[House Report 105-797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 House Calendar No. 273
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-797
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE JAY KIM

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                     STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT





  October 8, 1998.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed


                 IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE JAY KIM



                                                 House Calendar No. 273
105th Congress                                                   Report
                       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-797
_______________________________________________________________________


                  IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE JAY KIM

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON

                     STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT





  October 8, 1998.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed


               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                HOWARD L. BERMAN, California,
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                  Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            ED PASTOR, Arizona
                                     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
                                     ZOE LOFGREN, California
                Theodore J. Van Der Meid, Chief Counsel
         Bari Schwartz, Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member
                       Julian A. Haywood, Counsel
                      Virginia H. Johnson, Counsel
                       David H. Laufman, Counsel
                         Paul M. Lewis, Counsel
                         Reed D. Slack, Counsel
                         John E. Vargo, Counsel
                   Debbie Blockinger, Staff Assistant
                  Christine Weinstein, Staff Assistant
                     Joanne White, Staff Assistant



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. Executive Summary.................................................1
II. Introduction......................................................4
III.Relevant Standards of Conduct.....................................7

IV. Evidence Relating to Statement of Alleged Violation...............8
        A. Count I: Violation of House Rule 43, Clause 1 (Causing 
            In-Kind Contributions from a Corporation)............     8
            1. Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility by 
                Representative Kim...............................     8
            2. Investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee...    10
                a. Representative Kim's Knowledge of Federal 
                    Election Campaign Laws.......................    10
                b. Causation of In-Kind Contributions by JayKim 
                    Engineers, Inc...............................    12
        B. Count II: Violations of House Rule 43, Clause 1; House 
            Rule 44, Clause 2; and Ethics in Government Act of 
            1978 (Acceptance and Receipt of a Contribution from a 
            Foreign National; False Statements on Financial 
            Disclosure Statement; and False Statements to 
            Investigative Subcommittee)..........................    13
            1. Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility by 
                Representative Kim...............................    14
            2. Investigation by Investigative Subcommittee.......    14
            3. False Statements on Financial Disclosure 
                Statements.......................................    15
            4. False Statements to the Investigative Subcommittee    16
        C. Count III: Violations of House Rule 43, Clause 1 
            (Acceptance and Receipt of an Excessive Corporate 
            Contribution from Nikko Enterprises, Inc., and False 
            Statements to the Investigative Subcommittee)........    17
            1. Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility by 
                Representative Kim...............................    17
            2. Investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee...    18
            3. False Statements to the Investigative Subcommittee    20
        D. Count IV: Violations of House Rule 44, Clause 2 (False 
            Statements on Financial Disclosure Statements Related 
            to the Contribution by Nikko Enterprises, Inc.)......    22
        E. Count V: Violations of Then-House Rule 43, Clause 4; 
            House Rule 43, Clause 1; Ethics in Government Act of 
            1978; and House Rule 44, Clause 2 (Improper Gifts 
            from Hanbo Steel and General Construction; Failure to 
            Disclose Gifts on Financial Disclosure Statement; 
            Attempt to Influence Statements to Investigators; and 
            False Statements to Investigative Subcommittee)......    23
            1. Gifts of Travel Expenses and Golf Equipment from 
                Hanbo Steel......................................    24
            2. Failure to Disclose Gifts of Travel Expenses and 
                Golf Equipment...................................    27
            3. Receipt of $30,000 Check from Dobum Kim...........    28
            4. Failure to Report Gift of $30,000 on Financial 
                Disclosure Statement.............................    33
            5. Attempt to Influence Statements by Dobum Kim to 
                Investigators....................................    34
            6. False Statements to Investigative Subcommittee 
                Regarding Dobum Kim..............................    35
        F. Count VI: Violations of House Rule 51 and House Rule 
            43, Clause 1 (Receipt of Improper Gifts to Pay 
            Partial Reimbursement to House of Representatives for 
            Excess Outside Earned Income from Book)..............    38
 V. Results of Inquiry Regarding Other Issues........................46
        A. Violations of Federal Election Campaign Laws by 
            Representative Kim's Campaign Committee..............    46
            1. Guilty Plea by Representative Kim's Campaign 
                Committee and Knowledge by Representative Kim of 
                False Statements by His Campaign Committee to the 
                FEC Regarding Contributions by Jaycee Kim, Song 
                Nien Yeh, and Robert Yu..........................    46
            2. Guilty Plea by Representative Kim's Campaign 
                Committee and Knowledge by Representative Kim of 
                False Statements by His Campaign Committee to the 
                FEC Regarding In-Kind Corporate Contributions by 
                JayKim Engineers, Inc............................    48
        B. Transfer of $86,000 in Funds from June Kim's Bank 
            Account in South Korea to the United States in August 
            1994.................................................    50
        C. Reimbursement of Excess Earned Income from 
            Representative Kim's Book............................    56
        D. Legal Defense Fund for June Kim.......................    66
        E. June Kim's Autobiography..............................    71
VI. Conduct of the Inquiry...........................................77
         A. Investigative Methodology............................    77
         B. Expansions of Jurisdiction...........................    78
         C. Assistance from U.S. Attorney's Office...............    79
         D. Witness Immunity.....................................    81
         E. Alleged Mistreatment of Witness......................    81
         F. Exculpatory Information..............................    83
         G. Assertion of Marital Privileges......................    84
         H. June Kim's Fifth Amendment Rights....................    89
         I. Deferral of Rulings on Procedural Objections.........    90
         J. Compelled Testimony in Absence of Two-Member Quorum..    91
         K. Cooperation Requirements of Plea Agreements..........    91
         L. Appeals of Evidentiary Rulings.......................    93
         M. Adoption of Statement of Alleged Violation...........    94

