Customs officials indicted for scheme to swap seized wines, collect fake tipster rewards

Two customs officials have been indicted and detained on charges of accepting tens of millions of won in cash after promising to swap seized high-end wines with dummy display bottles.

The First Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said Monday it indicted on Friday the intelligence team leader, identified only as A, and the general planning team leader, identified only as B, of the Seoul Customs Service's investigation and intelligence division, on charges including violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes — covering brokerage corruption and bribery.

Prosecutors also applied charges of fabricating official documents, uttering fabricated official documents, fraud, and obstruction of official duties through deception against A.

According to prosecutors, in August 2023 A and B told C, a person working in the wine industry, that seized smuggled wines could be swapped with dummy bottles before destruction and then sold for profit — but that cash would be needed to lobby the supervising prosecutor and customs warehouse manager to make it happen. The two are accused of receiving 30 million won ($20,500) from C under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for brokerage corruption.

They also face charges under the same law for bribery, after demanding 40 million won from C in December of that year, claiming they would swap the seized wines and help C collect a large smuggling-tip reward.

A additionally faces charges of fabricating official documents and uttering fabricated official documents after receiving a tip about a customs duty evasion case from a fellow customs official in March 2022, then filing false smuggling reports as if his younger sister had been the tipster and collecting 75 million won in reward money.

The following year, in 2023, after the case was referred to prosecutors, A is also accused of arranging for a reward application to be filed on behalf of the fabricated tipster based on the false smuggling report, then receiving 75 million won from the government as reward money after the civilian customs reward review committee approved the application — charges that include fraud and obstruction of official duties through deception.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency launched an investigation after receiving a tip in January last year, conducting interviews with A, B and others involved in the case and carrying out searches and seizures from July last year through February. Police applied for arrest warrants for A and B in March, but prosecutors twice sent the case back for supplementary investigation.

In one round of supplementary investigation, prosecutors asked police to review the legal basis for applying the brokerage corruption charge under the aggravated punishment law to the 30 million won payment. In a subsequent round last month, prosecutors asked police to clarify the conspiracy statements obtained during pre-warrant interviews and to verify and rebut the specific claims made by A and B.

After police completed the supplementary work, prosecutors last month sought arrest warrants for A and B separately, and the court issued both warrants following warrant review hearings.

Prosecutors said they had cooperated with police from the outset of the investigation, providing legal analysis to support the warrant applications and suggesting appropriate charges and legal theories. They also said the specific claims made by A and B,which had not been clear from the case files alone, were clarified through direct interviews before the warrant applications were filed — a step that contributed to both warrants being issued.

Prosecutors also emphasized the need to retain investigative oversight authority over special judicial police officers and the power to direct the disposition of seized items. Of the 379 bottles of wine seized, prosecutors directed that 363 — for which the statute of limitations had already expired — be returned to their owners. That left only 16 bottles available for any potential swap, effectively foiling the scheme hatched by A, B and C, prosecutors said.

Ahn Dong-geon, first deputy chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, said Monday that returning the seized bottles reduced the wines available for swapping to 16, eliminating the expected profit. "In response, B mentioned that he was the secretary of the reward review committee and demanded an additional 40 million won, saying he could help secure a large smuggling-tip reward," Ahn said.

Ahn added that the criminal plan had unraveled precisely because prosecutors had directed the return of the seized wines through their investigative oversight authority. "The crime came to light because the authority granted to prosecutors under the current Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prosecutors' Office Act — covering the disposition of seized items and the direction and supervision of special judicial police officers — was in place," he said.

Under the Public Prosecution Service Act, which will govern the new prosecution agency set to launch in October when the current prosecutors' office is abolished, prosecutors' authority to direct and supervise special judicial police officers will be removed. Prosecutors said that oversight authority is essential to preventing corruption by those who abuse their status as special judicial police officers and to safeguarding human rights and due process.

A spokesperson for the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office said the removal of investigative oversight authority over special judicial police officers from the Public Prosecution Service Act raises serious concerns that corruption crimes could be buried. The spokesperson also noted that some pending amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure would transfer authority over seized items from prosecutors to judicial police officers, effectively sidelining prosecutors.

"However, seized items are not only subject to forfeiture and other forms of sentence execution — they are also evidence," the spokesperson said. "It is necessary to consider whether prosecutors, who are responsible for bringing and maintaining prosecutions and executing sentences, should retain final authority over seized items so that judicial oversight remains possible."