Legislation: Since the 1990s, Korea has introduced systematic measures to prevent civil servants from inappropriately accumulating wealth and conducting opaque financial transactions. In June 2002, Korea passed the Anti-Corruption Act. The Act requires high-ranking officials to disclose their assets, report gifts they receive from foreign entities and obtain prior approval for their post-employment. The revised Act provides for electronic disclosure, requires public institutions to set up clear standards regarding information disclosure and introduces the information disclosure review committee. The Criminal Code criminalises the major forms of corrupt activity, including active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, bribing a foreign official, money laundering and abuse of office. Other relevant legislation includes Act on Preventing Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, the Financial Transaction Reports Act, Proceeds of Crime Act, Government Procurement Act, Public Service Ethics Act, and Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies. The latter guarantees public access to data held by the state, thus allowing citizens to demand information held by public agencies. Global Integrity 2009 reports that, in practice, citizens receive responses to access to information requests within a reasonable time period. According to Transparency International's OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Progress Report 2009, the current anti-bribery law does not provide an adequate definition of bribery. Furthermore, according to the report, the sanctions for foreign bribery are inadequate, as the fines cannot exceed USD 16,000. On the other hand, foreign companies can be held criminally liable, and statutes of limitation are assessed as adequate by Transparency International, with the standard being 5 years, or 10 years for bribes larger than USD 40,000. According to the OECD Report on the Implementation of the Phase 2 Recommendations 2007, Korea has made some progress in relation to implementing the OECD Convention; for example, there have been 6 convictions for foreign bribery in the country since 2004. Nonetheless, several concerns remain, including the fact that the Foreign Bribery Prevention Act (FBPA) still does not expressly cover a bribe that is transmitted directly to a third party, as well as the fact that whistleblower protection under the Anti-Corruption Act continues to apply only to domestic and not foreign bribery. The OECD recommendations involve strengthening of the measures for preventing and detecting foreign bribery in Korea. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Korea.

Government Strategies: In August 1999, the Korean government declared a 'war against corruption' and formulated the Anti-Corruption Programme, which was the first comprehensive and systematic approach in the fight against corruption in Korea. Among other things, the government introduced the Anti-Corruption Act and established the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) in 2002. In addition, the Supreme Prosecutor's Office established the Anti-Corruption Investigation headquarters as well as other anti-corruption investigation departments within prosecutors' offices nationwide. In 2008, the KICAC was merged with the Ombudsman institution and the Administrative Appeals Commission to form a combined anti-corruption agency - the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). According to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report 2009, the current government’s pro-business policy can be seen as “reneging on previous government’s anti-corruption commitments and achievements”. For example, all previously enacted laws and ordinances are being amended under the new principles of easing regulations. Furthermore, the merger of KICAC with two other government institutions, and the restructured composition of the new ACRC, has undermined focus on corruption and the commission’s independent decision-making processes. Similarly, Transparency International also expresses concerns about Korea's commitment to anti-corruption enforcement in its OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Progress Report 2009.

Anti-Corruption Agency: Korea's main anti-corruption agency is the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). The Commission was formed by the President in February 2008, as a result of the merger between the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC), the Ombudsman, and the Administrative Appeals Commission. The ACRC only covers public sector corruption, and the ACRC anti-corruption office’s function includes: 1) formulating and implementing anti-corruption polices at the national level, 2) assessing integrity of public sector entities, 3) evaluating the anti-corruption initiatives taken by public organisations and encouraging them to make voluntary efforts to tackle corruption, 4) amending ambiguous, corruption-vulnerable laws and institutions and confirming the implementation of ACRC's recommendations, and 5) conducting corruption impact assessment. According to Transparency International's OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Progress Report 2009, there are concerns about the merger of the national anti-corruption agency, which should have remained separate and independent. Similarly, Transparency International Korea maintains that the current ACRC is heavily influenced by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, and it is difficult to avoid the government's influence, as reported in a 2010 news article by The Korea Times. This perception is also supported by Global Integrity 2009, according to which, concerns have been raised over the current ACRC chairman's professionalism and party loyalty. The ACRC does not have a mandate to independently initiate investigations, but it can request cooperation from the relevant agencies, such as public prosecutors. The ACRC reports annually to the National Assembly and the President and makes publicly available reports. According to Global Integrity 2009, citizens cannot always complain to the ACRC without having to fear recrimination.