                    Appendix of Documentary Exhibits

1. July 1997 Plea Agreement of Jay Kim (with amended Statement of 
  Facts).........................................................   100
2. Transcript of Aug. 11, 1997 court proceeding where guilty 
  pleas entered by Representative Kim, June O. Kim, and Jay Kim 
  for Congress Committee.........................................   116
3. July 1997 Plea Agreement of Jay Kim for Congress Committee 
  (with amended Statement of Facts)..............................   163
4. July 1997 Plea Agreement of June O. Kim (with Statement of 
  Facts).........................................................   178
5. Friedly, Kim's Office Aided Wife's Partner, The Hill, Aug. 6, 
  1997...........................................................   186
6. Friedly, Senate Democrats Urge New Probe of Rep. Kim, The 
  Hill, Sept. 10, 1997...........................................   189
7. Sept. 11, 1997, press announcement by the Hon. James V. Hansen 
  and the Hon. Howard L. Berman..................................   191
8. Pincus, House Panel May Probe Kim Financial Reports, 
  Washington Post, Sept. 13, 1997................................   192
9. Letter from the Hon. James V. Hansen and the Hon. Howard L. 
  Berman to the Hon. Nora Manella, United States Attorney for the 
  Central District of California, Sept. 25, 1997.................   194
10. Information, United States v. Kim, No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. Cal. 
  filed July 31, 1997)...........................................   196
11. Letter from the Hon. James V. Hansen and the Hon. Howard L. 
  Berman to the Hon. Jay Kim, Dec. 17, 1997......................   210
12. Dec. 18, 1997, press announcement by the Hon. James V. Hansen 
  and the Hon. Howard L. Berman..................................   214
13. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph L. Lotkin, Sept. 16, 1998................................   215
14. Notice of Filing Plea Agreements, United States v. Jay C. 
  Kim, No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. Cal. filed July 31, 1997)............   220
15. Sentencing Hearing, United States v. Kim, No. 97-726-RAP 
  (C.D. Cal. March 9, 1998)......................................   222
16. Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order, United States v. Jay 
  C. Kim, No. CR97-726 (C.D. Cal. filed March 10, 1998)..........   281
17. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Lamar Smith and the 
  Hon. Ed Pastor, Jan. 29, 1998..................................   282
18. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  the Hon. Jay Kim, Apr. 2, 1998.................................   292
19. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Lamar Smith and the 
  Hon. Ed Pastor, May 21, 1998 (signed and approved by the Hon. 
  Jay Kim).......................................................   296
20. Memorandum from Jay Kim to All Staff at JayKim Engineers, 
  Inc., March 9, 1992............................................   309
21. Memorandum from Jay Kim to All Diamond Bar Staff at JayKim 
  Engineers, Inc., March 18, 1992................................   310
22. $50,000 promissory note between Jay Kim and Song Nien Yeh, 
  May 13, 1992; $50,000 cashier's check corresponding to 
  promissory note; documents regarding a $50,000 deposit into Jay 
  Kim's personal account; and a $50,000 check written by Jay Kim 
  to his campaign committee......................................   311
23. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Richard A. Paez, 
  Feb. 25, 1998..................................................   317
24. Financial Disclosure Statement of Jay Kim for 1992 (candidate 
  filing for period of January 1-May 15, 1998, filed on May 28, 
  1992)..........................................................   319
25. Amended Financial Disclosure Statement of Jay Kim for 1992 
  (candidate filing for period of January 1-May 15, 1998, filed 
  on Aug. 4, 1992)...............................................   324
26. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1992 (Member's annual FDS filed May 17, 1993)....   329
27. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1993 (Member's annual FDS filed May 16, 1994) 
  (and amendments thereto).......................................   335
28. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1994 (Member's annual FDS filed Aug. 3, 1995)....   346
29. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1995 (Member's annual FDS filed May 15, 1996)....   353
30. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1996 (Member's annual FDS filed May 15, 1997) 
  (and amendment thereto)........................................   361
31. Financial Disclosure Statement of the Hon. Jay Kim for 
  calendar year 1997 (partial Member's annual FDS filed May 22, 
  1998)..........................................................   369
32. Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
  Song Nien Yeh, Feb. 13, 1995...................................   375
33. Memorandum from Michael Li to ``Congressman,'' Aug. 10, 1993.   380
34. $12,000 check from Nikko Enterprises, Inc. dated Sept. 28, 
  1992 (identity of payee left blank), and copy of check 
  subsequently made payable to, and endorsed by, June O. Kim.....   381
35. Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview with 
  David Chang, Dec. 5, 1994......................................   383
36. Letter from June O. Kim to Yung Soo Yoo, Dec. 17, 1994 
  (Korean-language original and English translation by FBI)......   385
37. $2,000 check drawn on joint account of Jay Kim and June Kim, 
  payable to David Chang, dated Dec. 17, 1994....................   386
38. Voucher for $12,000 payment by Nikko Enterprises, Inc., dated 
  Sept. 28, 1992.................................................   387
39. Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
  Yung Soo Yoo, March 22, 1995...................................   388
40. Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
  Yung Soo Yoo, April 5, 1995....................................   390
41. Facsimile transmission from Yung Soo Yoo to Representative 
  Jay Kim, Dec.15, 1994..........................................   400
42. Letter from Ben Quincy Limb to Jay Kim, Sept. 29, 1992.......   401
43. Credit card purchase form for Aloha Airlines ticket 
  indicating travel from Honolulu to Maui by Representative Jay 
  Kim on Jan. 16, 1994...........................................   402
44. Letter from Stephanie C. Ackerman, Staff Vice President, 
  Corporate and Government Affairs, Aloha Airlines, to David H. 
  Laufman, July 16, 1998.........................................   403
45. American Express statement for corporate account in name of 
  Dobum Kim, dated Jan. 8, 1994..................................   404
46. Records of Grand Wailea Resort indicating stay by Tae Soo 
  Chung in Jan. 1994 (registration and guest history)............   405
47. Registration records from Grand Wailea Resort regarding Jan. 
  1994 stay by Jay Kim and Dobum Kim.............................   407
48. American Express receipt relating to Dobum Kim's purchase of 
  golf equipment for Representative Kim on Jan. 16, 1994, and 
  corresponding sales receipt....................................   409
49. American Express statement showing personal account number of 
  Dobum Kim matching account number on credit card receipt for 
  purchase record of golf equipment..............................   411
50. Guest history records from Grand Wailea Resort for Jay Kim 
  and Dobum Kim..................................................   412
51. Letter from Ronald A. Gray, Managing Counsel, American 
  Express, to David Laufman, July 27, 1998.......................   414
52. Letter from Gregory A. Koestering, Managing Director, Grand 
  Wailea Resort, to Paul Lewis, July 23, 1998....................   415
53. Imprints of VISA cards in connection with registration of Jay 
  Kim, Tae Soo Chung, and In Kyu Mok at Grand Wailea Resort in 
  Jan. 1994......................................................   417
54. Grand Wailea Resort record of Representative Kim's room 
  charges........................................................   420
55. Cash register tape relating to purchases at golf pro shop on 
  Jan. 16, 1994..................................................   421
56. Letter from Ralph Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. 
  Ed Pastor, Sept. 25, 1998......................................   422
57. SKU descriptions of items purchased at golf pro shop on Jan. 
  16, 1994.......................................................   428
58. Sample of account statement for Dobum Kim's money market 
  account at Bank of America.....................................   430
59. Bank of America statement for money market account showing 
  $100,000 transfer to Dobum Kim's account.......................   431
60. Bank of America statement for money market account showing 
  $200,000 transfer to Dobum Kim's account.......................   435
61. $30,000 check from Dobum Kim made payable to June Kim, dated 
  Jan. 29, 1994..................................................   439
62. Bank of America statement dated March 22, 1994, showing debit 
  of $30,000 from Dobum Kim's account............................   441
63. Deposit slip dated March 2, 1994, indicating deposit of 
  $30,000 into joint savings account of Representative and Mrs. 
  Kim at Union Bank..............................................   445
64. Statement from Union Bank indicating $30,000 deposit on March 
  2, 1994, to Kims' joint savings account........................   446
65. Bank statements showing three withdrawals of $10,000 each 
  from Kims' joint savings account at Union Bank during period of 
  March 3-June 2, 1994...........................................   447
66. Union Bank records showing three deposits of $10,000 each to 
  Kims' joint checking account during period of Feb. 24-May 25, 
  1994...........................................................   450
67. Pages of Representative Kim's personal calendar for late Jan. 
  1994...........................................................   453
68. Korean-language newspaper article dated Feb. 3, 1994 (and 
  English translation)...........................................   454
69. American Airlines records indicating travel by Representative 
  Kim in Jan. 1994 in which he earned frequent flier miles.......   457
70. Letter from Ralph Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and the 
  Hon. Ed Pastor, Sept. 30, 1998.................................   458
71. Letter from Gary R. Doernhoefer, Senior Counsel, American 
  Airlines, to David Laufman, Sept. 28, 1998.....................   461
72. Passenger name records indicating travel by Representative 
  Kim on American Airlines during period of Jan. 28-30, 1994.....   463
73. FBI notes regarding interview of Dobum Kim, dated June 3, 
  1997...........................................................   464
74. American Express charge receipts relating to Dobum Kim's Oct. 
  1993 stay at Key Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia 
  and restaurant charges.........................................   468
75. Records from Ritz Carlton in Arlington, Virginia indicating 
  stay by Tae Soo Chung in Oct. 1993.............................   469
76. Feb. 1994 contract between Jay Kim and Sungmoon Publishing 
  Company........................................................   471
77. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, 
  Feb. 21, 1995..................................................   477
78. Letter from Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking Democratic 
  Member Jim McDermott to the Hon. Jay Kim, May 15, 1995.........   479
79. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Nancy Johnson, Mar. 
  17, 1995.......................................................   481
80. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, 
  Aug. 4, 1995...................................................   483
81. Letter from Committee Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking 
  Democratic Member Jim McDermott to the Hon. Jay Kim, Oct. 26, 
  1995...........................................................   485
82. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. James V. Hansen, 
  Dec. 31, 1997 (and enclosed copies of checks)..................   487
83. Letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. James V. Hansen and Hon. 
  Howard L. Berman, Jan. 23, 1998 (and enclosed copy of $20,000 
  cashier's check)...............................................   489
84. Disclosure reports filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with Federal Election Commission during period of 
  1994-1996......................................................   491
85. Report of Receipts and Disbursement filed with FEC by Jay Kim 
  for Congress (July 31 Mid-Year Report dated July 28, 1997).....   529
86. Letter from Committee Counsel David H. Laufman to Chul Song, 
  July 10, 1998 (and accompanying Korean translation)............   540
87. Letter (in Korean) from Chul Song to David H. Laufman, July 
  14, 1998 (and accompanying English translation.................   543
88. ``Notarial Certificate'' and accompanying letter from Heon 
  Kim, dated Aug. 20, 1998.......................................   545
89. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated May 20, 1992.....................   548
90. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated May 21, 1992.....................   550
91. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated July 14, 1992....................   552
92. Wire transfers of Aug. 2, 1994, relating to transfer of 
  $86,000 from June Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank in Seoul, 
  South Korea to the United States...............................   555
93. Receipt for payment of 20 million won by Sungmoon Publishing 
  Company to June Kim on Feb. 15, 1994...........................   557
94. Letter from June O. Kim to David H. Laufman, June 8, 1998; 
  Cho Hung Bank records indicating deposit of 20 million won into 
  account of June Kim on February 15, 1994; English translation 
  of bank records................................................   558
95. Printing and sales information from Sungmoon Book Publishing 
  Company regarding Representative Kim's book, I'm Conservative, 
  and English translation........................................   563
96. Bank of California statement regarding joint equity line of 
  credit account of Jay Kim and June Kim, dated Aug. 15, 1994....   569
97. Letter from Bong U. Yoo to David H. Laufman, May 8, 1998; 
  excerpt from amended joint federal income tax of Jay Kim and 
  June Kim for 1994 (with redactions)............................   570
98. Letter from Jennifer Ahn to Representative Jay Kim, Oct. 27, 
  1994 (with copy of $5,000 check from book sales in United 
  States)........................................................   573
99. Memorandum from Ellen Weintraub to Committee on Standards of 
  Official Conduct, May 4, 1995..................................   575
100. Memorandum from Matt Reynolds, Office of Rep. Jay Kim, to 
  Ellen Weintraub, Counsel, Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct, March 21, 1995........................................   580
101. Memorandum from Matt Reynolds to Ellen Weintraub, March 31, 
  1995...........................................................   581
102. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. Nancy Johnson, 
  Sept. 8, 1995..................................................   582
103. Letter from Committee Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking 
  Democratic Member Jim McDermott, Sept. 20, 1995................   583
104. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim, Sept. 21, 1995, to the Hon. 
  Nancy Johnson..................................................   584
105. Letter from Chairman James V. Hansen and Ranking Democratic 
  Member Howard L. Berman to the Hon. Jay Kim, Feb. 27, 1997.....   585
106. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with FEC, dated Oct. 9, 1996.........................   587
107. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with FEC, dated Jan. 24, 1997........................   590
108. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated July 28, 1997....................   592
109. $10,000 cashier's check purchased by Representative Kim, 
  dated May 28, 1997.............................................   594
110. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. James V. Hansen, 
  June 3, 1997...................................................   595
111. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated Jan. 22, 1998....................   596
112. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. James V. Hansen, 
  Sept. 16, 1997.................................................   598
113. Letter from the Hon. James V. Hansen and the Hon. Howard L. 
  Berman to the Hon. Jay Kim, Oct. 22, 1997......................   599
114. Letter from Chairman James V. Hansen and Ranking Democratic 
  Member Howard L. Berman to the Hon. Jay Kim, Jan. 7, 1998......   601
115. Letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. James V. Hansen and 
  Howard L. Berman, Jan. 23, 1998 (and enclosed cashier's check).   602
116. Disclosure report filed by Representative Kim's campaign 
  committee with the FEC, dated April 13, 1998...................   604
117. $50,000 cashier's check dated March 30, 1998, provided by 
  Representative Kim to his campaign committee...................   606
118. Letter from Representative Kim to the Hon. James V. Hansen, 
  July 11, 1997..................................................   607
119. Letter from the Hon. James V. Hansen and the Hon. Howard L. 
  Berman to the Hon. Jay Kim, July 28, 1997......................   608
120. Passport records of Young Jack Lee (with redactions)........   609
121. Deposit slip and record from Cho Hung Bank indicating 
  deposit by Young Jack Lee of 100 million won into June Kim's 
  account on Dec. 23, 1997, and English translation of bank 
  record.........................................................   611
122. Korean-language copy of Dec. 1995 book publishing agreement 
  between June Kim and Handut Publishing Company.................   615
123. English-language copy of Dec. 1995 book publishing agreement 
  between June Kim and Handut Publishing Company.................   617
124. Receipt for 15 million won paid to June Kim by Handut 
  Publishing Company on Dec. 19, 1995............................   620
125. Handwritten notes of accountant Bong U. Yoo and June Kim 
  relating to income from June Kim's book........................   621
126. Korean-language record from Cho Hung Bank relating to 
  account of June Kim (with annotations by translator)...........   622
127. English translation of Cho Hung Bank document relating to 
  account of June Kim............................................   624
128. Excerpt of joint federal income tax return of Jay Kim and 
  June Kim for 1995 (signed and certified, with redactions)......   625
129. Handwritten notes of June Kim regarding income from her book   629
130. Excerpt of joint federal income tax return of Jay Kim and 
  June Kim for 1996 (signed and certified, with redactions)......   630
131. Handwritten notes given by June Kim to accountant regarding 
  book income received in 1997...................................   634
132. Cho Hung Bank records regarding account of June Kim for 
  period of Nov. 1996 through Jan. 1998..........................   635
133. Handwritten ledger prepared by accountant Bong U. Yoo for 
  Representative Kim and June Kim analyzing foreign bank 
  statements.....................................................   638
134. Letter from June Kim to Bong Yoo dated April 12, 1998.......   639
135. Certificates of Remittance reflecting transfers of funds 
  from California branch of Cho Hung Bank to June Kim's checking 
  account at California Korea Bank in Rowland Heights, California   640
136. Excerpt of joint federal income tax return of Jay Kim and 
  June Kim for 1997(signed and certified, with redactions).......   649
137. Letter from Jay Kim to Bong U. Yoo, May 8, 1998.............   653
138. Letters from Investigative Subcommittee to the Hon. Jay Kim 
  advising him of expansion of inquiry...........................   654
139. Letter from Adam H. Kurland to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, June 18, 1998..............................   658
140. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith to Ralph Lotkin, July 2, 
  1998...........................................................   661
141. Letter from Michael J. Madigan to David H. Laufman, May 1, 
  1998...........................................................   687
142. Letter from Ann M Harkins, Acting Assistant Attorney 
  General, to Ms. Geraldine R. Gennet, General Counsel, U.S. 
  House of Representatives, April 30, 1998.......................   688
143. Application of the Committee on Standards of Official 
  Conduct of the U.S. House of Representatives for an Order 
  Immunizing the Testimony of, and Other Information Provided by, 
  Dobum Kim, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 
  Thereof........................................................   689
144. Order, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Misc. No. 
  98-170 (D.D.C. filed May 4, 1998)..............................   696
145. Order, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Misc. No. 
  98-170 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 21, 1998............................   697
146. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin and Adam H. Kurland to the Hon. 
  Lamar S. Smith, July 14, 1998..................................   698
147. Written statement by Jennifer Ahn submitted at deposition on 
  May 28, 1998...................................................   707
148. Letters from Investigative Subcommittee to Representative 
  Kim's counsel disclosing exculpatory information...............   709
149. Letter from June O. Kim to David H. Laufman and Paul M. 
  Lewis, July 14, 1998...........................................   715
150. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, June 26, 1998..............................   717
151. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, July 28, 1998..............................   721
152. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph L. Lotkin, July 31, 1998.................................   724
153. Letter from the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor 
  to June Kim, Aug. 4, 1998......................................   726
154. Letter from June O. Kim to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and the 
  Hon. Ed Pastor, Aug. 24, 1998..................................   729
155. Letter from David H. Laufman to Ralph L. Lotkin, July 7, 
  1998...........................................................   730
156. Letter from the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor 
  to the Hon. Jay Kim, July 28, 1998.............................   732
157. Letter from David H. Laufman to Ralph L. Lotkin, July 29, 
  1998...........................................................   733
158. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar Smith and the 
  Hon. Ed Pastor, Aug. 3, 1998...................................   734
159. Letter from David H. Laufman to Ralph L. Lotkin, Aug. 3, 
  1998...........................................................   735
160. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, Aug. 4, 1998...............................   736
161. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph Lotkin, Aug. 6, 1998.....................................   738
162. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, Aug. 6, 1998...............................   740
163. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph L. Lotkin, Aug. 6, 1998..................................   742
164. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  the Hon. Jay Kim, Aug. 7, 1998, and accompanying Statement of 
  Alleged Violation..............................................   743
165. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, Aug. 24, 1998, and accompanying Motion for 
  a Bill of Particulars and Memorandum of Points and Authorities.   795
166. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith to Ralph Lotkin, Aug. 25, 
  1998...........................................................   806
167. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith, Aug. 
  27, 1998.......................................................   809
168. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor, 
  Sept. 2, 1998..................................................   814
169. Letter from Ralph L. Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
  the Hon. Ed Pastor, Sept. 9, 1998, and accompanying Motion to 
  Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities...............   816
170. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph L. Lotkin, Sept. 10, 1998................................   836
171. Representative Kim's Answer to the Statement of Alleged 
  Violation, Sept. 25, 1998......................................   837
172. Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to 
  Ralph Lotkin, Sept. 29, 1998...................................   848



