Republic of Korea Country Profile

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives

  • 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, 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. 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 instance, there have been 6 convictions for foreign bribery in the country since 2004. Nonetheless, several concerns remain; these include 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 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). Nonetheless, Transparency International 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 of the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC), the Ombudsman, and the Administrative Appeals Commission. The functions of the ACRC anti-corruption office are the following: 1) formulating and implementing anti-corruption polices at the national level, 2) assessing integrity of public sector organisations, 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 by the Korea Times.

  • 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 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. Nonetheless, Transparency International 2006 illustrates an example when the independence of the BAI could be questioned. In 1995, a public official at the BAI heard that a public administrative agency allowed a large business group with close political connections to construct a business facility that would have been illegal under normal circumstances. When he tried to correct the case, he was transferred to another department and the case remained unresolved. In 1996, the public official brought the case to the attention of a civil activist group, but the BAI dismissed him and brought a lawsuit against him on charges of breach of loyalty.

  • 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). Hence, 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 of administrative agencies, or infringed rights and grievances of the people by the lack of appropriate systems and policies. 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 by the Korea Times.

  • 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 Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission won the highest award conferred by the e-Challenges Conference and Exhibition to e-government systems, as reported 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, which allows citizens in provincial areas to suggest policies and join policy-making.

  • Public Procurement: 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 that Korean procuring entities have not complied with GPA provisions, as reported by the US Commercial Service 2008. 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. According to Transparency International 2006, the GePS is an effective way to support transparency and accountability mechanisms in Korea. In 2004, the OECD indicated that the e-procurement programme in the country 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', as emphasised by Transparency International 2006.

  • Whistle-Blowing: According to Transparency International 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 remains ineffective. The Anti-Corruption Act 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 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 Anti-Corruption Act, and it ruled against him, concluding that the personnel transfer did not discriminate or violate any laws. According to Transparency International's OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Progress Report 2009, in February 2008, the Anti-Corruption Act was amended to include whistleblower protection in the private sector.

  • General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Despite the attempts of the Korean government to root out corruption and to involve the civil society in the decision-making process, corruption is still believed to run high in the country, as reported by Bertelsmann Foundation 2008. According to Transparency International 2006, current legislation regarding anti-corruption mechanisms remains focused on the public sector, while legislative and voluntary efforts are increasingly concentrating on the non-public sector as well. The report concludes that Korea has achieved significant improvement in governance and integrity through political leadership and public demand over a relatively short period of time. Nonetheless, the US Commercial Service 2008 argues that despite significant improvements in recent years, Korea's political structure still tolerates a degree of non-transparency in the formation of laws and regulations, which when combined with still-inadequate institutional 'checks and balances' and a societal structure heavily based on nepotism can create opportunities for corruption and influence peddling.