Prosecutorial Indulgence
‘BBK case’ leaves more questions than answers
Public prosecutors usually hold press briefing to explain the details of charges and why they must punish suspects. So it was unusual Monday to see the prosecution spent most of the time on explaining why they will not ― or should not ― indict a suspect.
For most Koreans, the prosecution’s decision might have come more as a disappointment than surprise, as they have suspected some kind of compromise between the authorities and Erica Kim, since the Korean-American’s seemingly abrupt return from the United States about a month ago.
The prosecutors said they decided not to indict Kim despite her false accusation in 2007 of then-presidential candidate Lee Myung-bak of masterminding a financial scam, because of the expired statute of limitations. But the prosecution tried to neither request the U.S. authorities repatriate Kim nor freeze the statute of limitations rule on this case over the past three years or so.
Little wonder people are whispering that the law enforcement officers have been waiting for the expiry of the prosecuting period.
These prosecutors also said they would suspend the indictment concerning the 47-year-old lawyer’s embezzlement charges, as her degree of involvement is minor and her younger brother is serving a sentence of eight years. But Kim has reportedly bought a $3.5-million house in Beverly Hills, Calif., with the embezzled money.
Questions keep arising. Since when have these prosecutors become so magnanimous to regard millions of dollars as minor, and apply laws by the unit of family, not individuals? Are these the same prosecutors who have driven a former head of state to suicide through merciless, no-holds-barred questioning?
The prosecution also asserts it was only a coincidence that Kim’s return home was nearly synchronized with two other key people ― a former top taxman and a consul general in Los Angeles ― involved in the so-called BBK scandal, after an investment company which Kim and her imprisoned brother alleged in 2007 was set up and run for some time by President Lee. Yet the opposition Democratic Party counters ― not without reason ― all this is a carefully-choreographed scheme to clear away lingering popular suspicions about Lee while he is in office, vowing to introduce a special counsel or conduct a parliamentary probe.
It seems as if Kim had fully repaid the prosecution’s indulgence by reversing her accusation, saying her remark was a lie concocted to save her brother at the request of Lee’s political opponents.
The opposition’s pledge will hardly be realized in the face of the governing Grand National Party’s refusal, and the case is likely to be buried ― for now. As the voters have witnessed so many times before, however, political scandals are like magma in volcanoes waiting to erupt whenever the surface (power of people involved) weakens. Few Koreans would like to see any more falls from grace by their former leaders. They will just hope this won’t be such a case.
Still, it is hard to shake off the feeling President Lee’s two keywords ― the rule of law and fair society ― have moved one step further away.
:::::
GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1. Who is Erica Kim?
2. Why are people disappointed over the prosecution's decision not to indict her?
3. Do you think there was a compromise between the authorities and Erica Kim?
4. Why did the prosecution decide not to indict Erica Kim for falsely accusing Pres. Lee of masterminding a financial scam in 2007?
5. Why did the prosecution suspend the indictment of Erica Kim concerning her embezzlement charges?
6. What is the opposition party's opinion about the prosecution's latest actions on Erica Kim?
7. What did the opposition party promise to do?
