In particular, the timing of Choi's reassignment to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office after the change of government has raised criticism that prosecutorial appointments are influenced by political circumstances. Prosecutorial appointments are a crucial element in ensuring the independence and fairness of the prosecution service, and there have been consistent calls for appointments to be free from political pressure. However, the recent controversy surrounding prosecutorial appointments suggests that the independence of the prosecution service is still threatened, and once again emphasizes the need for prosecutorial reform. In the future, the prosecution must make greater efforts to maintain political neutrality and restore public trust.

On December 17 last year, Choi seized 165 million won in cash during a search and seizure of Jeon on charges of violating the Political Funds Act. This served as important evidence to prove Jeon's alleged crimes and was evaluated to have played a decisive role in the investigation process. In particular, the seized cash was packaged in the form of sealed bundles, which is a method frequently used in past corruption scandals involving those in power and is interpreted as an attempt to conceal the origin of the cash. Prosecutors conducted a multifaceted investigation, including tracking accounts and summoning related individuals for questioning, to trace the origin and use of the seized cash. However, the exact origin and use of the cash have not yet been revealed, and prosecutors are continuing the investigation. If the seized cash is found to be illegal political funds, it is expected to have a significant impact not only on Jeon but also on the politicians involved. The prosecution must remain unfazed by political pressure and uncover the truth through a thorough investigation.

The sealed bundle packaging also contained the time 'May 13, 2022, 2:05:59 PM', three days after the inauguration of the late President Roh Moo-hyun. This indicates that the cash was issued by a specific institution at a specific point in time, which could be an important clue in tracing the origin of the cash. However, it has not yet been confirmed whether the time written on the sealed bundle packaging is the exact time of issuance or whether there are other intentions hidden. The prosecution plans to check the details of the cash issuance with the institution that issued the sealed bundles and investigate whether the time written on the packaging matches the actual time of issuance. If the time written on the packaging is found to be false, it can be seen as an attempt to conceal the origin of the cash, and the investigation is expected to enter a new phase. The prosecution must keep all possibilities open and uncover the truth through a thorough investigation.

On January 5 this year, Choi asked Jeon, "It seems that you received it around that time, as the entry 'May 13, 2022, 2:05:59 PM' is confirmed. When and from whom did you receive it?" This was a key question to confirm the origin of the cash, and the direction of the investigation could be determined by Jeon's answer. However, it is known that Jeon did not answer Choi's question clearly and was consistent with rambling or saying that he did not remember. Accordingly, Choi conducted additional investigations based on Jeon's answers, but did not achieve significant results. The prosecution judged that Jeon's statement was unreliable and focused on securing other evidence. The prosecution plans to summon Jeon again in the future to conduct additional investigations and will consider coercive investigations if necessary.

The fact that the strip of the sealed bundle was lost during the Southern District Prosecutors' Office's process of preserving the seized items was later revealed, raising criticism of the prosecution's seized item management system. As the strip contains important information about the seized items, it must be thoroughly preserved, but the fact that it was lost is an example of the prosecution's negligence. In particular, it is known that the loss of the strip was first recognized by the Southern District Prosecutors' Office on January 8, but it was not reported to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the upper-level agency, until the end of April, raising suspicions of concealment. The prosecution is conducting an inspection into the circumstances of the strip's loss and is considering disciplining those involved. However, the loss of the strip is a serious issue as it significantly damages the credibility of the prosecution and may affect future trials. The prosecution must comprehensively review the seized item management system and establish thorough security measures.