Investigators face uncertainty as oversight ends

“Frankly, it is daunting. I do not want to keep doing this work.”

A special judicial police officer at a government ministry spoke candidly in a recent interview, voicing concern over how investigations will function once the prosecution service is abolished in October and direct oversight by prosecutors ends.

“I am not a legal expert. If I make a mistake while investigating without guidance, what happens then?” the officer said. “I could face complaints or lawsuits from suspects. It is unsettling not knowing who would take responsibility.”

Special judicial police officers are administrative officials with investigative authority in specialized areas such as finance, environment, and labor. Although about 20,000 are deployed nationwide, few serve as full-time investigators. Most rotate into investigative roles, and roughly 80 percent have less than three years of experience. As a result, they have long relied on prosecutors for detailed guidance on legal interpretation and procedure.

That structure is set to change in October, when the prosecution service is reorganized into a public prosecution office. Under a revised law passed by the National Assembly last month, prosecutors will no longer have authority to direct or supervise these officers. The reform aims to limit prosecutorial involvement in investigations, but little clarity has been provided on who will assume that role.

Without a clear alternative, officers may be forced to determine the legality of their investigative actions on their own while bearing full responsibility for any mistakes. Even experienced investigators find such decisions difficult. Determining which materials seized from a mobile phone qualify as admissible evidence under a warrant, for example, often requires nuanced legal judgment. The standards for excluding unlawfully obtained evidence are shaped not only by statutes but also by a large body of case law, making consistent application difficult for non-lawyers.

Courts have already dismissed evidence gathered by special judicial police officers on such grounds. In 2019, investigators from the Environment Ministry obtained an audio recording suggesting bribery while investigating a pharmaceutical executive for manipulating test results. The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that the warrant was limited to the test-rigging allegations and did not cover bribery. The executive was acquitted.

The burden has grown heavier with the recent introduction of a new offense targeting distortions of legal procedures. Investigators who collect evidence unlawfully could face prison terms of up to 10 years. Officials warn that such risks may discourage proactive investigations. There is also concern that officers could delay or avoid sensitive cases with a high risk of complaints, leading to a backlog. Any delay ultimately affects the public, who rely on timely investigations for protection.

Whether to fully eliminate prosecutorial oversight may be revisited during upcoming revisions to the Criminal Procedure Act. That process should also address who will provide legal guidance and how it will be delivered. At a minimum, investigators must be given access to practical and reliable legal support.