Korean Pact on Anti-Corruption and Transparency (K-PACT): The K-PACT was made under the previous government. It is a voluntary social agreement proposed by civil society and concluded in March 2005 to establish an anti-corruption system through alliances between multi-stakeholders such as public, political and private sectors, as well as civil society. According to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report 2009, the K-PACT Council made impressive development as an active movement, spreading to several sectors such as the construction and social welfare sectors, and also to different regions within the country. However, according to the same report, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) suspended public sector funding to the K-PACT, and now the public sector officially has withdrawn from the K-PACT. Click here for more detailed information on K-PACT.

Prosecutor General: Supreme Prosecutor's Office (SPO) is the equivalent of a Prosecutor General in Korea. The Supreme Prosecutor is recommended by the Minister of Justice and appointed by the President. The main functions of the SPO are investigation and prosecution of criminal activities, as well as execution of sentence. In addition, the SPO also performs various duties, including the role of human rights protector in criminal proceedings and that of state council in matters of property rights protection. Furthermore, the SPO established anti-corruption investigation headquarters as well as other anti-corruption investigation departments within prosecutors' offices nationwide in September 1999. Nonetheless, the office has been criticised for its lack of independence from the executive and for appearing beholden to the interests of the government and other vested interest groups, according to Transparency International's National Integrity Systems 2006. For example, in 2005, the SPO's independence was questioned as it remained lenient to white-collar crimes committed by large conglomerates such as the Samsung Group and the Doosan Group. According to the Ministry of Justice, as cited in the US Department of State 2011, as of November 2010, nearly 500 government officials were prosecuted for abuse of office, bribery, embezzlement or misappropriation, and falsification of official documents.

Auditor General: The Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) is the supreme audit institution in Korea. The constitution gives the BAI the authority to inspect the final accounts of public agencies and official functions of public institutions. Accordingly, the Board of Audit and Inspection Act authorises the BAI to examine and confirm the final accounts of revenues and expenditures of the state. Under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, the BAI may conduct inspections of the occupational performance of public officials. However, public officials who are members of the National Assembly, the judiciary and the Constitutional Court are exempt from inspections concerning their occupational performance. Furthermore, the BAI may not inspect matters clearly designated as national secrets by the Prime Minister. To promote accountability and transparency, the BAI has established an Open Audit System which allows public participation in the process of audit preparation and implementation, as pointed out in Transparency International's National Integrity Systems 2006. According to the same source, the BAI discloses the audit results to contribute to public awareness and public needs. In addition, the BAI has established a nationwide, toll-free hotline to receive petitions and complaints from the citizens. According to Global Integrity 2009, the independence of the BAI is somewhat limited; while the agency has the discretion to decide which audits to undertake, its head may be removed by the executive. In May 2011, an auditor at the BAI, who is a close aide to President Lee, resigned from the BAI after being accused of taking bribes from the now-suspended savings bank, in return for using his influence with the audit board to allow the bank to extend illegal loans and other irregularities, as reported in a 2011 news article by Reuters. 

Ombudsman: In February 2008, the Lee Myung-bak administration merged the Ombudsman, the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) and the Administrative Appeals Commission into a combined anti-corruption agency - the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). According to the ACRC website, the main function of the Ombudsman office under the ACRC is to investigate and handle complaints filed by citizens. These complaints may concern illegal and unfair practices by administrative agencies, or infringed rights and grievances of the people by the lack of appropriate systems and policies. According to Global Integrity 2009, the agency does not have direct investigative powers regarding incidents of corruption and cannot initiate investigations. It may, however, request the public prosecutor to conduct an investigation. Transparency International Korea has expressed concerns over the downscaled function and the independence of the ACRC's Ombudsman office, pointing to the influence of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, and hence, the governmental influence on the office, as reported in a June 2009 article by The Korea Times. Similarly, according to Global Integrity 2009, the Ombudsman office under the ACRC is not sufficiently protected from political interference in practice. Furthermore, the appointments to the agency do not always support its independence, and individuals appointed may have clear party loyalties. The agency reports annually to the National Assembly and the President and makes publicly available reports. Nonetheless, citizens are not always able to access these reports within a reasonable time period and some delays may be experienced. Finally, the government does not always act on the findings of the agency, according to Global Integrity 2009.

E-Governance: The Korean government operates an integrated online system, e-Government, which allows the public to track civil applications and obtain relevant data that are registered with administrative institutions. The governmental portals include Small and Medium Business Administration, Korea Industrial Property Office (KIPO), the Public Procurement Service, Korea Customs Service, the National Tax Service (in Korean) and two related websites to settle tax affairs - www.yesone.go.kr (in Korean) and www.hometax.go.kr (in Korean), Supreme Prosecutor's Office (SPO), and Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). In October 2008, the ACRC won the highest award conferred by the e-Challenges Conference and Exhibition to e-government systems, as reported in a 2008 article by The Korea Times. According to the ACRC spokesman Kim Dok-man, this prize is an illustration of Korea's advanced e-government system. The ACRC launched the www.epeople.go.kr (in Korean) system in June 2006 by merging scattered online channels which had collected civil complaints and petitions. The organisation began to extend the online service to local governments in February 2008, which allows citizens in provincial areas to suggest policies and join policy-making, as reported by the same news source.