                                                 House Calendar No. 273
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-797
_______________________________________________________________________


               IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE JAY C. KIM

                                _______
                                

  October 8, 1998.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(``Committee'') submits this report pursuant to House Rule 10, 
Clause 4(e)(1)(A), which authorizes the Committee to recommend 
to the House from time to time such administrative actions as 
it may deem appropriate to establish or enforce standards of 
official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the 
House.

                          I. Executive Summary

    The Investigative Subcommittee conducted a nine-month 
inquiry regarding Representative Jay Kim in which the scope of 
its investigation was expanded four times. The inquiry 
encompassed the conduct at issue in the criminal prosecution of 
Representative Kim by the Department of Justice, as well as 
additional matters that the Subcommittee discovered during the 
course of the inquiry.
    At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Subcommittee found 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim committed 
violations of laws and House rules within the Committee's 
jurisdiction, and it unanimously adopted a Statement of Alleged 
Violation (``SAV''). The charges set forth in the SAV concern 
not only conduct to which Representative Kim pleaded guilty in 
1997, but also matters outside the scope of the criminal 
investigation by the Department of Justice.
    The SAV contains six counts of alleged violations of laws 
and House rules. Counts I through IV are based on statutory 
violations to which Representative Kim previously pleaded 
guilty, although they also include additional alleged 
violations:
          Count I charges Representative Kim with causing in-
        kind corporate contributions in 1992 and 1993 to his 
        campaign committee by JayKim Engineers, Inc. in 
        violation of Clause 1 of House Rule 43, which states 
        that ``[a] Member, officer or employee of the House of 
        Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a 
        manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of 
        Representatives.''
          Count II charges Representative Kim with the 
        acceptance and receipt of a campaign contribution in 
        1992 by a Taiwanese national in violation of Clause 1 
        of House Rule 43. In addition, this count charges 
        Representative Kim with (1) making false statements on 
        his Financial Disclosure Statements regarding the 
        illegal foreign contribution in violation of the Ethics 
        in Government Act of 1978 and Clause 2 of House Rule 
        44; and (2) making false statements to the 
        Investigative Subcommittee regarding the illegal 
        foreign contribution, in violation of Clause 1 of House 
        Rule 43.
          Count III charges Representative Kim with the 
        acceptance and receipt of a corporate and excessive 
        corporate contribution by Nikko Enterprises, Inc. 
        (``Nikko'') totaling $12,000 in October 1992, in 
        violation of Clause 1 of House Rule 43. This count also 
        charges Representative Kim with making false statements 
        to the Investigative Subcommittee regarding the illegal 
        contribution by Nikko.
          Count IV charges Representative Kim with making false 
        statements on his Financial Disclosure Statements 
        regarding the illegal Nikko contribution in violation 
        of Clause 2 of House Rule 44.
    Counts V and VI of the Statement of Alleged Violation are 
based on conduct revealed by the Subcommittee's investigation:
          Count V charges Representative Kim with receiving a 
        gift of $30,000 in January 1994 from Dobum Kim, then an 
        employee of Hanbo Steel and General Construction, a 
        company headquartered in South Korea, in violation of 
        Clause 4 of then-House Rule 43 and Clause 1 of House 
        Rule 43. This count also charges Representative Kim 
        with (1) attempting to influence statements by Dobum 
        Kim to investigators regarding the $30,000 payment, in 
        violation of Clause 1 of House Rule 43; (2) failing to 
        report the $30,000 gift on his Financial Disclosure 
        Statement for calendar year 1994, in violation of the 
        Ethics in Government Act and Clause 2 of House Rule 44; 
        (3) receiving gifts of travel expenses and golf 
        equipment from Hanbo Steel and General Construction in 
        1994 totaling approximately $3,640, in violation of 
        Clause 4 of then-House Rule and Clause 1 of House Rule 
        43; (4) failing to disclose the gifts of travel 
        expenses and golf equipment on his Financial Disclosure 
        Statement for 1994, in violation of the Ethics in 
        Government Act of 1978 and Clause 2 of House Rule 44; 
        and (5) making false statements to the Investigative 
        Subcommittee regarding Dobum Kim.
          Count VI charges Representative Kim with violations 
        of House Rule 51 and Clause 1 of House Rule 43 by 
        receiving gifts in 1997 and 1998 consisting of two 
        cashier's checks totaling $30,000, which he used to pay 
        partial reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury for excess 
        outside earned income from his 1994 autobiography, 
        ``I'm Conservative''.
    Representative Kim filed an Answer to the Statement of 
Alleged Violation in which he admitted only the statutory 
violations to which he pleaded guilty in 1997 (not charged by 
the Investigative Subcommittee) \1\ but denied all other 
charges, including alleged violations of House Rules based on 
those statutory violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Investigative Subcommittee charged Representative Kim only 
with violations of House Rules in connection with the statutory 
violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act to which he had pleaded 
guilty; it did not charge him with violations of the statutes 
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee also found evidence of other 
possible misconduct meriting public disclosure that did not 
result in charges against Representative Kim. Particularly 
noteworthy is evidence indicating that:
          Representative Kim had contemporaneous knowledge of 
        false statements by his campaign committee to the 
        Federal Election Commission (``FEC'') in disclosure 
        reports filed from 1992 through early 1997 regarding 
        contributions by Jaycee Kim, Song Nien Yeh, and Robert 
        Yu, which resulted in a guilty plea in 1997 by 
        Representative Kim on behalf of his campaign to felony 
        violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.
          Representative Kim had contemporaneous knowledge of 
        false statements by his campaign committee to the FEC 
        in disclosure reports filed in 1992 and 1993 regarding 
        in-kind corporate contributions to his campaign by 
        JayKim Engineers, Inc., which resulted in a guilty plea 
        in 1997 by Representative Kim on behalf of his campaign 
        to a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.
          Representative Kim did not act in good faith with 
        respect to a directive by the Committee, and his own 
        agreement with the Committee, to repay $112,258 in 
        excess earned income from his book, ``I'm 
        Conservative'', which was published in South Korea in 
        1994. The record indicates that funds were available to 
        Representative Kim during the last few years that he 
        could have used to make timely and more substantial 
        reimbursement payments, and that he directed some of 
        those funds (including $50,000 in March 1998) to his 
        campaign committee instead.
          Approximately $51,000 was raised in South Korea in 
        late 1997, and deposited into a bank account there in 
        the name of Representative Kim's wife, June Kim, by a 
        person acting at Representative Kim's request to help 
        defray June Kim's legal expenses in the United States, 
        under circumstances that appear to conflict with 
        express written conditions previously imposed by the 
        Committee in July 1997 concerning such fundraising. The 
        record indicates that the persons who contributed to 
        Mrs. Kim's legal defense fund did so primarily to 
        benefit Representative Kim, and that June Kim therefore 
        did not receive or acquire the funds independent of her 
        relationship to Representative Kim as a Member of the 
        House of Representatives.
    In connection with its investigation of Representative 
Kim's book, the Investigative Subcommittee found credible 
evidence that his wife, June Kim, transferred approximately 
$86,000 in August 1994 from a South Korean bank account in her 
name to the United States, at least $75,000 of which was 
deposited into a joint equity line of credit account in 
California in the name of Representative Kim and June Kim. 
Representative Kim testified that he had no knowledge of the 
$86,000 transfer, assumed the money derived from sales of his 
book in South Korea, but had no actual knowledge that the money 
related to book sales. The Subcommittee was concerned about 
whether the money in fact related to book sales, as bank 
records indicated that the bulk of the funds apparently 
comprising the $86,000 was deposited into Mrs. Kim's South 
Korean bank account substantially before the book was published 
in August 1994. Ultimately, theSubcommittee was unable to 
confirm that the funds transferred from Mrs. Kim's bank account in 
South Korea constituted proceeds from the sale of Representative Kim's 
book.
    On October 6, 1998, the full Committee unanimously adopted 
the Investigative Subcommittee's report. Pursuant to a 
recommendation by the Subcommittee, the full Committee also 
unanimously voted that no further action be taken in this 
matter.

