Korea’s criminal investigation landscape has seen a major transformation, with many investigative powers shifting from the Prosecutors’ Office (“PO”) to the Police. This change goes beyond simple procedural adjustments – it fundamentally alters how organizations should manage corporate governance, risk, and legal challenges. Navigating these developments is critical for companies aiming to sustain robust compliance programs and mount effective legal responses during investigations. Below, we highlight the key changes in criminal investigation authority.
 

• Enhanced Investigative Capabilities: A central piece of this restructuring is the creation of the National Office of Investigation (“NOI”). The National Police Agency Chief’s authority over specific investigations has been revoked, and investigation departments across metropolitan and provincial agencies have been expanded, with more personnel added. This has significantly strengthened the Police’s investigative capabilities. Additionally, the investigation system has been reorganized to improve supervision by the NOI and provincial agencies.
   

• Nationwide Implementation of Integrated Investigation Teams: Following a successful two-year pilot program, Integrated Investigation Teams that combine expertise in economic crimes and cybercrime were established nationwide in 2024. Early data show decreased case processing times, however, challenges like stretched expertise and heavy workload remain. The Police are actively addressing these issues through personnel redistribution and enhanced incentives.
   

• Strengthened Supervision of Individual Investigation Cases: Since the current NOI Commissioner took office, strengthening the supervision of individual cases has been a priority, especially for high-profile cases involving large corporations or numerous victims. The NOI and provincial Police increasingly review investigative findings to ensure their appropriateness and legal accuracy. Although this oversight aims to improve thoroughness, it can lead to delays and unpredictable outcomes, emphasizing the need for carefully developed response strategies during investigations.
   

• Decrease in Direct Investigations and Increase in Collaborations with Administrative Agencies: The PO has moved away from direct investigations, in favor of engaging in joint operations with other administrative agencies, in sectors such as fair trade, tax, customs, finance, and trade secrets cases. This cooperative trend has led to an increase in joint investigation teams and integrated enforcement approaches, reinforcing inter-agency cooperation.
   

• Delay in Processing of General Crime Cases: Despite continued efforts to streamline investigations, the PO continues to face manpower shortages, resulting in delays in case processing. These challenges persist notwithstanding the shift of investigative authority between the PO and the Police. Amendments intended to expedite investigations have yet to significantly reduce these delays. The PO continues to work on improving efficiency and reducing backlogs.
   

• New Evidentiary Standards and Procedural Implications: Recent rule changes prevent records of a prosecutor’s interrogation of defendants from being admitted as evidence in criminal prosecutions, without the defendant’s consent. This shift has resulted in more indictments without prior PO interrogations, requiring adjustments in defense strategies, for example, consideration of a differentiated approach during the Police investigation/interrogation stage, as opposed to the PO investigation/interrogation stage.
   

For businesses operating in this evolving landscape, understanding and adapting to these changes is critical for effective risk management and compliance strategy alignment.