Korean State-Owned Banks Deny Outside Pressure Over Film Investment
IBK Industrial Bank of Korea and Korea Development Bank said investment decisions connected to the film Assassins followed ordinary review procedures or were made independently by a fund manager, rejecting allegations of outside influence.
Two South Korean state-owned banks denied that outside pressure influenced investment decisions connected to the film Assassins, responding to questions about how public financial institutions became involved in funding the production and its producer.
IBK Industrial Bank of Korea said its direct investment in the film was approved through the same internal process used for other projects. The bank said a dedicated team reviewed the producer’s capabilities, the competitiveness of the director and cast, the project’s commercial prospects and other relevant factors before determining that the investment met its standards. It rejected claims that the decision came through an unusual channel or at the request of an outside party.
Korea Development Bank said it did not make or participate in the specific investment decision. According to the bank, its involvement was limited to contributing capital to a fund whose management company independently selected investments. KDB said decisions concerning individual assets and their subsequent management fall within the fund operator’s responsibilities, meaning the bank could not intervene in the choice to back the film.
The statements followed the release of investment figures by People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo. Joo said IBK invested 2 billion won directly in the film, while KDB’s exposure amounted to 400 million won through a fund. He also cited broader investments in the film’s production company, Hive Media Corp., including 14.25 billion won from an IBK-participating fund and 14 billion won from a KDB-participating fund.
The dispute centers on the distinction between a bank making a direct project-level decision and a financial institution acting as a limited contributor to an independently managed fund. IBK defended the commercial review behind its direct participation, while KDB emphasized the legal and operational separation between itself and the fund manager.
Neither bank’s statement disputed the cited investment amounts. Instead, both focused on the process by which capital was allocated and rejected suggestions that outside intervention determined the outcome. The explanations place scrutiny on governance arrangements at state-linked financial institutions, including how they document direct investment reviews and how clearly they separate fund contributors from managers responsible for selecting individual projects.