                            II. Introduction

    During the period of 1993-1997, Representative Jay Kim and 
his campaign committee were the subject of a criminal 
investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central 
District of California in connection with possible violations 
of federal election campaign laws. In July 1997, Representative 
Kim entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's 
Office pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor 
violations of Federal election campaign laws.\2\ Specifically, 
Representative Kim pleaded guilty to: (1) knowingly accepting 
an illegal $50,000 contribution to his 1992 campaign from a 
Taiwanese national; (2) knowingly contributing more than 
$83,000 in illegal corporate contributions from JayKim 
Engineers, Inc. (``JKE'') to his 1992 campaign; and (3) 
knowingly accepting an illegal $12,000 corporate contribution 
to his 1992 campaign from Nikko Enterprises, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Plea Agreement, United States v. Kim, No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. Cal. 
filed July 31, 1997) (hereinafter ``Plea Agreement'') (Exh. 1); Exh. 2 
(transcript of August 1997 court proceeding where Representative Kim 
entered guilty pleas). The U.S. Attorney's Office subsequently amended 
the statements of facts incorporated within the plea agreements of 
Representative Jay Kim and the Jay Kim for Congress Committee to revise 
certain references to Representative Kim's wife, June Kim. The copies 
of the plea agreements of Representative Kim and his campaign committee 
that are included in the documentary appendix to this Report contain 
the amended statements of facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the misdemeanors to which he personally 
pleaded guilty, Representative Kim also entered guilty pleas on 
behalf of his campaign committee to five felony counts of 
concealing illegal contributions in reports that his campaign 
committee filed with the Federal Election Commission (``FEC'') 
during the period of 1992 to 1997.\3\ Through Representative 
Kim, the campaign committee pleaded guilty to concealing from 
the FEC: $98,000 in illegal loan contributions; $83,248 in 
illegal corporate contributions from JayKim Engineers, Inc.; 
$19,000 in illegal corporate contributions made by individuals 
who were reimbursed by corporations; thousands of dollars in 
illegal corporate contributions; and an illegal $1,000 
corporate contribution from Korean Air.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Representative Kim's entry of a plea on behalf of his campaign 
committee was required by the terms of his own plea agreement.
    \4\ Exh. 3 (plea agreement of Jay Kim for Congress Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's wife, June Kim, also pleaded guilty to 
two misdemeanor counts charging her with knowingly accepting 
more than $19,000 in illegal corporate contributions in 
violation of federal election campaign laws.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Exh. 4 (plea agreement of June O. Kim).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 6, 1997, The Hill published an article raising 
questions about whether Representative Kim might have benefited 
financially from a contract awarded by his congressional office 
to Image Media Services, Inc. to perform news clipping and 
translation services.\6\ The article reported that June Kim had 
been a business partner of Jennifer Ahn, the owner of Image 
Media Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Exh. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 10, 1997, The Hill published another article 
raising questions about whether Representative Kim had falsely 
reported campaign contributions as personal loans on Financial 
Disclosure Statements filed with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Exh. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 11, 1997, full Committee Chairman James V. 
Hansen and Ranking Democratic Member Howard L. Berman publicly 
announced their intention to recommend an investigation 
concerning Representative Kim.\8\ They also announced that they 
had ``instructed Committee staff to meet with Department of 
Justice officials in Washington, DC and Los Angeles to gather 
additional information.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Exh. 7.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 13, 1997, the Washington Post published an 
article raising questions about whether income from June Kim's 
autobiography, ``There Are Opportunities,'' had been accurately 
reported on Representative Kim's Financial Disclosure 
Statements.\10\ The article also raised questions about whether 
Representative Kim accurately had reported a liability on his 
Financial Disclosure Statements that he had described as a 
personal loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Exh. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about September 25, 1997, the Committee asked the 
United States Attorney for the Central District of California 
to provide copies of plea agreements and other documents 
relating to the prosecution of Jay Kim and June Kim, as well as 
reports of witness interviews conducted by the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (``FBI'').\11\ The Committee also asked the 
U.S. Attorney to arrange a meeting in Los Angeles between 
Committee staff attorneys and government attorneys and 
investigators who worked on the criminal investigation of 
Representative Kim and related cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Exh. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about October 30, 1997, the Committee received copies 
from the Department of Justice of documents the Committee had 
requested in its letter of September 25, 1997, including plea 
agreements regarding Jay Kim, June Kim, and the Jay Kim for 
Congress Committee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The U.S. Attorney's Office did not indict Representative Kim 
because he entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted to 
committing criminal violations. Instead, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
filed an ``information'' with the U.S. District Court for the Central 
District of California, in which the charges that were the subject of 
the plea agreements were set forth. See Exh. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 1997, the House Parliamentarian advised the 
Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member that copies of charging 
documents and plea agreements transmitted to the Committee by 
the Department of Justice met the requirements of House and 
Committee rules for what constitutes a complaint, and that they 
could file such a complaint as constructive complainants. The 
Parliamentarian also advised the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member that the Committee had jurisdiction under 
House Rule 10, Clause 4(e), to investigate allegations of 
misconduct relating to a successful campaign for election to 
the House.
    Consequently, the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member 
exercised their authority under Committee Rule 17(c) to 
establish an investigative subcommittee to conduct an inquiry 
concerning Representative Kim. In a letter to Representative 
Kim dated December 17, 1997, the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member notified Representative Kim of the 
establishment of the investigative subcommittee and of the 
scope of the subcommittee's inquiry.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Exh. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In their letter of December 17, 1997, the Committee 
Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member advised Representative 
Kim that they had established an investigative subcommittee 
``to examine matters related to plea agreements that you and 
June Kim entered into with the Department of Justice in July 
1997.'' The letter further stated that the investigative 
subcommittee would

        have authority to investigate: (1) alleged 
        improprieties concerning Financial Disclosure 
        Statements that you have filed pursuant to the Ethics 
        in Government Act; (2) whether the facts relating to 
        the publication of a book by June Kim entitled ``There 
        Are Opportunities,'' and any royalties or other 
        payments tendered in connection with that book, 
        complied with House rules and applicable laws; (3) your 
        failure to comply with an agreement with the Committee 
        to return outside income from the publication of your 
        book, ``I'm Conservative,'' which exceeded the 
        statutory limit of $20,040; and (4) your knowledge, if 
        any, regarding illegal contributions made to your 1992 
        congressional campaign by Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. 
        and other companies.

    Representative Lamar Smith was appointed Chairman of the 
investigative subcommittee, and Representative Ed Pastor was 
appointed the Ranking Democratic Member. Representative Ed 
Bryant and Representative Robert C. Scott also were appointed 
to the investigative subcommittee pursuant to Clause 6(a)(3) of 
House Rule 10, which provides for non-Committee Members of the 
House of Representatives to serve on investigative 
subcommittees. The Committee publicly announced the 
establishment of the investigative subcommittee on December 18, 
1997.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Exh. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 5, 1998, the Committee considered the action 
taken on the Kim case by the Chairman and Ranking Democratic 
Member in December 1997 and affirmed that it ``has jurisdiction 
to investigate allegations of misconduct relating to a 
successful campaign for election to the House,'' thereby 
ratifying the previous action taken by the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member.

                   III. Relevant Standards of Conduct

Federal election campaign laws

    2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b: It is illegal for a corporation to make 
a contribution of any amount to a candidate for federal 
election.
    2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e: It is illegal for a foreign national to 
make a contribution of any amount to a candidate for federal 
election.
    2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g(d)(1)(A): Any person who knowingly and 
willfully commits a violation of any provision of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act which involves the making, receiving, or 
reporting of any contribution or expenditure aggregating $2,000 
or more during a calendar year shall be fined, or imprisoned 
for not more than one year, or both. The amount of this fine 
shall not exceed the greater of $25,000 or 300 percent of any 
contribution or expenditure involved in such violation.

Law regarding financial disclosure by candidates and House Members

    Section 104(a) of the Ethics in Government Act: ``The 
Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate 
United States district court against any individual who 
knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and 
willfully fails to report any information that such individual 
is required to report pursuant to section 102 [of the Act]. The 
court in which such action is brought may assess against such 
individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed 
$10,000.''

House rules

    House Rule 43, Clause 1: ``A Member, officer or employee of 
the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times 
in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives.''
    Former House Rule 43, Clause 4: ``A Member * * * of the 
House of Representatives shall not accept gifts (other than 
personal hospitality of an individual or with a fair market 
value of $100 or less * * * in any calendar year aggregating 
more than * * * $250, * * * directly or indirectly, from any 
person (other than a relative) except to the extent permitted 
by written waiver granted in exceptional circumstances by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 
4(e)(E) of rule X.'' The term ``gift'' was defined to include 
``[a] payment, subscription, advance, forbearance, rendering, 
or deposit of money, services, or anything of value, including 
food, lodging, transportation, or entertainment, and 
reimbursement for other than necessary expenses, unless 
consideration of equal or greater value is received by the 
donor.'' \15\ A Member of the House of Representatives was 
permitted to accept a gift of travel expenses, including 
lodging, if the gift was in connection with ``fact-finding'' or 
events in which the Member ``substantially participated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ This rule was in effect at the time Representative Kim became 
a Member of the House of Representatives in January 1993 and remained 
in effect until January 1996, when it was superseded by then-House Rule 
52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Rule 44, Clause 2: ``For the purposes of this rule, 
the provisions of Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 
1978 shall be deemed to be a rule of the House as it pertains 
to Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
Representatives.''
    House Rule 51, Clause 1(a)-(b). ``No Member, officer, or 
employee of the House of Representatives shall knowingly accept 
a gift except as provided in this rule * * * For purposes of 
this rule, the term `gift' means any gratuity, favor, discount, 
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item 
having monetary value.''

        IV. Evidence Relating to Statement of Alleged Violation

   A. Count I: Violation of House Rule 43, Clause 1 (Causing In-Kind 
                    Contribution from a Corporation)

    The Subcommittee obtained credible evidence that during 
1992 and 1993 Jay Kim caused JayKim Engineers, Inc. to make 
extensive in-kind contributions to his campaign organization in 
violation of Federal election campaign laws and House rules, 
and that such illegal assistance occurred with the knowledge 
and approval of Representative Kim.\16\ According to the facts 
to which Representative Kim stipulated in his plea agreement, 
the in-kind contributions of office space, personnel and 
related expenses totaled approximately $83,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Count I of the SAV adopted by the Investigative Subcommittee 
on August 7, 1998, charged Representative Kim with making an illegal 
corporate in-kind contribution in addition to causing such a 
contribution to be made, consistent with the terminology in the 
criminal information corresponding to Representative Kim's plea 
agreement. However, the Statement of Facts to which Representative Kim 
stipulated did not include the language specifically stating that 
Representative Kim ``made'' an in-kind contribution. The Subcommittee 
did not perceive a substantive difference between the two formulations, 
and subsequently deleted the charge that Representative Kim made 
illegal in-kind corporate contributions in response to concerns by 
Representative Kim's counsel that the Subcommittee was charging 
Representative Kim with a violation to which he did not plead guilty. 
See Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor to Ralph 
Lotkin, Sept. 16, 1998 (Exh. 13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility by Representative Kim

    On or about July 28, 1997, Representative Kim signed a plea 
agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Central District of California regarding an investigation 
relating to the financing of his 1992, 1994, and 1996 campaigns 
for the House of Representatives.\17\ Representative Kim agreed 
to waive indictment by a grand jury and to plead guilty to 
making an illegal corporate contribution in violation of 2 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 441b and 437g.\18\ Representative Kim's plea 
agreement was filed with the United States District Court for 
the Central District of California on or about July 31, 
1997.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Exh. 1.
    \18\ Id. (para. 2); Information, Count 6, United States v. Jay C. 
Kim, No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. Cal. filed July 31, 1997) (Exh. 10). The 
Federal Election Campaign Act defines a contribution as ``anything of 
value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election 
for Federal office.'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 431(8)(A)(I). An in-kind 
contribution is ``the provision of any goods or services without charge 
or at a charge which is less than the usual and normal charge for such 
goods and services.'' 11 C.F.R. Sec. 100.7(a)(1)(iii).
    \19\ Notice of Filing Plea Agreements, United States v. Jay C. Kim, 
No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. Cal. filed July 31, 1997) (Exh. 14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about August 11, 1997, Representative Kim was 
convicted of making an illegal corporate campaign contribution 
pursuant to his plea agreement. Representative Kim stipulated 
to the following facts as the factual basis for his plea of 
guilty:

    1. Defendant JAY C. KIM, also known as Changjoon Kim, 
(``defendant JAY KIM'') was the President of JayKim Engineers, 
Inc. from 1978 to 1992. Defendant JAY KIM was the Mayor of 
Diamond Bar California, from 1991 through 1992. On February 10, 
1992, defendant JAY KIM registered with the Federal Election 
Commission as a candidate for the United States House of 
Representatives. In November 1992, defendant JAY KIM was 
elected to the United States House of Representatives. 
Defendant JAY KIM was re-elected in November 1994 and in 
November 1996.
    3. Defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE (FEC No. 
C00260133) is a federal campaign committee formed by defendant 
JAY KIM or about February 10, 1992, and registered with the 
Federal Election Commission. * * * From March 1992 until July 
1993, the headquarters of defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS 
COMMITTEE was located within the office space of JayKim 
Engineers, Inc., in Diamond Bar, California.
    4. JayKim Engineers, Inc. was incorporated as a California 
corporation under the laws of the State of California in 1978. 
JayKim Engineers, Inc., was a civil engineering firm with its 
principal place of business located in Diamond Bar, California. 
In February 1992, JayKim Engineers, Inc., had approximately 
ninety employees and had contacts with the federal government 
and municipalities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    7. It is illegal for a corporation * * * or a person who 
enters a contract with an agency of the United States to make a 
contribution of any amount to a candidate in a federal 
election.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    9. Beginning in or about March, 1992, through in or about 
July, 1993, defendant JAY KIM caused JayKim Engineers, Inc., to 
contribute to defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE 
approximately $83,248 in in-kind contributions. The in-kind 
contributions included office space, printing expenses, 
automobile expenses, postage, Federal Express expenses, food 
and travel expenses, janitorial services, and secretarial and 
other personnel services. The in-kind contributions had an 
aggregate value of more than $2,000 in 1992 and more than 
$2,000 in 1993. Defendant JAY KIM knew that it was illegal for 
corporations, including JayKim Engineers, Inc., to make 
contributions, including in-kind contributions, to federal 
election campaigns such as his, but he caused JayKim Engineers, 
Inc., to make those contributions anyway.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Exh. 1 (paras. 1, 3-4, 7 and 9).

