Financial Supervisory Service criticized for insufficient response to public interest reports

It was belatedly known that the Financial Supervisory Service responded insufficiently, asking public whistleblowers if it was okay for their identities to be exposed.

According to the Cookie News coverage on the 18th, there were 7 public interest reports filed last month, including the claim that Heungkuk Fire & Marine Co., Ltd. forced SME (individual business) loan customers to sign up for financial products (aka ‘breaking’) and intentionally did not report this fact to the authorities. It was filed with the Financial Supervisory Service on the 1st. On the 16th, Cookie News reported on the controversy over the unfair collection of Heungkuk Fire & Marine Insurance.

The public interest whistleblower who decided to report despite the disadvantages suffered from the FSS’s ‘show-off’ reception system. You can file a public interest report on the Illegal Financial Reporting Center page of the Financial Supervisory Service. Write the purpose, reason, and details of the report and attach evidence files. A maximum of one evidence file can be attached. Compressed files are not included.

Public interest whistleblower A had to waste unnecessary time in the process of submitting the collected evidence. Mr. A explained the problem with the reception system to the assigned investigator and asked for his e-mail address because he wanted to submit additional data. However, the person in charge said that general complaints can include up to three evidence files, and instructed them to submit additional complaints as general complaints. Mr. A continued to scuffle, demanding to handle public interest reports, not general civil complaints. It was on the 19th of last month, more than two weeks after the first report, that the person in charge gave the e-mail address.

There was also a response in which the person in charge did not seem to have properly read the public interest reporting manual. The person in charge said, “In order to proceed with the investigation, you must deliver the evidence you provided to the company.” “There is a document with the name of the complainant. Is it okay if the information of the reporter is known to the company?” asked Mr. A. When Mr. A protested that it was not common sense, the person in charge replied that he would proceed without the document with his name on it.

Investigation of public interest complaints is in a state of sluggishness. At the time of filing the public interest complaint, the Financial Supervisory Service announced that the investigation would take about one month. Mr. A received a notice of extension of the investigation after not receiving the investigation results for over a month. The person in charge of the Financial Supervisory Service is in the position that he was busy with the field inspection schedule and time was delayed in the process of supplementing the evidence with the complainant. She also said, “The question related to the identity of the informant was asked to confirm how to handle the document containing the name,” and said, “Now we are trying to confirm the violation.” On the 15th, Heungkuk Fire & Marine Insurance said, “We have not yet received an official notice from the Financial Supervisory Service, so we have nothing to say.”

Attorney Lee Sang-hee, director of the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy’s Public Interest Whistleblowing Support Center, said, “Institutions have a responsibility to create conditions for informants to report properly.” pointed out.

Attorney Lee said, “Protection of the identity of the informant is the first principle of public interest reporting. “It is impossible to ask the question, ‘Is it okay if my name is known?’” he emphasized, “It is the FSS’s job to verify whether the reported information is true and to protect the informant.”

Reporter Jeong Jin-yong [email protected] View articles