"No So-young Divorce Trial Unconstitutional"... National Treasury Recovery Promotion Committee Files Constitutional Complaint with Constitutional Court

"Trial Recognizing Roh Tae-woo's Slush Fund as Personal Property and Supreme Court Review Are Unconstitutional"
"Roh Tae-woo's Criminal Proceeds Should Be Subject to Laws Like the 'Pro-Japanese Property Confiscation Act'"

Kim Geun-ho, Secretary General of the Military Regime Crime Proceeds National Treasury Recovery Promotion Committee, holding a constitutional complaint petition in front of the Constitutional Court in Jaedong, Jongno-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 1st. Photo by Military Regime Crime Proceeds National Treasury Recovery Promotion Committee

Civil society groups have filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the recent court ruling recognizing the recovery of 'No Tae-woo slush funds'?which surfaced during the appeal trial of the divorce lawsuit between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Art Center Nabi Director Noh So-young?is unconstitutional.

The Military Regime Crime Proceeds National Treasury Recovery Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Committee) submitted a constitutional complaint petition to the Constitutional Court on the 1st, citing potential unconstitutionality related to the controversy over recognizing No Tae-woo's slush funds as personal property.

The Recovery Committee stated, "The No family has concealed the truth until now and is now trying to reclaim No Tae-woo's slush funds. The recent court ruling that acknowledged this is clearly unconstitutional," adding, "We aim to realize the people's right to know by compelling the No family to tell the truth and thereby subject them to legal judgment."

In the constitutional complaint petition submitted to the Constitutional Court on the same day, the Recovery Committee argued, "Regarding the 'No Tae-woo slush fund memo' recently disclosed by No So-young, daughter of former President No Tae-woo, the No family members including Kim Ok-sook, No So-young, and No Jae-heon have infringed upon the people's right to know. The court ruling and the Supreme Court's review recognizing these slush funds as personal property are themselves clearly unconstitutional acts."

Furthermore, the Recovery Committee emphasized, "The hidden criminal proceeds of the No family, including former President No Tae-woo's wife Kim Ok-sook, daughter No So-young, and son No Jae-heon, should be recovered to the national treasury in the same context as the Special Act on the State Ownership of Property of Pro-Japanese Anti-National Collaborators. Moreover, despite being public figures, the No family has completely remained silent to the prosecution and the media regarding the slush funds, which are criminal proceeds of No Tae-woo. This seriously infringes upon the 'people's right to know' held by the petitioner, a media person, and the entire public."

The Recovery Committee stated, "The No family has deceived the public by claiming that 'all fines have been fully paid' or 'there is no more money to pay the remaining fines.' According to the supplementary provisions of the Act on the Regulation of Concealment of Crime Proceeds, recovery of slush funds to the national treasury is possible," they asserted.

The Recovery Committee added, "Recently, during the divorce lawsuit between No So-young and her husband, SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won, evidence proving the existence of slush funds, including the 'No Tae-woo slush fund memo,' was presented. No So-young testified that 'if this information becomes public, it will cause many unfounded speculations and unnecessary controversies domestically and internationally, which would be a major obstacle to family harmony and could also affect group management. Therefore, it was kept a secret known only to family members among the parties involved.' She also stated, 'Although there was concern that the defendant (Chairman Chey) might misuse the media, the parties were persuaded and agreed to submit the evidence.'"

They continued, "No So-young's statement that it was kept a 'family secret' is a clear infringement of the 'people's right to know.' The No family members, including Kim Ok-sook and No So-young, have been questioned by investigative agencies and media from 1995 to recently about the whereabouts of the missing slush funds of former President No Tae-woo but have refused to tell the truth and ultimately remained silent. They even claimed, as if there were no hidden slush funds, that 'all father left behind were blankets and pillows.' Despite being clear public figures, Kim Ok-sook, No So-young, and No Jae-heon infringed upon the public interest and the 'people's right to know' regarding the slush funds."

Receipt issued upon submission of the constitutional complaint petition to the Constitutional Court by the Recovery Committee on the 1st. Photo by Military Regime Crime Proceeds Recovery Promotion Committee

The Recovery Committee stated, "The No family has resisted paying part of the fines related to No Tae-woo's slush funds, claiming they had no money and ultimately did not complete payment. The scale of the slush funds revealed in the divorce lawsuit between Chey Tae-won and No So-young was astronomically beyond imagination," adding, "We intend to realize the people's right to know by compelling them to tell the truth and thereby subject them to legal judgment."

The Recovery Committee emphasized, "According to Article 8 (Confiscation of Crime Proceeds, etc.) of the Act on the Regulation of Concealment of Crime Proceeds, crime proceeds property, property derived from crime proceeds, and crime proceeds related to criminal acts can be confiscated," and added, "If confiscatable property (hereinafter referred to as confiscatable property) is combined with non-confiscatable property, when confiscation of the confiscatable property is required, the portion of the combined property corresponding to the amount or quantity of the confiscatable property (only the part related to the combination) can be confiscated."

They further stated, "According to Article 9 (Requirements for Confiscation, etc.) of the same law, confiscation can only be made if the confiscatable property or combined property does not belong to a person other than the offender. However, if a person other than the offender acquires the confiscatable or combined property after the crime, knowing the circumstances, confiscation can be made even if the property belongs to that person."

They added, "An important part here is the supplementary provisions," and continued, "The supplementary provisions specify that '(Application of Acts Related to Concealment and Receipt of Crime Proceeds) Articles 3 and 4 apply to acts committed after the enforcement of this law concerning crime proceeds that occurred before the enforcement of this law.'"

The Recovery Committee argued, "No So-young's claim that the slush funds are personal property is inappropriate for public welfare as they are No Tae-woo's slush funds. Therefore, restrictions on personal property rights should be imposed as stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea," and stated, "While the Civil Act recognizes personal property rights as rights to be protected, it also considers them relative rights that can be restricted for public welfare. If part of the slush funds has recently been newly revealed, these funds should be handled as prescribed by the Constitution."

Finally, the Recovery Committee reiterated, "No So-young claimed the funds as personal property, and the court recognized them as such, but since these slush funds are clearly criminal proceeds, it is proper to regard them as relative rights that can be restricted for public welfare."

Previously, the Recovery Committee had reported Director Noh to the prosecution and the National Tax Service on charges of violating the Act on the Regulation of Concealment of Crime Proceeds and the Tax Offense Punishment Act.