    On March 9, 1998, Representative Kim appeared in federal 
district court for his sentencing. At the proceeding, his 
attorney discussed Representative Kim's knowledge of the 
campaign's receipt of in-kind contributions from JayKim 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineers, Inc.:

    Mr. Kim accepts responsibility. He knows what he did was 
wrong. He knows it violated the law. And he knew there was a 
law there at the time. And he knew there were things you could 
do and things you couldn't do.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [T]he laws are very complicated, but he had an obligation 
and a responsibility to know that when he took money or loans, 
or when he used his personal corporation to make contributions, 
in-kind to the campaign committee, that's wrong. And he accepts 
responsibility for it.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Sentencing Hearing, United States v. Kim, No. 97-726-RAP (C.D. 
Cal. March 9, 1998), at 39-40 (hereinafter ``Sentencing Hearing'') 
(Exh. 15). Had JayKim Engineers, Inc. been structured as a sole 
proprietorship rather than as a corporation, the in-kind contributions 
at issue would not have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, as 
the contributions would have been from Jay Kim's personal funds. See 11 
C.F.R. Sec. 110.10(b); Advisory Opinion 1990-9, Federal Election 
Commission (June 15, 1990). Representative Kim's campaign committee 
would have been required, however, to report such contributions to the 
FEC as in-kind contributions by Jay Kim. Advisory Opinion 1990-9, 
Federal Election Commission (June 15, 1990) (citing 11 C.F.R. 
Sec. 100.7(a)(1)(iii)). As stated in the Statement of Facts to which 
Representative Kim stipulated as part of his plea agreement, ``from on 
or about April 13, 1992 through on or about July 30, 1993, defendant 
JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE submitted to the Federal Election 
Commission campaign finance reports which failed to report that JayKim 
Engineers, Inc. contributed in-kind corporate resources to defendant 
JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, even though defendant JAY KIM and other 
agents of defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew that those 
contributions were legally required to be reported.'' Exh. 1 (at 8-9, 
para. 10).

Representative Kim also spoke at his sentencing and told the 
court that he accepted complete responsibility for his 
conduct.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Sentencing Hearing at 52. On March 9, 1998, Representative Kim 
received the following sentence for his conviction for the three 
misdemeanor violations to which he pleaded guilty: (1) one year of 
probation, including two months in a home detention program that 
included electronic monitoring; (2) 200 hours of community service; (3) 
a fine of $5,000; and (4) a special assessment of $75. See Exh. 16 
(Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim provided information to the 
Investigative Subcommittee regarding his guilty plea to causing 
an illegal corporate contribution on two occasions. In a letter 
dated January 29, 1998, he told the Subcommittee that he did 
not dispute any element of the plea agreement or statement of 
facts stipulated to in the plea agreement.\23\ On June 8, 1998, 
Representative Kim testified under oath that he adopted the 
plea agreement, including the statement of facts regarding 
illegal corporate contributions by JKE to his campaign 
committee.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Exh. 17.
    \24\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 145-149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee

    In addition to the information it obtained from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, the Subcommittee independently obtained 
credible testimonial and documentary evidence that corroborated 
the Statement of Facts incorporated within Representative Kim's 
plea agreement.
            a. Representative Kim's knowledge of federal election 
                    campaign laws
    The Subcommittee received substantial credible evidence 
that Representative Kim had knowledge of the federal statutory 
prohibition against corporate campaign contributions as early 
as the 1980's. Most notably, the Subcommittee received credible 
testimony from Carmen Suarez, a former vice president at JayKim 
Engineers, Inc., that Jay Kim caused JayKim Engineers, Inc. to 
make several conduit contributions to Members of Congress 
during the 1980's and early 1990's.\25\ Representative Kim 
testified that he was on notice by at least 1987 that 
corporations cannot make contributions to federal candidates 
when the campaign committee of a federal candidate returned a 
JKE corporate contribution with a letter noting the prohibition 
against corporate campaign contributions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Deposition of Carmen Suarez, March 31, 1998, at 50-51, 66-72, 
83-96, 105-14, 118, 122. Suarez's testimony was supported by credible 
documentary evidence indicating that corporate officials and employees, 
including Jay Kim, were reimbursed by JKE for political contributions 
to federal candidates. Fred Schultz, the former Chief Financial Officer 
at JKE, corroborated Suarez's testimony with regard to Representative 
Kim's knowledge and approval of a conduit contribution by JKE in March 
1993, after Jay Kim had become a Member of the House of 
Representatives. Telephone Interview of Fred Schultz, June 16, 1998. 
Representative Kim, for his part, described Suarez as an ``honest'' 
person. Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 2, 1998, at 161-62.
    \26\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 2, 1998, at 136-37 (``That's where 
I learned it. Corporate checks cannot be accepted.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Representative Kim became a candidate for the House of 
Representatives in 1992, his campaign staff told him that it 
was illegal for corporations, including JayKim Engineers, Inc., 
to contribute to his campaign. Robert Gouty, Representative 
Kim's political consultant, advised Representative Kim of the 
basic rules regarding campaign contributions and told 
Representative Kim at the beginning of the 1992 campaign that 
the campaign committee could not receive contributions from a 
corporation.\27\ Jerry Silva, campaign manager during the 1992 
primary campaign, also informed Representative Kim of the laws 
regarding receipt of political contributions and specifically 
advised against receipt of corporate contributions.\28\ Silva 
testified that he personally gave Representative Kim a video 
prepared by the Federal Election Commission (hereinafter 
``FEC'') that explained the basic rules regarding 
contributions.\29\ In addition, Silva testified that he gave 
Representative Kim an FEC publication that included detailed 
explanations of the applicable limits on contributions to 
congressional campaigns.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Deposition of Robert Gouty, March 30, 1998, at 73-74 
(hereinafter ``Gouty Dep.'').
    \28\ Deposition of Jerry Silva, March 2, 1998, at 110-115 
(hereinafter ``Silva Dep.''). Silva left the campaign after the 
primary. The circumstances surrounding his departure subsequently were 
the subject of litigation between Silva and Representative Kim. The 
Subcommittee found Silva's testimony to be credible regarding the facts 
cited in this report.
    \29\ Id. at 110-111.
    \30\ Id. at 113-114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other campaign staff, including Ted Moreno, deputy campaign 
manager during a brief period before the primary, also provided 
testimony that Representative Kim was familiar with the laws 
regarding campaign contributions.\31\ Jane Chong, a campaign 
worker during the primary, corroborated Moreno's testimony. 
Chong testified that Moreno explained the FEC regulations to 
Representative Kim during the early phase of the primary 
campaign.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Deposition of Ted Moreno, March 4, 1998, at 12-13, 44-56 
(hereinafter ``Moreno Dep.'').
    \32\ Deposition of Jane Chong, March 18, 1998, at 17-21 
(hereinafter ``Chong Dep.''). Chong remembered only one conversation 
between Moreno and Representative Kim but testified that Moreno told 
her he had several conversations with Representative Kim regarding this 
issue. Id. Chong later became office manager for the campaign and after 
the election served as campaign treasurer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a letter dated April 2, 1998, the Subcommittee asked 
Representative Kim to describe his knowledge of FEC regulations 
concerning campaign contributions at the beginning of his 
campaign.\33\ In a letter dated May 21, 1998, Representative 
Kim responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Exh. 18.

    Prior to becoming a candidate for the House of 
Representatives, I had no specific knowledge or experience with 
regard to FEC laws and regulations. Any ``knowledge'' I 
obtained subsequent to February 10, 1992, would have been on a 
hearsay basis in reliance upon the statements or assertions of 
others. I depended upon my campaign manager and campaign 
consultant to undertake all reasonable and necessary steps to 
assure compliance with relevant guidelines. At the time I 
became a congressional candidate, I was the President of my own 
company with approximately 125 employees and did not devote 
significant portions of my time to ``learning'' FECA laws and 
regulations.

           *         *         *         *         *

    The campaign manager, campaign CPA, and office manager were 
primarily responsible for campaign finance matters.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Exh. 19.

