By Jun Ji-hye
The ruling and opposition parties are at odds over several proposed revisions to two laws that, if passed, would enable unpaid fines owed by former military dictator, Chun Doo-hwan, to be collected.
The former president has yet to pay 167 billion won ($150 million) of a total 221 billion won fine that he was ordered to pay by the Seoul High Court in 1997 for leading an insurrection and accepting bribes while he was in office.
Calls to collect the fines gained further attention after it was recently revealed that his eldest son, Chun Jae-kook, holds a paper company in the British Virgin Islands, an offshore tax haven.
As the legal expiration date for the fine to be paid is Oct. 11, members of the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) proposed revisions to the relevant laws late last month and called for prompt passage in the National Assembly’s ongoing extraordinary session to ensure that the money is collected.
Rep. Woo Won-shik proposed a revision to the Criminal Proceeds Punishment Law to expand the statute of limitations on fines to 10 years from the current three.
If approved, the expiration date on Chun’s fines would be extended to 2020 because the last time he paid part of the fine was 2010.
Rep. Choi Jae-sung’s revision to the Property Forfeiture Law, which pertains to crimes committed by public officials, is intended to empower the prosecution to seize the property of former and incumbent presidents or cabinet members if three years elapse after the fines are imposed.
“Under the existing law, if a person who owes a fine dies and their progeny reject their inheritance there is no-one from whom money can be collected and it is impossible to collect fines. A system to prevent this situation is necessary,” said Choi. DP legislator Cho Kyoung-tae also emphasized the need for a swift passage of the revisions.
“We should draw up appropriate measures to collect fines by all means. The so-called Chun Doo-hwan laws will have to be passed in the June parliament. This is what the public wants. We will seek cooperation from the Saenuri Party,” he said.
However, the ruling party said whether to pass the revisions should be carefully decided because they could victimize other parties.
“If the Assembly passes the revisions and authorities retroactively apply the law, it could bring about disadvantages for a third person who acquires property. This possibly violates the Constitution,” said Yoo Ki-june, a Supreme Council member of the ruling party.
Spokesman Hong Ji-man said reviewing legal principles is required prior to beginning any discussions.