Former Prosecutors Fill Every Appointed Investigative Leadership Post at New Seoul Agency

Former prosecutors have filled every appointed deputy chief, bureau chief and division chief position at the Seoul office of South Korea’s newly established Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, raising questions about the practical impact of a reform designed to separate criminal investigations from prosecution.

The staffing pattern is especially significant because the Seoul office is expected to handle many of the country’s most consequential major-crime cases. Its first, second and third deputy chiefs all previously served in the prosecution service, bringing experience in areas including economic and financial offenses, political and corporate corruption, narcotics and violent crime.

Five of the office’s six investigative bureau chief posts have also gone to former prosecutors. The only bureau without an appointed chief is the antitrust investigation bureau. The filled posts cover economic crime, financial crime, anti-corruption work, technology leaks and other major offenses. Several appointees previously worked on assignments involving the Financial Services Commission, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration or specialized prosecution units.

The same pattern extends to the next tier of management. Of 25 division chief positions across the six investigative bureaus, 14 have been filled and 11 remain vacant. Every one of the 14 appointed division chiefs transferred from the active prosecution service. Their portfolios include serious economic crime, joint financial investigations, antitrust, anti-corruption, crimes against vulnerable groups, narcotics, defense procurement and industrial technology.

The agency was created as part of a sweeping restructuring of South Korea’s criminal justice system. A central aim of the overhaul was to separate the power to investigate cases from the authority to indict and prosecute them. The concentration of former prosecutors in the new agency’s operational leadership has therefore prompted criticism that the institution could reproduce the personnel structure and working culture of the organization it was intended to replace.

Supporters of the appointments may point to the technical demands of complex investigations and the immediate need for experienced managers. The vacancies also indicate the difficulty of recruiting qualified candidates for specialized posts. One legal community official said the staffing showed that experienced prosecutors were regarded as capable of running serious-crime investigations, while noting the challenge of finding suitable personnel for unfilled positions.

At the agency’s senior first-grade level nationwide, the background is somewhat more varied: four of seven officials, including the deputy chief and regional office heads, came from the prosecution, while three had served as judges. In Seoul, however, the leadership and appointed middle-management ranks are composed entirely of former prosecutors. That contrast is likely to keep scrutiny focused on whether the new institution develops an independent identity or carries forward the practices of the former prosecutorial system.