Anti-Graft Act Lawyer
Anti-Graft Act Lawyer | Understanding the criminal and administrative tracks together
The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (부정청탁금지법, commonly called the Kim Young-ran Act) prohibits two distinct things: making an "improper solicitation" to a public official, and a public official (or certain private-sector employees such as teachers and journalists) receiving money, goods, or entertainment above set thresholds regardless of any connection to their duties. A single incident can generate a criminal referral for bribery-adjacent conduct, an administrative fine imposed directly by the institution, and a separate disciplinary or personnel action at the person's workplace. Because the standards of proof and the decision-makers differ across these three tracks, a response built for the criminal case alone can end up hurting the administrative or disciplinary outcome. This page walks through how the tracks are structured and what typically becomes the focus of dispute at each stage.
Anti-Graft Act | Who and What Conduct Is Covered
The Act applies more broadly than most people expect - it is not limited to government employees. Whether a person or an act falls within scope determines which of the three response tracks even opens.
Coverage extends beyond civil servants to public institution employees, and - notably - to private school staff, private school foundation officials, and journalists at news organizations, treating them as if they were public officials for purposes of the Act (부정청탁금지법 제2조). Family members and go-betweens acting on behalf of a subject person can also be implicated.
Article 5 lists specific categories of requests - such as asking to alter the outcome of a permit, bid, personnel decision, or investigation - that count as an improper solicitation even without any money changing hands (청탁금지법 제5조). Whether a particular request falls inside or outside the 14 listed exceptions (e.g., petitions filed through a legitimate public process) is often the central dispute.
Article 8 separately bans a subject person from receiving money, goods, or entertainment worth more than the statutory thresholds in a single instance, or an aggregate amount within a year, from someone connected to their duties - and this applies even without any request attached (청탁금지법 제8조). Above a certain amount the matter can be referred for criminal punishment rather than only an administrative fine.
Food and drink, gifts, and congratulatory or condolence money below the amounts set by the Enforcement Decree are excluded from the prohibition even when duty-related, and this is frequently where factual disputes over exact value and date arise (청탁금지법 제8조 제3항, 시행령).
Where classification disputes usually happen
Two recurring fights are (1) whether a request was a legitimate civil petition/appeal or an improper solicitation under Article 5, and (2) whether a benefit received was within the socially-accepted exception amount or exceeded it. Both turn heavily on documentary evidence - messages, receipts, calendars - gathered early.
Anti-Graft Act | Criminal Referral vs. Administrative Fine vs. Disciplinary Action
The most important thing to understand about an Anti-Graft Act matter is that it can produce up to three separate consequences from the same set of facts, run by three different decision-makers on three different timelines.
Criminal punishment track
Conduct involving an improper solicitation that is actually acted upon, or receipt of money/valuables above the higher statutory threshold, can be referred to the police or prosecution and result in imprisonment or a criminal fine (청탁금지법 제22조). This track follows ordinary criminal procedure - investigation, indictment decision, and trial - and carries the heaviest potential consequence including a criminal record.
Administrative fine track
For solicitations or receipts that do not rise to the criminal threshold, the head of the relevant public institution can impose an administrative fine (과태료) directly through a non-criminal administrative order process (청탁금지법 제23조). This is decided by the institution or a court in a summary non-litigation procedure, and the standard applied is different from the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.
Disciplinary / personnel track
Independently of criminal or administrative-fine outcomes, the person's own employer (agency, school, company) can open an internal disciplinary proceeding that can lead to reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. This track often moves faster than the criminal case and can rely on facts the person disclosed while trying to explain themselves in the other two tracks, so statements made early matter.
Why sequencing the response matters
A statement made to resolve the administrative fine quickly, or an admission made to a disciplinary committee to show cooperation, can later be used as evidence in the criminal file. Coordinating what is said - and when - across all three tracks is usually the central strategic question in these cases.
Anti-Graft Act | What Counts as an Improper Solicitation
Many people are surprised to learn that simply asking an acquaintance who happens to be a public official for a favor - without offering anything in return - can already be a violation.
No money required
Unlike bribery, an improper solicitation under Article 5 does not require any exchange of money or benefit. Merely asking a public official to influence a permit, license, bid evaluation, personnel appointment, or the outcome of an audit or investigation can itself be the violation if it falls within one of the listed categories (청탁금지법 제5조 제1항).
The 14 statutory exceptions
Article 5 also lists specific situations excluded from the prohibition, including legislative and policy proposals made through official channels, petitions and appeals filed under statutorily prescribed procedures, and requests made publicly and transparently rather than through private channels (청탁금지법 제5조 제2항). Whether a communication used a 'legitimate procedure' versus a private back channel is frequently the deciding fact.