    The Subcommittee found Representative Kim's assertion in 
his letter of lack of knowledge prior to 1992 to be 
inconsistent with the credible testimony of Carmen Suarez and 
other persons, as well as inconsistent with Representative 
Kim's own subsequent testimony under oath. In addition, the 
Subcommittee determined that Representative Kim personally had 
the obligation and responsibility to know that his use of his 
personal corporation to make in-kind contributions to his 
campaign committee violated federal law, as Representative 
Kim's attorney stated at the sentencing proceeding on March 9, 
1998.
    Based on the record as a whole, particularly the terms of 
his guilty plea in federal district court, the Subcommittee 
found substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim 
knew that it was illegal for a corporation, including JayKim 
Engineers, Inc., to make a contribution of any amount, to a 
candidate for federal office, including an in-kind 
contribution.
            b. Causation of in-kind contributions by JayKim Engineers, 
                    Inc.
    The Subcommittee also found substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Kim knowingly and willfully caused JayKim 
Engineers Inc. to make illegal in-kind contributions to his 
campaign committee between March 1992 and July 1993. The 
Subcommittee deposed several members of Representative Kim's 
1992 campaign staff as well as former employees of JayKim 
Engineers, Inc. Subcommittee counsel also interviewed 
additional witnesses from the campaign staff and JKE and 
reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interview notes 
received from the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys Office. The 
witnesses and documents corroborated the Statement of Facts 
underlying Representative Kim's admission of guilt in federal 
court.
    The record indicates that in 1978, JayKim Engineers, Inc. 
was incorporated in the State of California.\35\ Representative 
Kim was the president and owner of JKE from 1978 to 1992.\36\ 
On February 10, 1992, Representative Kim filed as a candidate 
for the U.S. House of Representatives.\37\ Between March 1992 
and July 1993, the campaign headquarters was located inside the 
offices of JKE.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Statement of Facts, para. 4 (Exh. 1); Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, 
June 2, 1998, at 10-12.
    \36\ Statement of Facts, para. 1 (Exh. 1); Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, 
June 2, 1998, at 12,14.
    \37\ Statement of Facts, paras. 1, 3 (Exh. 1); Dep. of Hon. Jay 
Kim, June 2, 1998, at 57.
    \38\ Statement of Facts, para. 3 (Exh. 1); Silva Dep. at 57-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By his own admission, Representative Kim caused JKE to make 
in-kind contributions to the JayKim for Congress Committee from 
March 1992 through July 1993, a period overlapping with his 
first term as a Member of the House of Representatives.\39\ The 
in-kind contributions included office space,\40\ printing 
expenses,\41\ photocopying expenses,\42\ postage,\43\ use of 
corporate telephones and computers,\44\ janitorial 
services,\45\ secretarial and other personnel services,\46\ and 
supplies.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1).
    \40\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Suarez; Dep. at 159-60; 
Gouty Dep. at 66-67, 73; Dep. of Fred Schultz, Feb. 25, 1998, at 77-84, 
103 (hereinafter ``Schultz Dep.''); Silva Dep. at 63-67, 106-108. Fred 
Schultz was involved in litigation with Representative Kim concerning 
the circumstances of his 1993 termination at Jay Kim Engineers, Inc. 
and related matters. The Subcommittee found that Schultz provided 
credible testimony regarding the matter of in-kind contributions by JKE 
to Representative Kim's campaign.
    \41\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Silva Dep. at 81, 99.
    \42\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Moreno Dep. at 59; Silva 
Dep. at 81; Schultz Dep. at 90-92.
    \43\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Schultz Dep. at 88-89.
    \44\ Schultz Dep. at 92-93.
    \45\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Schultz Dep. at 89-90.
    \46\ Statement of Facts, para. 9 (Exh. 1); Suarez Dep. at 179-81; 
Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 145-47.
    \47\ Silva Dep. at 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the time JKE made these in-kind contributions to the 
campaign, Representative Kim supervised the finances of both 
JKE and the campaign.\48\ Based on his own previous 
contributions to federal candidates and briefings by his 
campaign staff, Representative Kim knew that it was illegal for 
corporations, including JKE, to make contributions to 
congressional campaigns, including in-kind contributions.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Suarez Dep. at 142, 182.
    \49\ Gouty Dep. at 63-67, 73-74; Moreno Dep. at 44-56; Chong Dep. 
at 17-21; Dep. of Sandra Garner, March 5, 1998, at 134; Silva Dep. at 
110-15; Schultz Dep. at 52-56, 66, 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 1992, Representative Kim initialed and caused to 
be distributed two memoranda for the employees of JKE, 
instructing them not to work on his campaign during business 
hours.\50\ Numerous JKE employees, however, continued to work 
for the campaign on company time with Representative Kim's 
knowledge.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Suarez Dep. at 174-76; Exhs. 20-21.
    \51\ Suarez Dep. at 175-79; Silva Dep. at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B. Count II: Violations of House Rule 43, Clause 1; House Rule 44, 
Clause 2; and Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Acceptance and Receipt 
    of a Contribution from a Foreign National; False Statements on 
 Financial Disclosure Statements; and False Statements to Subcommittee)

    The Investigative Subcommittee obtained credible evidence 
that in May 1992, Representative Kim knowingly received an 
illegal $50,000 campaign contribution from a foreign national 
in violation of federal election campaign laws and House rules. 
In addition, the Subcommittee determined that Representative 
Kim made false statementsregarding this contribution on his 
Financial Disclosure Statements and in statements to the Subcommittee.

1. Guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility by Representative Kim

    Pursuant to his plea agreement, Representative Kim pleaded 
guilty to accepting an illegal foreign campaign contribution in 
violation of 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 441e and 437g.\52\ On or about 
August 11, 1997, Representative Kim was convicted of accepting 
an illegal foreign campaign contribution pursuant to his plea 
agreement. Representative Kim stipulated to the following facts 
as the factual basis for his plea of guilty:

    \52\ Exh. 1.

    7. It is illegal for * * * a foreign national * * * make a 
contribution of any amount to a candidate in a federal 
election. It is also illegal for any person to make a 
contribution in excess of $1,000 to a federal candidate in a 
primary or general election * * * to make a contribution by 
using the name of another person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    15. On or about May 22, 1992, defendant JAY KIM accepted a 
$50,000 loan from Song Nien Yeh, whom defendant JAY KIM knew 
was a Taiwanese national. Defendant JAY KIM deposited the 
$50,000 payment into his personal bank account. On May 26, 
1992, defendant JAY KIM wrote a $50,000 check on his personal 
bank account and deposited the check into the bank account of 
defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE. Defendant JAY KIM 
knew that the payment from Song Nien Yeh was an illegal 
excessive and foreign contribution.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Statement of Facts, paras. 7 and 15 (Exh. 1). Copies of the 
promissory note, the $50,000 cashier's check comprising the purported 
loan, documents regarding the $50,000 deposit into Jay Kim's personal 
account, and the $50,000 check written by Jay Kim to his campaign 
committee are incorporated together as Exhibit 22 in the documentary 
appendix to this Report.

    Representative Kim also accepted responsibility for 
accepting an illegal contribution from a foreign national in 
the sentencing proceedings of his criminal case.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Letter of Rep. Kim to Hon. Richard A. Paez, February 25, 1998 
(Exh. 23); Sentencing hearing at 39-40, 52 (Exh. 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim provided information to the Subcommittee 
regarding this contribution on two occasions. In a letter dated 
January 29, 1998, Representative Kim told the Subcommittee that 
he did not dispute any element of the plea agreement or 
statement of facts.\55\ On June 8, 1998, Representative Kim 
testified that he stood by and adopted under oath the plea 
agreement, including the Statement of Facts incorporated within 
the plea agreement.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Exh. 17.
    \56\ Dep. of Hon. Jay. Kim, June 8, 1998, at 51-52, 55-56, 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee received credible testimonial and 
documentary evidence that corroborated the Statement of Facts 
incorporated within Representative Kim's plea agreement.
    Jerry Yeh, a volunteer in the 1992 Kim campaign and a real-
estate developer in Representative Kim's home town of Diamond 
Bar, California, provided credible testimony that in 
approximately May 1992, Representative Kim asked him for a loan 
to meet the payroll for JayKim Engineers, Inc.\57\ Yeh 
testified that he asked his father, Song Nien Yeh, for the 
money.\58\ Yeh testified that his father agreed to the loan and 
wired $50,000 from Taiwan to the United States.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\  Deposition of Jerry Yeh, February 27, 1998, at 13-15 
(hereinafter ``Yeh Dep.''). Representative Kim confirmed under oath 
that he personally asked Jerry Yeh for a loan in May 1992. Dep. of Hon. 
Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 25. He testified that he sought the loan to 
enable him to meet the payroll at JayKim Engineers, Inc. Id. at 25, 32.
    \58\ Yeh Dep. at 4, 18-21, 28.
    \59\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeh further testified that on May 13, 1992, Representative 
Kim signed a promissory note to Song Nien Yeh promising to 
repay the $50,000 loan, and that Representative Kim knew the 
money would come from Jerry Yeh's father.\60\ Yeh testified 
that he gave Representative Kim a $50,000 cashier's check.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Yeh Dep. at 28-29; see Exh. 22 (copy of promissory note). 
Representative Kim confirmed under oath that he executed the $50,000 
promissory note and authenticated his signature on the note. Dep. of 
Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 33.
    \61\ Yeh Dep. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeh's testimony was corroborated by a copy of the 
promissory note--made payable to Song Nien Yeh, not Jerry Yeh--
by notes of an FBI interview with Song Nien Yeh, and by a 
Committee staff interview of Michael Li, who raised money for 
Representative Kim's 1992 campaign and knew Yeh.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Song Nien Yeh told the FBI he was a foreign national. Federal 
Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview with Song Nien Yeh, 
Feb. 13, 1995, at 1. Li told Subcommittee counsel that he had arranged 
for Representative Kim to receive the contribution from Jerry Yeh's 
family. Li also said he told Representative Kim that Jerry Yeh's father 
was a wealthy Taiwanese businessman. In addition, Li said that Yeh 
asked for a few days to think about the request for loan, and mentioned 
to Li that any money would be coming from his father. Telephone 
Interview of Michael Li, Feb. 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim, for his part, testified that he did not 
know the name of Jerry Yeh's father during the relevant time 
period, and did not know anything about the father's 
citizenship.\63\ When asked at his deposition why the May 1992 
promissory note was made payable to ``Song Nien Yeh'' rather 
than Jerry Yeh, Representative Kim testified that ``I thought 
that was Jerry Yeh's Chinese name.'' \64\ Representative Kim 
acknowledged, however, that Jerry Yeh had never previously told 
Representative Kim that his Chinese name was ``Song Nien Yeh.'' 
\65\ Representative Kim testified that he did not learn that 
Jerry Yeh's father was the actual source of the $50,000 loan 
until he read it in the newspaper.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 26-28.
    \64\ Id. at 34-35.
    \65\ Id. at 35-36.
    \66\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 39. Subcommittee 
counsel asked Representative Kim at his deposition, ``When did it 
become your intent to use the money that Jerry Yeh had given to you for 
campaign purposes?'' Id. at 54. After consulting with his attorney, 
Representative Kim declined to answer the question, stating that ``I 
stand by [the] plea agreement.'' Id. at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. False statements on financial disclosure statements

    The Subcommittee received credible evidence that 
Representative Kim made false statements concerning the 
campaign contribution from Song Nien Yeh on his Financial 
Disclosure Statements. While a Member of Congress, 
Representative Kim filed Financial Disclosure Statements with 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives for calendar years 
1992 through 1997. In his Financial Disclosure Statements 
(``FDS'') for calendar year 1992, Representative Kim did not 
report a liability owed to Song Nien Yeh, despite receiving 
$50,000 in May 1992 pursuant to a promissory note bearing Song 
Nien Yeh's name.\67\ Representative Kim's Financial Disclosure 
Statements for calendar years 1993 through 1996 listed ``Jerry 
Yhee''--rather than Song Nien Yeh--as a creditor for a joint 
liability in the form of a personal loan in the amount of 
$15,001-$50,000.\68\ Finally, despite pleading guilty to the 
Song Nien Yeh contribution in August 1997, Representative Kim 
continued to list the contribution as a personal loan from 
``Jerry Yhee'' in his partial FDS for calendar year 1997, filed 
on May 22, 1998.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Exhs. 24-26.
    \68\ Exhs. 27-30.
    \69\ Exh. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing and on Representative Kim's 
admissions under oath in federal district court, the 
Subcommittee determined that Representative Kim's reporting of 
the $50,000 contribution from Song Nien Yeh as a personal loan 
from ``Jerry Yhee'' in his Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendar years 1993 through 1997 was false, and that this false 
statement was a deliberate and knowing attempt to disguise the 
true nature of the illegal political contribution.

4. False statements to the Investigative Subcommittee

    In their December 17, 1997, letter to Representative Kim, 
the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the full 
Committee asked Representative Kim. ``What is the relationship, 
if any, between the $50,000 loan from Song Nien Yeh referenced 
in Paragraph 15 of the Statement of Facts and a loan by Jerry 
Yhee reported on your Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendar years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996?'' \70\ In his letter 
to the Investigative Subcommittee dated January 29, 1998, 
Representative Kim responded in pertinent part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Exh. 11 (at 3, question 9).

          In May 1992, I obtained a personal loan from Mr. 
        Jerry Yhee of Fullerton, California. (The discrepancy 
        between the spellings of ``Yeh'' and ``Yhee'' is due to 
        different English spelling of the translation of the 
        same Chinese family name.) Song Nien Yeh is his real 
        Chinese name. Here in the United States he goes by 
        Jerry.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Exh. 17 (enclosure at 4) (emphasis added).

