Mother Han: Prosecutors’ Narrative Hard to Prove

South Korean media: Signals from the court that unclear statutes on political giving by religious bodies weaken key pillars of special prosecutors’ indictment of Mother Han

The South Korean news agency Yonhap News issued on 21^st November a report which, if translated into English, would carry the headline “Unification Church Leader Hak Ja Han’s Full Trial Begins 1^st December … Bail Hearing Also Scheduled”.

See also Trial Day 1: Mother Han Denies All Allegations

See also It Began with One Flower But Became a Big Field

See also Gingrich Pressures Seoul to Free Mother Han (82)

See also SKorea’s Polarization Shapes Views of Mother Han

See also Asia Today Editorial: “Avoid Detention of Clergy!”

See also Echoes of Communist Abuse in South Korea, 2025

The upcoming trial of Hak Ja Han (한학자), the leader of the Family Federation (formerly and by some still called the Unification Church) represents one of the most politically sensitive legal confrontations in South Korea in recent years, intertwining issues of religion, political funding, prosecutorial authority, and constitutional interpretation.

Hak Ja Han, also called Mother Han, head of a large and influential religious movement, stands accused of orchestrating illicit political contributions, offering valuable gifts to high-profile political figures, and improperly using Family Federation funds in ways that allegedly violated the Political Funds Act and the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Her indictment sits at the intersection of religious organizations and politics and more recent allegations that the Yoon Suk-yeol (윤석열) administration maintained overly close ties with the Family Federation.

On 1^st December, Mother Han’s full criminal trial will begin at the Seoul Central District Court. The case has attracted extensive media attention not only because of Hak Ja Han’s prominence but also due to the involvement of various key figures, including former Family Federation World Headquarters Director Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호), a former governing-party lawmaker, and individuals connected to the former First Lady.

The special prosecutor leading the inquiry – often referred to as the “Kim Keon-hee (김건희) Special Prosecutor”, named after the First Lady – has positioned the case as evidence of systemic political interference by powerful religious groups. The defense teams, meanwhile, argue that the prosecution is making aggressive or overbroad interpretations of political giving, lobbying, and religious organizational autonomy.

At the center of the legal dispute is a cluster of charges concerning the alleged transfer of 100 million won (around USD 75,000) in early 2022 to then-People Power Party lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong (권성동). Prosecutors contend that Mother Han and her associates made the payment to secure future government support for Family Federation initiatives. Additional allegations include the delivery of expensive luxury gifts – such as a necklace and a Chanel handbag – to individuals close to the First Lady, interpreted by prosecutors as attempts to influence policy outcomes relevant to the Federation. Layered on top of this is the accusation that the religious organization engaged in what is known in Korea as “split donations.”

In Korean political finance, “split donations” (“쪼개기 후원”) refer to a tactic in which a large sum of money is divided into smaller increments and donated under the names of multiple individuals, sometimes without the donors’ genuine involvement or consent. This tactic is used to circumvent statutory limits on political contributions or to mask the actual source of the funds. For instance, if an organization wishes to contribute beyond the legal limit or hide its involvement, it might route contributions through members, employees, or proxies.

In Mother Han’s case, prosecutors allege that Family Federation funds totaling 144 million won were broken down and distributed to lawmakers through intermediaries, technically appearing as multiple unrelated donations but originating from a central pot of religious-organization money.

Another important procedural issue is Mother Han’s request for bail. In South Korea, bail is often granted under specific terms – known as “conditions such as a bond” – which typically include paying a specified sum as a security deposit to the court, promising to comply with court summons, and accepting additional restrictions such as travel limitations.

Hak Ja Han, who recently underwent eye surgery and temporarily received a suspension of detention, is now seeking continued release while awaiting trial, arguing that remaining in custody restricts her ability to participate fully in her defense. The prosecution, however, has not supported her release, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risks of evidence tampering.

According to Yonhap News, the attorney of Yoon Young-ho (윤영호), a key witness, stated during the preliminary hearing that Yoon intends to exercise his right to remain silent. His live testimony might have provided concrete evidence about how the alleged political funds or gifts were handled, who approved them, and what role Hak Ja Han played.

By remaining silent, he withholds first-hand narrative or admission, which could have been a cornerstone of the prosecution’s factual case. Without his own testimony, the prosecution may have to rely more on documents, third-party testimony, internal church records, or forensic financial trails. These can be powerful, but they may not carry the same persuasive weight as a person under oath explaining or confessing.

Tensions between the defense and the special prosecutor escalated during the second preparatory hearing on 21^st November. A central point of contention involves evidence admissibility – that is, which documents, communications, and records may be entered into the formal evidentiary record of the trial. The special prosecutor has submitted a broad collection of materials, including text messages and internal Family Federation documents.

