Improper Solicitation and Graft Act Puts the Brakes on Improper Solicitation and Bribery after Six Months of its implementation

2,311 reports received, 57 requests for investigation and imposition of administrative fine

Marking the sixth month of the enactment of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act on September 28, 2016, the ACRC conducted a survey of 23,852 public organizations on how they have operated the Act. The survey results showed that 2,311 violations of the law were reported. By types of violations, 135 reports were on improper solicitations, 412 reports on bribery, and 1,764 on other violations (including outside lectures).

By types of reports, out of the 412 reports of bribery, 255 (62%) were voluntary reports by public officials, while 157 (38%) were made by third parties. Those who received bribes reported and returned them which ranged from KRW 20 million of cash to liquor, gift certificates, and drinks. This showed their will to comply with the law.

As for improper solicitation violation reports, among the total of 135 reports, 97 (71.9%) were filed by third parties, while 38 reports (28.1%) were voluntarily made by public officials.

Out of the 1,764 reports of other violations including outside lecture provision, 14 reports (0.8%) concerned the acceptance of honoraria exceeding the limitations, while 1,750 reports (99.2%) concerned the delay of or not reporting outside lecture.

<Reports about violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>

Among the reported violations, 19 reports were delivered to investigative agencies for investigation, and 38 reports were sent to courts to give notification of the imposition of fines.

<Handling of reports about violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act>

Reports transferred to investigative agencies included cases as follows: public officials who performed his public duties under the influence of improper solicitations; a public official who hired an employee as solicited; a university professor who gave academic credits to a student who was living abroad and did not attend class; and a public medical institution that after receiving improper solicitation, provided medical treatment to a patient who did not make a regular appointment or waited on a waiting list.

Reported cases about which administrative fines were requested to be imposed on the reported persons because they gave or received an improper solicitation were as follows: a case in which the head of a fire department ordered his employee to overlook illegality related to a fire-fighting facility; and a case in which an employee of a supply company solicited product examiners in order to earn passing scores in acceptance trials.

Reports of the request or acceptance of bribes of over KRW 1 million were transferred to investigative agencies. They included a case in which the housemate of a suspect offered KRW 20 million to an official in charge of the investigation; a case in which a person who applied for the use of national property offered KRW 10 million to an official in charge; a case where a coach of an athletic club requested KRW 8 million from student parents as compensation for his retirement; a case in which the guardian of a patient offered KRW 5 million to a public medical institute employee; and a case in which a construction company executive offered KRW 3 million to a construction supervisor (this case was put to prosecution without detention and is still in session).

Imposition of administrative fines were requested on the reported cases where a person gave grafts of less than 1milion won at a time to public officials related to his duties. They included a case in which a public official in charge of supervising construction received KRW 1 million from a construction company; one in which the head of a department received a gold key worth KRW 1 million and other gifts from his employees as a retirement gift; the case of a professor who received KRW 950,000 from students as a wedding gift for his child; the case of a public official in charge of accountancy who received entertainment, KRW 600,000 worth of meals, and liquor from a duty-related company; and a case in which a parent provided a gift certificate worth KRW 100,000 to his child’s homeroom teacher.

Meanwhile, 23,852 public organizations provided 78,439 training sessions of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act to their employees—an average of 3.3 sessions per organization, indicating that they complied with the provision of the law stating that public institutions should provide at least one training session a year to its employees.

Administrative agencies (at the constitutional, central, and local levels), in particular, provided 21 sessions on average, which is higher than public service-related organizations’ average of 4.5 sessions, and schools and educational foundations’ average of 3 sessions.

The ACRC has received 13,891 requests for authoritative interpretation of the act and provided answers to 7,233 requests of them (52.1%), and 36,629 over-the-phone consultation were provided through 110 call center (as of March 28, 2017). Q&As, explanations and educational materials can be searched on checked on the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act Board on the ACRC’s website.

An official from the ACRC said that the enforcement of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act has produced outcomes including the uncovering or reducing improper solicitations, entertainment, and bribery which were previously considered customary in the public sector. As a considerable number of cases are under investigation, it is expected that requests for investigation or the imposition of fines will increase.

The ACRC will analyze major cases of violation of the law discovered in the survey by types and send the result to the people and public organizations in order to spread a culture of integrity and prevent the reoccurrence of similar violations.