    The Subcommittee received credible evidence that 
Representative Kim knew that Song Nien Yeh and Jerry Yeh are 
two different individuals. Jerry Yeh testified that he and his 
father, Song Nien Yeh, met Representative Kim in 
California.\72\ In addition, Song Nien Yeh told the FBI he met 
Representative Kim in Taiwan in 1993.\73\ Jerry Yeh also 
testified that he never used the name ``Song Nien Yeh'' and 
that it is the name of his father.\74\ Further, Jerry Yeh 
testified that when he was introduced to Representative Kim, he 
was introduced as ``Jerry'' and not ``Song Nien.'' \75\ 
Representative Kim did not remember Jerry Yeh using another 
name.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Yeh Dep. at 11-12; see Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Memorandum of Interview of Song Nien Yeh, Feb. 13, 1995 (Exh. 32). 
Representative Kim testified that he met Jerry Yeh's father once for 
dinner. Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 28. Michael Li told 
Subcommittee counsel that Representative Kim met Jerry Yeh's father at 
JayKim Engineers, Inc.--before the $50,000 loan, Li believed--and that 
Representative Kim also had lunch with Jerry Yeh's father at a 
restaurant in Diamond Bar during the summer of 1992 after the primary 
election. Li Int., Feb. 11, 1998. Li also recalled that Representative 
Kim said that he had met Jerry Yeh's father in Taiwan during a trip 
there after the 1992 general election. Id.
    \73\ Exh. 32.
    \74\ Yeh Dep. at 4.
    \75\ Id. at 10.
    \76\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 29; Li Int. at 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A memorandum about the Yeh ``loan,'' dated August 10, 1993, 
provides additional evidence that Representative Kim knew that 
Song Nien Yeh and Jerry Yeh are two separate individuals. The 
memorandum, which Michael Li prepared for Representative Kim, 
stated in pertinent part that ``[h]e [referring to Jerry Yeh] 
cannot face his dad about the loan, if he return [sic] to 
Taiwan.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Exh. 33; see Yeh Dep. at 35. Li told the Subcommittee that he 
told Representative Kim about Jerry Yeh's frustration over 
Representative Kim's failure to repay the loan and his concern about 
disclosing the problem to his father. Li Int., Feb. 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing, and on Representative Kim's 
admission under oath in federal district court that he 
knowingly received an illegal foreign contribution from Song 
Nien Yeh, the Subcommittee found substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Kim made false statements regarding Jerry 
Yeh in his January 29, 1998, letter to the Subcommittee.

  C. Count III: Violations of House Rule 43, Clause 1 (Acceptance and 
Receipt of an Excessive Corporate Contribution and False Statements to 
                           the Subcommittee)

    The Subcommittee obtained credible evidence that during 
October 1992, Representative Kim knowingly received an illegal 
$12,000 corporate contribution in violation of Federal election 
campaign laws and House Rules. In addition, the Subcommittee 
determined that Representative Kim made false statements to the 
Subcommittee regarding this contribution.

1. Guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility by Representative Kim

    Pursuant to his plea agreement, Representative Kim pleaded 
guilty to accepting an illegal and excessive corporate campaign 
contribution in violation of 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 441b and 
437g.\78\ On or about August 11, 1997, Representative Kim was 
convicted of accepting an illegal and excessive corporate 
campaign contribution pursuant to his plea agreement. 
Representative Kim stipulated to the following facts as the 
factual basis for his plea of guilty:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ Exh. 1.

    7. It is illegal for a corporation * * * to make a 
contribution of any amount to a candidate in a federal 
election. It is also illegal for any person to make a 
contribution in excess of $1,000 to a federal candidate in a 
primary or general election * * * to make a contribution by 
using the name of another person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    18. In September, 1992, defendant JAY KIM attended a 
fundraising dinner in New York City where the president of 
Nikko Enterprises, Inc. (``Nikko''), a corporation, told 
defendant JAY KIM, that he would make a large contribution to 
defendant JAY KIM's congressional campaign. Shortly thereafter, 
the president of Nikko caused a Nikko corporate check in the 
amount of $12,000 to be issued for the purpose of making a 
political contribution. The $12,000 contribution check was 
forwarded to a New York fundraiser for defendant JAY KIM. The 
New York fundraiser telephoned defendant JAY KIM and told him 
that he received the check. Defendant JAY KIM and the New York 
fundraiser also discussed the amount and corporate nature of 
the check. The New York fundraiser mailed the $12,000 
contribution check to defendant JAY KIM in Diamond Bar, 
California. Thereafter, in October, 1992, defendant JAY KIM 
received and accepted the $12,000 contribution check, which was 
then endorsed by defendant JUNE KIM and deposited in defendants 
JAY KIM's and JUNE KIM's joint personal bank account. Defendant 
JAY KIM knew that the $12,000 Nikko contribution check was an 
illegal corporate and excessive contribution.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Exh. 1 (Statement of Facts, para. 7, 18).

    Representative Kim also accepted responsibility for the 
above-specified violation in the sentencing proceedings of his 
criminal case.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ Letter of Rep. Kim to Hon. Richard A. Paez, February 25, 1998 
(Exh. 23); Sentencing hearing at 39-40, 52 (Exh. 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim provided information to the 
Investigative Subcommittee regarding the illegal $12,000 
corporate contribution from Nikko on two occasions. In a letter 
dated January 29, 1998, Representative Kim stated that he did 
not dispute any element of the plea agreement or the Statement 
of Facts.\81\ On June 8, 1998, Representative Kim testified 
that he stood by and adopted under oath the provisions of the 
statement of facts relating to the Nikko contribution.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Exh. 17 (enclosure, para. 1).
    \82\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 90-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee received credible testimonial and 
documentary evidence that corroborated the facts to which 
Representative Kim admitted in his guilty plea.
    David Chang, the owner of Nikko Enterprise, Inc., a 
commodity export company, provided credible testimony that on 
September 21, 1992, he attended a fundraiser for President Bush 
at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.\83\ Chang testified 
that he was introduced to Representative Kim, whom he had never 
met before, and agreed to make a contribution to Representative 
Kim's campaign.\84\ Chang testified that on September 28, 1992, 
he gave Yung Soo Yoo, a Republican fundraiser, a check for 
$12,000.\85\ The payee portion of the check was left blank at 
Yoo's direction.\86\ According to Chang, the memorandum portion 
of the check indicated it was a political donation.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Deposition of David Chang, February 26, 1998, at 29 
(hereinafter ``Chang Dep.'').
    \84\ Id. at 46-47.
    \85\ Id. at 48-70.
    \86\ Id. at 51, 62-66; Exh. 34.
    \87\ Chang Dep. at 60-73; see Exh. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chang further testified that in December 1994, he was 
interviewed by the FBI regarding the $12,000 check from Nikko 
Enterprises, Inc.\88\ He testified that after the interview he 
told Yung Soo Yoo that he had been interviewed by the FBI.\89\ 
He also stated that at some point between December 13, 1994 and 
December 17, 1994, Representative Kim called him and denied 
receiving a contribution from him.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Chang Dep. at 78-79; Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Memorandum of Interview with David Chang, Dec. 5, 1994 (Exh. 35).
    \89\ Chang Dep. at 84.
    \90\ Id. at 84-88. Chang testified that he became angry with 
Representative Kim and hung up on him. Id. at 87-88. He also testified 
that at no time did Yung Soo Yoo ever refer to the $12,000 payment as a 
loan. Id. at 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chang testified that in February 1995, he returned from a 
business trip and received a letter from Mrs. Kim, addressed to 
Yung Soo Yoo, stating that she was making a partial repayment 
of a loan from Chang, payable to Chang personally.\91\ The 
letter included a $2,000 check from June Kim.\92\ Chang told 
the Subcommittee that he called Representative Kim on the same 
day he received the letter and check from June Kim and refused 
the check because the $12,000 he gave to Representative Kim was 
a political contribution and not a loan.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ Id. at 99-100; Exh. 36 (Korean-language letter and English 
translation by FBI).
    \92\ Chang Dep. at 99-105; Exh. 37 ($2,000 check payable to David 
Chang).
    \93\ Chang Dep. at 105-107. In this telephone conversation, 
Representative Kim told Chang that Yung Soo Yoo (rather than Chang) had 
made the $12,000 ``loan'' to him. Id. at 108-10. Chang testified that 
he never cashed the $2,000 check. Id. at 104-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chang's testimony was corroborated by a copy of the Nikko 
Enterprises, Inc. check given to Yoo.\94\ When shown a copy of 
the check deposited into Representative Kim's bank account, 
Chang indicated that it appeared different from the check he 
gave to Yoo in two ways; first, it was now payable to June Kim 
and second, the notation ``political donation'' was scratched 
out in the memorandum portion of the check.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ Id. at 60-73.
    \95\ Id. at 82-84; see Exh. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chang's testimony also was corroborated by a copy of the 
letter dated December 17, 1994, along with a $2,000 check from 
June Kim payable to Chang.\96\ The letter, which apparently was 
mistakenly addressed to Yung Soo Yoo, stated in pertinent part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ Id. at 99-105; see Exhs. 36-37.

          Back in 1992, which I borrow from you $10,000. It is 
        inconvenience to you in delay. I will repay back to you 
        as soon as possible. However, I send you a $2,000 
        initially.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Id. The FBI provided a translation of June Kim's letter to the 
Investigative Subcommittee. See Exh. 36.

    Chang's testimony was also corroborated by a Nikko 
Enterprises, Inc. payment voucher for the $12,000 check.\98\ 
The voucher form lists the check as a political 
contribution.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Id. at 72-73; Exh. 38.
    \99\ Chang Dep. at 72-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee attempted to depose Yung Soo Yoo, but Yoo 
asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.\100\ According to the FBI's report of its 
interview with Yoo, however, Yoo told the FBI that he received 
the Nikko check from Chang on September 28, 1992, and 
subsequently then called Representative Kim.\101\ 
Representative Kim directed Yoo to give the check to Benjamin 
Limb.\102\ Yoo also told the FBI that on approximately December 
15, 1994, Representative Kim called him and asked him for 
Chang's address because he wanted to ``return the loan to 
Chang.''\103\ Yoo told the FBI this was the first time he had 
heard anyone refer to the Nikko payment as a loan.\104\ After 
the call, Yoo's secretary faxed Chang's address to 
Representative Kim.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Deposition of Yung Soo Yoo, April 1, 1998, at 5-6 
(hereinafter ``Yoo Dep.'')
    \101\ Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
Yung Soo Yoo, March 22, 1995, at 2 (Exh. 39).
    \102\ Id.
    \103\ Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
Yung Soo Yoo, April 5, 1995, at 8-9 (Exh. 40)
    \104\ Id. at 8. Yoo specifically told the FBI that Chang had never 
described the Nikko payment as a loan. Id.
    \105\ Id. at 8-9; Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 114; Exh. 
41 (facsimile transmission from Yung Soo Yoo to Rep. Kim, Dec. 15, 
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee authorized the issuance of a subpoena for 
Benjamin Limb but was unable to serve the subpoena because Limb 
is currently employed outside the United States. According to 
the FBI's report of its interview with Limb, Limb told the FBI 
that he sent the Nikko Enterprises, Inc., check to 
Representative Kim.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 102; Exh. 42 (letter 
from Ben Quincy Limb to Jay Kim, Sept. 29, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he did not remember 
meeting David Chang at the Waldorf-Astoria and that, in fact, 
``I just don't remember very much about this particular 
incident at all.'' \107\ Representative Kim testified that Yoo 
told him he had a ``rich friend'' who was willing to loan money 
to Representative Kim, and that Yoo would guarantee the 
loan.\108\ Representative Kim also testified that he did not 
remember receiving or seeing the Nikko Enterprises, Inc., 
check, and that David Chang never called him in February 1995 
and told him that Chang was refusing the $2,000 check from June 
Kim.\109\ Representative Kim asserted his Fifth Amendment right 
against self-incrimination to most additional questions 
regarding the Nikko Enterprise, Inc. contribution.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 98-99.
    \108\ Id. at 100-101.
    \109\ Id. at 98-107, 125. Representative Kim's testimony was at 
odds with his stipulation to the Statement of Facts incorporated within 
his plea agreement, which stated in part: ``in October, 1992, defendant 
JAY KIM received and accepted the $12,000 contribution check, which was 
then endorsed by defendant JUNE KIM and deposited in defendants JAY 
KIM's and JUNE KIM's joint personal bank account.'' Statement of Facts, 
para. 18 (Exh. 1) (emphasis added).
    \110\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 107-111. 
Representative Kim did testify, however, that he received a facsimile 
from Yung Soo Yoo in December 1994, with David Chang's address 
contained in the document. Id. at 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. False statements to the Investigative Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee determined that Representative Kim made 
false statements to the Subcommittee regarding the $12,000 
campaign contribution from Nikko. In a December 17, 1997, 
letter to Representative Kim, the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member of the full Committee asked Representative 
Kim, ``What is the relationship, if any, between the $12,000 
payment by Nikko referenced in Paragraph 18 of the Statement of 
Facts and a loan by David Chang reported in a February 24, 
1995, amendment to your Financial Disclosure Statement for 
calendar year 1993?'' \111\ In his January 29, 1998, letter to 
the Subcommittee, Representative Kim responded in pertinent 
part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\ Exh. 11.

