Recently, a South Korean lawmaker named Kim Nam-kuk was exonerated of accusations that he attempted to "hide" his cryptocurrency holdings. The crux of the case was about whether South Korean laws required him to declare his assets at the time these alleged actions took place.
As reported by Chosen Biz, a South Korean news outlet, Judge Jeong Woo-Yong of the Southern Seoul District Court concluded that virtual assets weren’t subject to mandatory disclosure under the Public Service Ethics Act during the period in question.
Exploring the Case’s Background
Kim was charged with failing to report cryptocurrency gains totaling around $4.5 million before South Korea implemented the Financial Action Task Force’s “Travel Rule,” which mandates asset disclosure. According to Chosen Biz:
Kim is accused of transferring part of the deposits in his virtual asset account just before the standard date (December 31 each year) during the 2021-2022 National Assembly asset declaration period to a bank deposits account in order to match the total asset aggregates similar to the previous year, and used the remaining deposits to purchase coins.
Critics have suggested that Kim’s actions were intended to prevent the National Assembly’s Ethics Committee from conducting an accurate review of lawmakers’ financial disclosures. However, the court found “insufficient evidence” to prove any deliberate interference or that Kim had a legal obligation to disclose his cryptocurrency assets. The report included:
Judge Jeong Woo-yong of the 9th Criminal Division of the Southern Seoul District Court pronounced Kim not guilty of the charges of obstructing public duty by deceit from 2 p.m. that day.
This verdict concluded a case that had drawn widespread political and public attention, ultimately leading Kim to distance himself from the Democratic Party to minimize the controversy’s effect on his peers.
Legal Context and Political Implications
Judge Jeong pointed out that although Kim’s listed assets were significantly less than his actual holdings, the absence of a legal requirement to report cryptocurrency assets meant no laws were breached. Additionally, the court found no substantial evidence to suggest Kim’s failure to report his crypto holdings was an intentional effort to obstruct the Ethics Committee’s asset review process. Despite his acquittal, Kim’s situation has reignited discussions about lawmakers’ accountability and transparency in the cryptocurrency age.
Critics have voiced concerns that holding substantial cryptocurrency assets might lead to conflicts of interest, especially given Kim’s previous support for legislation that postponed a proposed 20% tax on crypto profits. While Kim has denied any misconduct, the controversy emphasizes the necessity for clearer policies regarding public officials’ cryptocurrency ownership.
Featured image created with DALL-E, Chart from TradingView.
