[Exclusive] More 'Consent Form Forgery' in Hongje-dong Moatown... Seodaemun-gu Requests Police Investigation

"That's not my seal" — Four more residents come forward
District Office: "No authority to verify fingerprints, referred to police"
Residents: "How can we trust it? A thorough investigation is needed"

It has been confirmed that Seodaemun District in Seoul has requested a police investigation regarding local residents’ claims that fingerprints (signet stamps) on consent forms for the establishment of the "Hongje-dong 322 Moa Town" cooperative (an LH public participation type street housing maintenance project) were forged.

Exterior view of Seodaemun District Office. Provided by Seodaemun District Office.

Previously, one case of a “fake consent form” with someone else's fingerprint was discovered in this area, and now four additional instances of suspected forgery have emerged, moving the controversy over the forged consent forms into a stage requiring a criminal investigation (refer to The Asia Business Daily article dated August 12, [Exclusive] "My fingerprint was used without my knowledge on a consent form?"... Legal issues arise in Hongje-dong Moa Town).

According to The Asia Business Daily’s coverage on the 30th, Seodaemun District recently sent an official request for investigation to Seodaemun Police Station. This was submitted in the form of a request for investigation, not a criminal accusation, and included various civil complaint documents and related materials submitted by residents. An official from Seodaemun District stated, "Since the request, we have not yet been notified by the police regarding the investigation or its schedule. So far, they have only asked us to resend the related materials."

The issue began when landowners in the district recently submitted a “fact confirmation letter on the consent to establish a cooperative” to the Urban Development Division of the District Office. They stated, “We have never genuinely agreed to the establishment of the cooperative, nor have we affixed our fingerprints to the consent forms.” They submitted both fingerprints of both hands and a copy of their identification, requesting a comparison with the fingerprints on the consent forms kept by the district.

Among these individuals, one submitted a request for the office to file a criminal complaint, and the others submitted requests for factual confirmation through the relevant agencies. Kang Hyun-gu, lead attorney at San Law Firm and legal representative for the residents, stated that a total of five such confirmation letters had been submitted. Two of the owners who submitted confirmation letters were in their 80s.

The Seodaemun District Office stated that it did not make its own judgment as to the validity of these claims. An official explained, “The office does not have the authority or capability to authenticate fingerprints or signet stamps and so did not determine the veracity of the allegations. The authentication of fingerprints is a matter for judicial agencies such as the police.”

However, the district office did meet directly with some residents who visited, claiming their consent forms were forged, but emphasized that it did not confirm the truthfulness of the claims themselves. The office also did not contact all listed consenters to individually verify their intent or facts regarding affixing fingerprints to the documents.

The committee that collected consent forms and submitted them to the district office at the end of last year maintains that the allegations are "groundless." When The Asia Business Daily first reported the issue of alleged forgery on August 12, the committee stated, “This is untrue” and added, “We cannot confirm the facts unless the informant’s specific identity is disclosed.”

Residents opposed to the cooperative's establishment assert that there are additional suspicious cases beyond the five for which fact confirmation letters have been received, and are calling for a comprehensive investigation. A representative of the Emergency Countermeasures Committee stated, “It cannot simply end with removing the problematic consent forms from the total consent rate,” and stressed, “We must thoroughly check for any additional forgeries.”

Hongje-dong 322 Moa Town. The Seoul Metropolitan Government selected this site of 39,442 square meters as an LH public participation type Moa Town target site in December 2024, planning to build apartments with a floor area ratio of about 250% and approximately 883 households. Screenshot from the Seoul Metropolitan Government website.

This controversy has highlighted loopholes in the current consent procedure. Under current law, consent for cooperative establishment must be given by landowners in writing by handwritten name, affixing a fingerprint (signet stamp), and attaching a copy of an identification card. However, in this process, there is no way to verify if a third party forges the fingerprint without the owner's consent or reuses a copy of an ID card.

While personal seals can be verified by comparing with a seal certificate, there is no official system for registering and matching fingerprints. Since a copy of the ID card is attached, there is also no way to confirm from the documents alone whether the owner submitted it themselves. The district office, as the licensing authority, only examines whether the submitted documents meet legal requirements; it also lacks the authority or expertise to authenticate fingerprints.

It is therefore structurally difficult for forgery to be detected unless the owner belatedly discovers and raises an issue about the forged consent form. For owners who are elderly or live outside the area, this is even more challenging.

Meanwhile, Article 234, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a public official must file a complaint if they determine there is a crime while performing their duties.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.