1.

Key Legislative & Regulatory Amendments

Over the past decade, the Anti-Graft Act and its Enforcement Decree have been amended several times to refine the statutory framework and address issues that have arisen in practice. Notably, the Anti-Graft Act introduced whistleblower protection measures similar to those under the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers Act, and the value limits on permissible gifts and benefits have been raised in certain areas to reflect economic realities. The key amendments are summarized below.
 

2.

Prohibition on Receiving Money & Valuables

The Anti-Graft Act regulates three main categories of conduct: (i) improper solicitation of public officials, (ii) acceptance of money or valuables by public officials, and (iii) receipt of excessive honoraria for outside lectures. Of these, the restrictions on accepting money and valuables have had the greatest impact on the corporate business environment. It is worth noting that, while bribery under the Criminal Code requires both a connection to the official’s duties and a quid pro quo, the Anti-Graft Act penalizes the receipt of money or valuables as long as there is a connection to the official’s duties (“duty-relatedness”), regardless of whether any quid pro quo exists.

Given that companies frequently interact with public officials in the ordinary course of business, a significant amount of regulatory guidance and case law has accumulated around two key issues: (1) the scope of duty-relatedness and (2) the application of the statutory exceptions under Article 8, Paragraph 3 of the Anti-Graft Act.
 

3.

Scope of Duty-Relatedness

Where duty-relatedness exists, offering or promising any money or benefit to a public official is prohibited unless one of the statutory exceptions under Article 8, Paragraph 3 applies. Both the courts and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (the “ACRC”) have consistently interpreted duty-relatedness broadly, in line with established case law on bribery under the Criminal Code.

According to the Supreme Court, an official’s duties include all matters handled in connection with his or her official position, including duties prescribed by law, duties closely related to those duties, duties performed by custom or practice, and duties which involve advising or influencing decision-makers. The Supreme Court has also held that whether a benefit is duty-related must be determined by comprehensively considering the official’s specific duties, the relationship between those duties and the provider of the benefit, whether there is any personal friendship between the two, the nature and value of the benefit, and the timing and circumstances in which it was provided.

This means that particular caution is required when interacting with public officials while a specific matter is pending. For example, although it is widely believed that meals under KRW 50,000 are permissible, the ACRC’s position is that where there is a direct interest between the official’s duties and the private party, the social courtesy exception under Article 8, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 does not apply, and no benefit may be provided at all. Examples of such a direct interest include the relationships between licensing officials and permit applicants, procurement officers and bidders, and auditors and the entities being audited.

On the other hand, if a public official’s duties are only generally related to a company, and there is no direct interest in a specific pending matter, modest gifts such as holiday gifts within the statutory value limits may still be provided for purposes of legitimate social interaction or courtesy.
 

4.

Application of Permissible Exceptions

Before providing any benefit, whether in the form of meals, beverages, gifts, or travel arrangements, company employees must confirm that the benefit clearly falls within a statutory exception. In practice, the three exceptions most frequently relied upon are: (i) benefits for social interaction, courtesy, or assistance under Subparagraph 2, (ii) benefits provided under a legitimate legal right, such as a contractual obligation, under Subparagraph 3, and (iii) benefits provided at official events related to the official’s duties under Subparagraph 6.

For the Subparagraph 2 exception, the key question is whether a direct interest exists. For the Subparagraph 3 exception, having a contractual basis alone is not enough; the arrangement must also be legitimate in substance. Compliance reviews should therefore confirm that the transaction reflects ordinary commercial dealings and that the benefit provided is reasonably proportionate to the consideration received.

Special care is required when sponsoring public institutions or funding overseas business trips for public officials. In such cases, companies should verify that the arrangement is lawful, review the supporting documents from an anti-corruption perspective, and put in place a clear pre-approval process.

For the Subparagraph 6 exception, companies inviting public officials to an event must confirm in advance that all legal requirements are met. Companies sponsoring the event should carefully review its purpose, agenda, criteria for selecting participants, and the distribution of any souvenirs.
 
Ultimately, companies should establish robust internal policies to ensure that employees comply with the Anti-Graft Act when interacting with public officials, and should maintain effective compliance procedures to assess specific situations as they arise.
 

5.

