[ad_1]
On the 11th, the prosecution began investigating the suspicion of ‘exhibition sponsorship’ while obtaining the tax data for the Covana contents operated by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s wife, Kim Gun-hee. The 2nd Anti-Corruption Investigation Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (Director Jung Yong-hwan) said on the day that “we submitted a seizure and search warrant issued by the court to the tax authorities and secured the tax data of the corresponding exhibition planning company in the form of a voluntary submission. ”
Large-scale investigation of suspected sponsorship of exhibitions
Regardless of water treatment charges, controversy in separate investigation
Tax authorities are easy to issue court orders
Designated “to recover advanced warranties”
Previously, the investigation team recently claimed a seizure and search warrant from companies that were sponsoring Covana Contents’ office and the exhibition, but the entirety was dismissed. At that time, the court laid out the reasons for the dismissal, saying: “There is a possibility that the subject of the investigation will arbitrarily present key evidence, and the violation of legal interests is serious when the order is executed.” Accordingly, it is interpreted that the investigation team established a policy to examine the basic data and the fiscal data insured that day.
However, within the accusation, it is indicated if it is a special case. The investigation began when Citizens’ Solidarity, a progressive civic group, in order to establish justice for justice, charged President Yoon and Mr. Kim with bribery and other charges in September last year.
In connection with an exposition held by Covana Contents in June 2019, the group raised the issue that the number of sponsors from large corporations, which were originally four, increased to 16 before and after Yoon’s appointment as attorney general. This is because “Isn’t it actually an implicit request to President Yun?”
However, at that time, the complaint did not contain tax evasion. A prosecutor’s office said that “securing tax data even if there are no charges for tax evasion is a separate case and an objective investigation.” However, an official from the Central District Prosecutor’s Office refuted, saying: “In general, when conducting a corporate investigation, fiscal data is data that can be referenced along with accounting data and accounts.”
There is also a later statement about the central district attorney’s office on the day “the court entered a seizure and search warrant.” When the court dismissed the entire seizure and search warrant from Mr. Kim’s office, it was said to be a recovery measure.
A prosecution official who requested anonymity said: “The investigation team requested and issued an urgent order after the court’s decision to dismiss the order.” “I first asked the tax authorities their intention to cooperate with the voluntary filing and then I asked the court to issue an order.” Saying.
The prosecution officials explained that the level of the alleged request for a warrant for a house or office and a warrant for a state agency is completely different. This means that issuing an order is relatively easy as an order for state agencies is often an act of restoration for business cooperation.
An official from a tax authority said: “According to the confidentiality provisions of the National Tax Framework Law, tax data can only be provided under certain conditions, such as the issuance of a seizure and search order by the court.” It’s 90%, and after that, an order is issued to meet the requirements. ”
A prosecution official said: “The investigation team announced that the total dismissal of the order was recovered with the issuance of this order,” he said. “There is a big difference between an order that is strictly examined by the court and an order that is issued mechanically.”
Reporters Kang Kwang-woo and Jung Yu-jin [email protected]
[ad_2]