Public Procurement: Public procurement regulations can be found at the Korean Government Procurement (PPS) website. For public procurement projects, the tenders are announced on the PPS website with detailed information on the project scope and contact information. The procuring entity must publish information on bid opportunities in at least two sources: the daily newspaper Seoul Shinmun and the Korean Government Gazette, as reported by the US Commercial Service 2011. Korea joined the World Trade Organisation's Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) in 1997. Categories of purchases exempt from GPA coverage include procurement related to national security and defence, Korea Telecom's purchases of telecommunications commodity products and network equipment, procurement of satellites, and purchase of certain electrical transmission equipment. The Korean Ministry of Finance and Economy has established an International Contract Dispute Settlement Committee to deal with any challenges by foreign suppliers over Korean procuring entities not having complied with GPA provisions, as reported by the US Commercial Service 2011. Korea began running the Government e-Procurement System (GePS) (in Korean) in October 2002, a single-window for public procurement which digitalised the entire process from order to payment for all public organisations. In January 2006, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) was established to replace the former Defense Procurement Agency (DPA). The DAPA is tasked to ensure transparency in the defence procurement process. According to Transparency International's National Integrity Systems 2006, the OECD in 2004 indicated that the e-procurement programme in Korea appeared to be effective and had a positive impact on information and communication technologies deployed in the private sector. In their report on the consideration of Korea's corporate informatisation policy, the OECD categorised the GePS as having reached the level of 'no further action required'. In law, major procurements require competitive bidding, and strict formal requirements limit the extent of sole sourcing. Nonetheless, unsuccessful bidders cannot ask for an official review of the bidding process and cannot challenge the concrete procurement decision in the courts. There exists a clear mechanism to enforce the conflict of interest regulations for public procurement officials, although the assets and incomes of these officials are not monitored. In practice, companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations, such as bribery, are almost always prohibited from participating in future procurement bids and must go through a mandatory cooling-off period of two years, according to Global Integrity 2009. In law, the government is required to publicly announce the results of procurement decisions; sometimes the results are published in detail in newspapers. However, if the details of the original contracts are altered by the parties involved, there is no requirement that those changes be published, as reported by Global Integrity 2009.

Whistle-Blowing: According to Transparency International's National Integrity Systems 2006, in corruption cases no law explicitly requires the judiciary to protect witnesses. The same source reports that the whistle-blowing system under the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) remains ineffective. The ACA generally provides for the protection of whistleblowers, although obligations by the judiciary are not explicitly outlined. In February 2006, as a result of whistle-blowing, a public official was demoted to a lower position at his working place. According to Transparency International’s National Integrity Systems 2006, the official brought a lawsuit seeking damages to retaliate against the personnel transfer. However, in the appeal, the court had conflicting interpretations of the intentions of the ACA, and it ruled against him, concluding that the personnel transfer did not discriminate or violate any laws. Similarly, Global Integrity 2009 reports that civil servants who report cases of corruption are not sufficiently protected from incrimination, and many of them fear negative consequences, particularly through unofficial means. Furthermore, according to the source, despite legal protections, whistle-blowing almost never occurs. According to Transparency International's OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Progress Report 2009, in February 2008, the ACA was amended to include whistleblower protection in the private sector. Nonetheless, as emphasised by Global Integrity 2009, private sector whistleblowers are not well enough protected from incrimination in practice, and may face negative consequences if they report on corruption.

General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Despite the attempts of the Korean government to root out corruption and to involve civil society in the decision-making process, corruption is still believed to be common in South Korea. Several observers have expressed concerns that the current government’s pro-business policies are sometimes enacted at the expense of anti-corruption initiatives. For example, the merger of the Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) with other two government institutions to form a new Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC), has raised concerns about the ACRC’s ability to focus on corruption issues, as well as its independency from the government. Furthermore, the judiciary is said to be generally lenient on white-collar crime, and in 2008, President Lee pardoned over 340,000 executives, politicians and bureaucrats convicted of crimes including fraud and embezzlement. Coupled with the abolition of public sector funding to the Korean Pact on Anti-Corruption and Transparency (K-PACT) council, it can be viewed as a setback in the efforts of curbing corruption, rather than fighting it.