B-173080, AUG 11, 1971

B-173080, AUG 11, 1971

KOREAN COURTS - TRIAL OF U.S. CITIZENS DECISION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROBERT D. ABERCROMBIE THAT GAO TAKE ACTION REGARDING THE TRIAL OF HIS SON IN THE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ON A CHARGE OF MURDER. THE MATTERS THAT MR. ABERCROMBIE WISHES THE COMP. GEN. TO LOOK INTO INVOLVE GENERALLY EITHER CRIMINAL OR JUDICIAL ACTIONS AND, THUS, DO NOT COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF GAO.

TO MR. ROBERT D. ABERCROMBIE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 6, 1971, ASKING THAT WE REOPEN OUR INVESTIGATION RELATING TO THE TRIAL OF YOUR SON IN THE KOREAN COURTS.

THIS MATTER PREVIOUSLY WAS CONSIDERED IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 3, 1971, B- 173080, TO SENATOR THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, WHO FURNISHED YOU A COPY THEREOF. FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT LETTER WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE EXISTED NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH WE MIGHT TAKE ACTION TO RECOVER THE FEES PAID THE TWO KOREAN ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED YOUR SON.

AS INDICATED ABOVE YOU HAVE NOW REQUESTED THAT WE INVESTIGATE OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS CASE SUCH AS THE FAILURE OF THE ARMY TO DISMISS THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED YOUR SON IN THE LOWER COURT, THE EMBEZZLEMENT OF $100 FROM YOU BY THAT ATTORNEY (MR. KIM, CHUNG KON), THE THEFT OF YOUR SON'S MAIL, THE ALTERATION AND SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE, THE MALFEASANCE OF THE KOREAN MINISTER OF JUSTICE, THE INTERPRETATION OF KOREAN LAW AND OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING TO KOREAN COURT AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES.

INSOFAR AS THE FAILURE OF THE ARMY TO DISMISS MR. KIM, CHUNG KON AS DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS CONCERNED, THE RECORD BEFORE US DISCLOSES THAT WHILE THE ABOVE-NAMED ATTORNEY MAY HAVE BEEN THE DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE LOWER KOREAN COURT (SEOUL HIGH COURT), A MR. KIRK, MYUNG DUK WAS DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE KOREAN SUPREME COURT. THE RECORD BEFORE US DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN DEFENSE COUNSELS.

AS TO THE OTHER ISSUES YOU RAISE, THESE INVOLVE GENERALLY CRIMINAL OR JUDICIAL ACTIONS AND THUS DO NOT COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. CONSEQUENTLY, AND WHILE WE CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN FOR YOUR SON, IT APPEARS THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION THAT WE PROPERLY MIGHT TAKE ON YOUR REQUEST.

THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN YOUR LETTER ARE MORE PROPERLY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND/OR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. IN THIS REGARD (AS YOU ARE AWARE), A COPY OF A LETTER DATED MAY 25, 1971, FROM THE CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TO THE HONORABLE JOHN V. TUNNEY, UNITED STATES SENATE, DISCLOSES THAT YOUR AFFIDAVIT AND RELATED MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO HEADQUARTERS, EIGHTH ARMY, FOR CONSIDERATION.