Mother Han’s defense team has refused to consent to the admission of many of these materials, which is their legal right; however, the prosecutor argued that the blanket refusal appeared to be a deliberate tactic to delay proceedings. In Korean criminal procedure, a defendant’s consent to evidence can expedite the trial, whereas non-consent forces the court to examine each item more closely, which substantially slows the process. The defense, for its part, objected strongly to the suggestion of delay tactics, framing their refusal as necessary to challenge what they see as overreaching investigative methods.

The court also raised constitutional and statutory questions about whether Korean law explicitly criminalizes political donations made by religious organizations. While the Constitution mandates the separation of church and state, this principle does not automatically mean that every form of financial interaction between religious groups and political actors is prohibited. In fact, the Political Funds Act primarily regulates who may donate and how much, but its language regarding religious bodies as entities – rather than private individuals acting within religious communities – is somewhat ambiguous.

Some legal scholars argue that because religious organizations are not explicitly authorized as political donors, donations made with organizational funds could be treated as unlawful. Others maintain that, barring explicit prohibition, such donations may fall into a gray area unless linked to other crimes such as embezzlement, coercion, or illegal lobbying. The court asked the special prosecutor to clarify which statute specifically penalizes political contributions originating from religious-group funds and how such an offense should be distinguished from simple political engagement by private citizens who happen to belong to religious communities.

Additional complexities arise from embezzlement charges lodged against certain Family Federation officials involved in distributing funds. Under Korean law, to convict someone of embezzlement, prosecutors must prove “intent to illegally obtain benefits” (“불법영득의사”). The court questioned whether such intent can be established when the underlying act – namely, political giving by a religious organization – may not be clearly criminalized. If donating church funds to political recipients is not itself a crime, then using those funds for such donations may not satisfy the requirement for embezzlement either. This issue could significantly influence the trajectory of the trial.

As the trial approaches, the court has decided to proceed at a pace of approximately one and a half hearings per week – a compromise between the prosecutor’s request for twice-weekly sessions and the defense’s argument that such a schedule would hinder client consultations, especially with Mother Han detained. The court appears intent on balancing efficiency with due process, mindful that the case carries political sensitivity and intense public scrutiny.

In sum, the forthcoming trial raises key questions not only about the conduct of a major religious leader but also about the boundaries of political influence, the responsibilities of religious organizations, and the interpretation of laws governing political finance in South Korea. The courtroom deliberations may help clarify unresolved areas of legal doctrine, particularly concerning the legality of political contributions by religious bodies and the standards for admitting various forms of digital and organizational evidence. As proceedings begin, the case promises to remain at the forefront of national conversation.

See also Trial Day 1: Mother Han Denies All Allegations

See also Bail Hearing with Mother Han’s Spiritual Message

See also SKorea’s Polarization Shapes Views of Mother Han

See also It Began with One Flower But Became a Big Field

See also Gingrich Pressures Seoul to Free Mother Han (82)

See also Asia Today Editorial: “Avoid Detention of Clergy!”

See also Echoes of Communist Abuse in South Korea, 2025

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Artistic impression of South Korean court hearing. Illustration: ChatGPT 22nd nov. 2025 

See also: Regulation as Faith Repression: A Global Trend

See also Inside the Detention Center: A 10-Minute Visit

See also Health Concerns: 82-Year-Old Pretrial Detainee

See also Complaint Filed Against Lead Special Prosecutor

See also In Tiny Solitary Cell: Irreversible Harm Caused

See also Mother Han Briefly Released for Medical Reasons

See also Message of Religious Unity from Detention Cell

See also Over 50 Days in Vigil Outside Detention Center

Related to prosecutors’ narrative: Mother Han’s December Trial: Long Detention Ahead

Also related to prosecutors’ narrative: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Also related to prosecutors’ narrative: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to prosecutors’ narrative: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to prosecutors’ narrative: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to prosecutors’ narrative: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

Also related to prosecutors’ narrative: News Release Blasts Indictment of Hak Ja Han, 82

More, related to prosecutors’ narrative: 70 Years On: Detention History Repeats Itself

And more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to prosecutors’ narrative:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to prosecutors’ narrative: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned

And more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Scholar Sounds Alarm: State Raiding the Sacred

Even more, related to prosecutors’ narrative: Raids as Political Spectacle and Media Trials

And even more, related to unlikely alliances: Religious Freedom: 330 Faith Leaders Speak Up

Yet more, related to unlikely alliances: Yonhap: Repeated Allegations Create Public Bias

Still more, related to unlikely alliances: Japan Following the Way of China

And still more, related to unlikely alliances: Warning of Threat from CCP Fearing Korean Unity

And also related to unlikely alliances: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook