Latest News

Among the candidates for the 22nd general election, 32% are ex-convicts… Coalition for Economic Justice: “Property verification was poor, political party should apologize”

Activists from the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice (CID) are presenting the results of an analysis of assets and criminal records of candidates for the 22nd general election at the Coalition for Economic Justice auditorium in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 28th. 2024.3.28/News1 ⓒ News1

As the 22nd National Assembly election campaign began across the country on the 28th, criticism was raised that ‘the verification of the morality of each party’s candidates is inadequate.’ One in three candidates was found to have a criminal record, and not only were there candidates whose process of forming assets such as real estate and stocks was uncertain, but there were also cases where additional real estate was purchased while an active member of the National Assembly, putting the political party on the chopping block for poor verification.

According to the ’22nd General Election Candidate Criminal Record and Asset Analysis Press Conference’ held at the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice Auditorium at 10:30 am on this day, 305 of the 952 candidates who closed candidate registration on the 22nd had criminal records. It turns out that there is.

Excluding past social movement-related crimes, the candidate with the most criminal records was candidate Jang Dong-ho (Boryeong, South Chungcheong Province, independent), who recorded 11 cases of embezzlement, drunk driving, and unlicensed driving. This was followed by candidates Yang Jeong-moo (Jeonju, Jeonbuk, People Power Party) and Lee Ki-nam (Proportion, Hisitag People’s Policy Party), with 9 cases each.

The average per-person assets reported by candidates, including real estate, securities, and virtual assets, were calculated to be 2.44 billion won.

Looking at each political party, the parties with the most assets were the People Power Party and People’s Future with 4.56 billion won, the Democratic Party of Korea and the United Democratic Party of Korea with 1.85 billion won, and the New Reform Party with 1.35 billion won.

Looking at the candidates individually, △ Candidate Kim Bok-deok (Bucheon, Gyeonggi Province, People Power Party) 144.67 billion won △ Candidate Ahn Cheol-soo (Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, People Power Party) 140.14 billion won △ Candidate Park Deok-heum (Boeun, North Chungcheong Province, People Power Party) 56.28 billion won It recorded 10,000 won.

In particular, when looking only at real estate assets, candidate Park Jeong (Paju, Gyeonggi Province, Democratic Party of Korea), who owns 40.97 billion won, attracted attention. Regarding this, the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice criticized, “We purchased additional real estate during the legislative activity period and put it on the list of lawmakers requesting verification at the last press conference, but it was not filtered out.”

The Coalition for Economic Justice called for improvements, saying that each political party’s verification of candidates’ criminal records and property holdings was insufficient. They agreed that political parties have an obligation to thoroughly verify the qualifications of candidates because it is difficult for voters to review all information about individual candidates.

Kwon Oh-in, director of the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice’s voter campaign headquarters, said, “It is not a problem simply to have a lot of assets, but we must consider whether conflicts of interest will arise in the course of future legislative activities, such as whether assets were formed through speculation or fraud and tax payment obligations,” and added, “However, the people’s “It is questionable whether the process of wealth creation has been thoroughly explained, let alone speculation on candidates seeking to become representatives,” he said.

Director Kwon continued, “Major political parties should strengthen the criteria for exclusion from nominations in the future and remove exception provisions,” and “In particular, the National Election Commission is actually aiding and abetting suspicions of reporting false assets because the investigation of false assets is an arbitrary provision under the Public Official Ethics Act.” and criticized.

(Seoul = News 1)

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button