The independent counsel wrapped up his month-long investigation into the suspicious land purchase for President Lee Myung-bak’s retirement home on Wednesday. But he failed to tie up all the loose ends that the prosecution had left behind.
The responsibility for the incomplete investigation, however, did not lie with the independent counsel, but with the first family, who had denied him access to what he perceived to be vital information for prosecution. Moreover, the president had denied him permission to extend his investigation for two weeks.
Also responsible were the loopholes that made it impossible for the independent counsel to serve a court-issued warrant against the Presidential Security Service, which had purchased a plot of land for the construction of an office in the residential compound for its security detail. No such warrant could be served in the absence of presidential authorization.
When the independent counsel launched his investigation months after the prosecution decided not to file criminal charges against anyone involved in the case in June last year, he reportedly suspected that the president’s son, Si-hyung, breached the law on property transactions by purchasing the land on behalf of the first couple. The law prohibits property purchases by proxy.
The president’s son, claiming he borrowed 600 million won, half the amount needed for the land purchase, from his uncle, presented an allegedly underlying promissory note as evidence. He borrowed the remainder from a bank by offering his mother’s property as security. The independent counsel, who had suspicions about the authenticity of the promissory note, demanded computer files for confirmation. When the president’s son refused to comply with the request, the independent counsel could not conduct search and seizure in the presidential office where he believed the computer file was kept.
The independent counsel, who failed to secure evidence of breaching the law, decided not to file criminal charges against the president’s son. Determining instead that the presidential couple provided their son with the 1.2 billion won as a gift, the independent counsel decided to notify the National Tax Service of the son’s tax evasion. The decision was based on the first lady’s written statement that she decided to give her son with the money to purchase the land.
But the independent counsel decided to file criminal charges against the three presidential security officers involved in the case. He said the security service purchased the plots of land for the retirement home and the security office together with the president’s son. Accusing the three security officers of misappropriation, he said they allowed the president’s son to make 970 million won in unwarranted gains by underreporting the value of the land for the retirement home and over-reporting that of the land for the security office.
One of the officers, the independent counsel said, doctored a document presented to him. The independent counsel also said he confirmed during the final days of his investigation that the statement the president’s son submitted to the prosecution last year had been written by a presidential aide. But he said he could not delve into this case because his investigation was not extended as he had requested.
Incomplete as his investigation might be, the independent counsel must be given due credit for doing what the prosecution failed to do ― filing charges against the security officers and calling on the National Tax service to collect due taxes from the president’s son. His report bolstered yet again the belief people hold that the prosecution is weak to the powerful but powerful to the weak.
He made no mention of the president’s role in the case, probably because the president cannot be charged with a criminal offense during his tenure of office ― a privilege granted under the Constitution. Still, it is the president that must be ultimately held responsible, morally if not legally, for all the wrongdoings about the land purchase, given that it is inconceivable that any serious decision about it could have been made without his knowledge or approval.
Yet, he did not permit the independent counsel to extend his investigation. Nor did he permit him to serve a warrant for search and seizure against his security service. Moreover, the presidential office refused to acknowledge that any of the accused breached the law. If so, why did the president offer an apology for the land purchase in February this year?