Prohibition of Improper Solicitation & Recently Proposed Amendments

Although enforcement actions involving improper solicitation are less common than those involving gifts and benefits, it is worth noting that making an improper solicitation may be subject to an administrative fine even when no money or other benefit is offered. Companies should therefore keep a close eye on their external communications and government relations activities.

On the legislative front, the ACRC has proposed amendments that would prohibit public officials from making improper solicitations to the private sector. Recognizing the serious risks posed by public officials’ demands regarding employment, corporate sponsorships, and donations, the ACRC issued a legislative notice of the draft amendment in January 2026, followed by a revised notice in July 2026.

While the current Anti-Graft Act penalizes private parties who make improper solicitations to public officials, the proposed amendment would also penalize public officials who make improper solicitations to private parties. Corporate legal teams should closely monitor these developments.
 

6.

A Statistical Look at 10-Year of Enforcement of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

According to data released by the ACRC on September 28 to mark the 10th anniversary of the Anti-Graft Act, a total of 17,455 violations were reported to approximately 24,000 public institutions between 2016 and 2025. By type of violation, improper solicitation accounted for 9,346 cases (53.5%), receipt of money and other valuables for 7,558 cases (43.3%), and receipt of excessive honoraria for outside lectures for 551 cases (3.2%), indicating that improper solicitation and the receipt of valuables constitute the vast majority of all reported cases.

During the same period, a total of 2,983 individuals were sanctioned. The most common penalty was an administrative fine, imposed on 1,974 individuals (66.2%), followed by disciplinary surcharges for 659 individuals (22.1%) and criminal punishment for 350 individuals (11.7%). Notably, the number of individuals facing criminal punishment decreased to 9 (2.8%) in 2023 but then showed an increasing trend, rising to 33 (7.4%) in 2024 and 52 (15.3%) in 2025. This appears to align with the recent trend of the Anti-Graft Act's growing importance in the context of criminal investigations. Among the sanctioned violations, the receipt of money and other valuables was the overwhelmingly dominant type, accounting for 2,828 individuals (94.8%). However, it is important to note that these statistics are a compilation of self-reported data from public institutions and do not include sanctions for private individuals who made improper solicitations or provided valuables. Therefore, these figures alone are insufficient to fully assess the sanction risk for companies and their employees.

In a public perception survey conducted by the ACRC in June 2026 (with 2,819 respondents), 87.1% of respondents answered that the effect of the Anti-Graft Act's implementation has been positive. The perception that performance of public duties has become fairer reached 75.4% in the administrative sector and 72.9% in the education sector, suggesting that customary practices in these fields have significantly improved. In contrast, the figure for the media sector was only 56.8%, indicating that the perceived degree of change is relatively lower in this area.
 

7.

Conclusion

Ten years after its implementation, the Anti-Graft Act has become deeply embedded in Korea’s legal and business landscape. Since liability under the Anti-Graft Act does not require proof of a quid pro quo, conduct that falls short of bribery under the Criminal Code may still constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft Act. Foreign-invested companies and Korean companies engaged in cross-border business should also bear in mind that a violation in Korea could simultaneously lead to exposure under foreign anti-corruption laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Given the broad reach of the Anti-Graft Act, reviews of potential violations can often become a precursor to broader criminal investigations into bribery or abuse of authority. While early enforcement was mainly directed at minor violations involving less than KRW 1 million, investigative authorities now routinely bring charges under the Anti-Graft Act as a stepping stone to larger corporate and political prosecutions, which shows the central role it has come to play in law enforcement.
 
The Anti-Graft Act also continues to evolve alongside other anti-corruption laws, such as the Act on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest Involved in Public Duties and the Act on the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.

These developments are taking place alongside broader structural reforms in the Korean legal system, including the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act separating investigative and prosecutorial powers, which take effect in October 2026, and the codification of attorney-client privilege under the Attorney-at-Law Act, which takes effect in February 2027. Although the ACRC does not have prosecutorial powers, it serves as the main authority for receiving and reviewing corruption reports and works closely with law enforcement agencies.
 
Since interaction with the government is an unavoidable part of doing business, now more than ever, it is imperative for corporate leadership to maintain robust compliance controls and proactively manage anti-corruption risks.