The public official's duty to refuse and report
A public official who receives an improper solicitation is required to clearly express refusal, and if the same solicitation is repeated, to report it to the person in charge of the institution's Anti-Graft Act compliance (청탁금지법 제7조). Failing to refuse or report can itself become the basis for a disciplinary case against the official, even separate from any liability of the person who made the request.
Anti-Graft Act | Money, Gifts, and Entertainment Thresholds
Article 8 cases usually turn on a factual dispute over amount, timing, and whether the benefit was duty-related - not on whether a rule exists.
Single-instance and annual aggregate limits
Article 8 prohibits a subject person from accepting money or valuables exceeding set amounts in a single occasion, and separately caps the cumulative amount receivable from the same person within a year, regardless of whether the benefit relates to the person's official duties (청탁금지법 제8조 제1항, 제2항). Exceeding either limit can trigger liability even if no specific favor was ever requested.
Socially accepted practices exception
The Enforcement Decree sets specific ceiling amounts for food and drink, gifts, and congratulatory/condolence money that remain permissible even when duty-related, and these amounts are periodically adjusted (청탁금지법 제8조 제3항 제8호 및 시행령 별표). Disputes commonly arise over whether a meal or gift was split, combined, or mischaracterized to stay under the ceiling.
Duty of disclosure and return
A public official who receives a prohibited benefit is expected to report it and return or donate the benefit; doing so promptly and voluntarily can be a relevant factor in how the case is handled at both the administrative-fine and disciplinary stages, though it does not automatically eliminate liability.
Anti-Graft Act | How an Anti-Graft Act Case Typically Proceeds
Before any statement is given to an internal compliance officer, investigator, or disciplinary committee, we review the underlying communications, receipts, and timeline to identify which of the three tracks (criminal / administrative fine / disciplinary) is likely to open and what facts are actually in dispute.
We coordinate what is disclosed to the police or prosecution, what is submitted in the administrative-fine proceeding, and what is stated to the employer's disciplinary body, so that an explanation given in one track does not become damaging evidence in another.
If a criminal referral is made, we participate in the investigation stage - reviewing summons, preparing for questioning, and, where an indictment decision is being considered, submitting opinion statements addressing the elements of Articles 5, 8, or 22.
For matters routed to the administrative fine process, we prepare the institution's or court's non-litigation hearing, focusing on amount, characterization of the benefit, and applicability of the socially-accepted exception.
In parallel, we prepare written opinions and attend disciplinary hearings at the person's workplace, aiming to align the disciplinary outcome with the facts actually established (or not yet established) in the other two tracks.
Where an unfavorable decision results - criminal conviction, administrative fine, or disciplinary sanction - we review whether an appeal, objection, or administrative litigation is warranted given the statutory deadlines that apply to each track.
Anti-Graft Act | How Fees Are Calculated
Set based on which tracks are actually active - a case involving only an administrative fine review is priced differently from one involving a parallel criminal investigation and disciplinary hearing, since the scope of work differs substantially.
Where applicable, discussed separately depending on the outcome sought - such as a non-indictment decision, a reduced administrative fine, or a lesser disciplinary sanction - and agreed in advance rather than tied to any guaranteed result.
Because these matters often require simultaneous work across criminal, administrative-fine, and disciplinary proceedings, fees are structured to reflect whichever combination of tracks is actually opened rather than a single flat rate.
Costs such as document certification fees, travel to a hearing location, and expert opinion fees where an accounting or valuation dispute is involved are billed separately as incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Anti-Graft Act | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ Are You a "Subject Person" Under the Act?
- Are you a public official, public institution employee, private school staff member, or journalist covered by Article 2?
- Was the other party in the exchange also a subject person, or a private citizen?
- Did a family member or associate act as a go-between on your behalf?
2️⃣ Improper Solicitation Facts
- Did the request ask to change the outcome of a permit, bid, personnel decision, or investigation?
- Was the request made through an official public channel (petition, appeal) or a private back channel?
- Did you (or the official) clearly refuse, or was the request repeated after refusal?
- Is there a written record - message, email, memo - of what exactly was asked?
3️⃣ Money, Gifts, and Entertainment Facts
- What was the total single-instance value, and does it exceed the socially-accepted exception amount?
- Could multiple smaller gifts from the same person be aggregated into the annual limit?
- Was the benefit connected to your official duties, or entirely unrelated to any decision you make?
- Did you report or return the benefit, and if so, how soon after receiving it?
4️⃣ Which Tracks Have Already Opened?
- Have you received a police summons, an administrative fine notice, or a disciplinary hearing notice - or more than one?
- Has your employer's compliance officer already requested a written statement from you?
- Have you made any statement yet in any of the three tracks, and what did it say?
5️⃣ Deadlines to Check
- Does the administrative fine notice specify an objection period you need to calendar?
- If disciplined, does your workplace's internal rules set a deadline to file an appeal or request reexamination?
- If indicted, is there an approaching statute of limitations issue relevant to any related charge?
