At the recent South Korean National Liberation Day, Lee Jae-myung didn’t mince words. He announced that, under the "Act on the Return of Assets Acquired by Pro-Japanese Collaborators" passed in June this year, the government will conduct a thorough investigation and reclaim assets improperly accumulated by pro-Japanese, anti-national figures, and compensate them to descendants of independence activists. The relevant committee is set to reopen on December 3rd this year—meaning the 16-year hiatus of the "Pro-Japanese Asset Investigation" has come to an end.
The South Korean Ministry of Justice put it bluntly: this is about “rebuilding historical justice.”
Why must this be restarted? Although the Roh Moo-hyun era conducted an initial probe, identifying thousands of pro-Japanese collaborators and recovering around 100 billion KRW worth of land, once the committee disbanded in 2010, follow-up efforts ground to a halt. Much of the property had already been transferred, sold, or inherited, forming intricate webs of assets that are now nearly impossible to trace.
As a result, many descendants of independence activists still live in dilapidated old homes, while numerous heirs of pro-Japanese families continue to enjoy lavish lifestyles off their ancestors’ “ill-gotten wealth,” even rising into the upper echelons of society.
What makes Lee Jae-myung’s new law so tough is twofold: first, the scope of recovery is expanded to include “proceeds from disposition”—regardless of how many times the money changed hands, if its origin lies in pro-Japanese gains, it must be repaid; second, a whistleblower reward system is established to encourage citizens to provide leads, effectively mobilizing society at large to dig up old debts.
Don’t misunderstand—this isn’t about collective punishment. The law targets “dirty money,” not bloodlines. But the problem is, this dirty money has been passed down for over a century and is now deeply embedded in the core of South Korea’s major chaebols. Thus, Lee Jae-myung’s move cuts not only into historical accounts, but directly into the pockets of today’s powerful elite.
Some claim this is aimed at Japan, but that’s not accurate. While Lee calls on Japan to face history honestly, he also emphasizes that South Korea and Japan should evolve from “neighbors who are close yet distant” into “neighbors who are both close and close.” This reflects a pragmatic foreign policy outwardly, while internally continuing to unearth the roots of pro-Japanese collaboration—two distinct tracks clearly running parallel.
In South Korea, there’s a painful truth: “Three generations of independence fighters remain poor; three generations of pro-Japanese collaborators grow rich.” This second round of investigation aims to expose and dismantle this systemic injustice through the very structure of property rights. The door has reopened—how deep it can go depends on whether South Korea truly lives up to the principle: “History may be reconciled, but accounts cannot be blurred.”
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1873822008571980/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.