    [A]t the time the money was accepted, I was led to believe 
that Mr. David Chang had agreed to provide me with a $12,000 
personal loan. The loan came in the form of a check from Nikko 
Enterprises, Inc. * * * There was no written loan agreement. I 
recall this was a gentleman's agreement with a ``pay what you 
can when you can'' arrangement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    The $12,000 loan was reported in my February 23, 1995 
amendment to my 1993 Financial Disclosure. As noted in the 
February 1995 letter, its previous omission was due to an 
accounting oversight. In reviewing this matter recently, I 
realize that I should have also amended my 1992 FD at the time 
I amended my 1993 FD. Quite frankly, I have no idea why at that 
time I did not make a complete set of amendments. Insofar as 
only $10,000 remained following December 17, 1994, and that 
only obligations above the $10,000 threshold need to be 
reported, I did not report this loan in my 1994 Financial 
Disclosure. However, in re-reading the disclosure language, I 
realize I should have also disclosed this in my 1994 FD insofar 
as I did owe David Chang more than $10,000 for most of the 
calendar year 1994. I did report this $10,000 liability on my 
1995 Financial Disclosure, though this was not required. I did 
not report it in the subsequent 1996 filing because my 
liability to Mr. Chang was not greater than $10,000.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Exh. 17.

    In their December 17, 1997, letter to Representative Kim, 
the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the full 
Committee also asked Representative Kim, ``[R]egarding 
Paragraph 18 of the Statement of Facts, what contemporaneous 
knowledge did you have that June Kim would, or did, deposit the 
$12,000 check from Nikko Enterprises, Inc. (``Nikko'') in the 
joint personal bank account that you shared at that time with 
June Kim?'' \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Exh. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his letter to the Subcommittee dated January 29, 1998, 
Representative Kim responded in pertinent part as follows:

          I seem to recall that according to Mr. Yung Soo Yoo, 
        an intermediary at the New York fundraiser described in 
        Paragraph 18 of the Statement of Facts, Mr. David Chang 
        of Nikko Enterprises was willing to lend me, 
        personally, $12,000. Through Mr. Yoo, he sent a $12,000 
        check, drawn from Nikko Enterprises, Inc., which my 
        wife endorsed and deposited in our personal bank 
        account * * *. I was personally liable for repaying the 
        $12,000 and once it was deposited in our account, it 
        became commingled with other personal funds 
        therein.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ Exh. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on Representative Kim's own admissions under oath in 
federal district court, and on credible testimony received from 
David Chang, the Subcommittee found the following statements by 
Representative Kim to be false: (1) that he received a personal 
loan from David Chang, rather than a political contribution by 
Nikko; (2) that the Chang ``loan'' was a gentlemen's agreement 
with a ``pay what you can when you can'' arrangement; and (3) 
that the Chang information on Representative Kim's amendment to 
his FDS for calendar year 1993 was an accounting oversight.
    The Subcommittee also found it noteworthy that 
Representative Kim did not amend his FDS for calendar year 1993 
until after he had learned that the FBI had interviewed David 
Chang.

D. Count IV: Violations of House Rule 44, Clause 2 (False Statements on 
 Financial Disclosure Statements Related to the Contribution by Nikko 
                           Enterprises, Inc.

    The Subcommittee determined that Representative Kim made 
false statements on his Financial Disclosure Statements 
regarding the illegal $12,000 contribution from Nikko 
Enterprises, Inc. Due to the deliberate nature of these false 
statements, the Subcommittee determined that they merited a 
separate charge against Representative Kim.
    Representative Kim did not report any liability owed to 
David Chang, Yung Soo Yoo, or Nikko Enterprises, Inc. on his 
Financial Disclosure Statements for calendar years 1992 and 
1993 or on an amendment to his FDS for calendar year 1993 that 
he filed in May 1994.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ See Exhs. 24-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about December 5, 1994, the FBI interviewed David 
Chang regarding the $12,000 check from Nikko Enterprises, 
Inc.\116\ On approximately December 15, 1994, Representative 
Kim called Yung Soo Yoo and asked him for Chang's address 
because he wanted to ``return the loan to Chang.'' \117\ Yoo 
told the FBI this was the first time he had heard anyone refer 
to the Nikko payment as a loan.\118\ After the call, Yoo's 
secretary faxed Chang's address to Representative Kim.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Chang Dep. at 78-79; Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Memorandum of Interview with David Chang, Dec. 5, 1994 (Exh. 35).
    \117\ Federal Bureau of Investigation Memorandum of Interview of 
Yung Soo Yoo, April 5, 1995, at 8-9 (Exh. 40).
    \118\ Id. at 8.
    \119\ Id. at 8-9, Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 114; Exh. 
41 (facsimile transmission from Yung Soo Yoo to Rep. Kim, Dec. 15, 
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two days later, on approximately December 17, 1994, June 
Kim addressed a letter to Yung Soo Yoo concerning a $10,000 
loan and mailed it with a $2,000 check to David Chang at 
Nikko.\120\ In February 1995, Chang returned from a business 
trip and received the letter from June Kim.\121\ He called 
Representative Kim and refused the check because the $12,000 
was a political contribution.\122\ After this conversation, on 
approximately February 24, 1995, Representative Kim filed an 
amendment to his FDS for calendar year 1993 that stated in 
part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ Exh. 36.
    \121\ Chang Dep. at 99-105.
    \122\ Id. at 105-107. As stated above, Chang did not cash the 
$2,000 check. Id. at 104-05.

          In Schedule V (Liabilities), due to an accounting 
        oversight, the final line item in this section is 
        missing. It should have been reported as: JT David 
        Chang (creditor), Personal Loan (Type of Liability), 
        Category B (Amount of Liability). This liability was 
        incurred for only part of 1993.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\ Exh. 27.

    On or about August 3, 1995, Representative Kim filed his 
FDS for calendar year 1994.\124\ Despite reporting a personal 
loan from David Chang as a liability in his amendment to his 
FDS for calendar year 1993, which he had filed on approximately 
February 24, 1995, Representative Kim did not report any 
liability owed to David Chang on his FDS for calendar year 
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ Exh. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 15, 1996, Representative Kim filed his FDS 
for calendar year 1995. On Schedule V (Liabilities) of that 
FDS, Representative Kim listed ``David Chang, New York, NY'' as 
a creditor for a personal loan in the amount of $10,001-
$15,000.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\ Exh. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 15, 1997, Representative Kim filed his FDS 
for calendar year 1996 and did not report a liability owed to 
David Chang.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Exh. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 22, 1998, Representative Kim filed a 
partial FDS for calendar year 1997. On Schedule V (Liabilities) 
of that FDS, he listed David Chang as a creditor for a personal 
loan in the amount of $10,001-$15,000.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\ Exh. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he failed to list the 
``Chang loan'' on his Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendar years 1992 and 1993 due to his ``confusion'' and 
``mistake.'' \128\ He testified that he believed the balance of 
the loan was less than $10,000 and therefore did not disclose 
the loan in calendar year 1994 because he did not know Chang 
had not cashed the $2,000 check.\129\ Representative Kim then 
asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 
and refused to answer any additional questions concerning his 
Financial Disclosure Statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 126-127.
    \129\ Id. at 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee found substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Kim's representations that he had received a 
personal loan from David Chang on his amendment to his FDS for 
calendar year 1993 and his Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendars years 1995 and 1997 were false. The Subcommittee also 
found substantial reason to believe that those false 
representations were part of an attempt to conceal the true 
nature of the illegal political contribution to which he 
subsequently pleaded guilty.

E. Count V: Violations of Then-House Rule 43, Clause 4; House Rule 43, 
Clause 1; Ethics in Government Act of 1978; and House Rule 44, Clause 2 
 (Improper Gifts from Hanbo Steel and General Construction; Failure to 
Disclose Gifts on Financial Disclosure Statement; Attempt to Influence 
  Statements to Investigators; and False Statements to Investigative 
                             Subcommittee)

    Following a grant of testimonial (i.e., ``use'') immunity, 
the Investigative Subcommittee obtained credible testimony from 
Dobum Kim, a South Korean national residing in the United 
States, regarding possible violations of laws and House rules 
by Representative Kim. The Subcommittee corroborated much of 
Dobum Kim's testimony, and the resulting evidence formed the 
basis for Count V of the SAV.

1. Gifts of travel expenses and golf equipment from Hanbo Steel

    In January 1994, Representative Kim traveled from the 
continental United States to Honolulu, Hawaii. On or about 
January 16, 1994, he flew from Honolulu to Maui.\130\ Dobum 
Kim, who was then in charge of the Los Angeles office of Hanbo 
Steel and General Construction (``Hanbo Steel''), a company 
headquartered in South Korea, met Representative Kim in 
Honolulu and escorted him by air to Maui.\131\ Dobum Kim 
purchased Representative Kim's round-trip airline ticket from 
Honolulu to Maui at a cost of $206, charging the ticket to a 
corporate American Express account of Hanbo Steel.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Credit card purchase form for Aloha Airlines ticket (Exh. 
43); Letter from Stephanie C. Ackerman, Staff Vice President, Corporate 
and Government Affairs, Aloha Airlines, to David H. Laufman, July 16, 
1998 (hereinafter ``Letter from Aloha Airlines'') (Exh. 44).
    \131\ Dep. of Dobum Kim, May 20, 1998, at 110.
    \132\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 117; Telephone Interview of Dobum Kim, 
July 10, 1998, at 25; Credit card purchase form for Aloha Airlines 
ticket (Exh. 43); Letter from Aloha Airlines (Exh. 44); American 
Express statement for corporate account in name of Dobum Kim (account 
number corresponds to account number of credit card purchase form for 
Aloha Airlines ticket) (Exh. 45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After arriving in Maui on or about January 16, 1994, Dobum 
Kim escorted Representative Kim to the Grand Wailea Resort, 
where Tae Soo Chung, the Chairman of Hanbo Steel, also was 
staying.\133\ According to hotel records, Representative Kim 
registered at the Grand Wailea Resort as a guest of Dobum 
Kim.\134\ Hotel records also indicate that In Kyu Mok, a 
secretary to Chung, signed the registration card at the hotel 
on behalf of Representative Kim, and wrote the address of Hanbo 
Steel's corporate headquarters in Seoul, South Korea on the 
card.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 113; Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 
1998, at 25-26; records of Grand Wailea Resort (indicating stay by Tae 
Soo Chung in Jan. 1994) (Exh. 46).
    \134\ Registration records from Grand Wailea Resort regarding Jan. 
1994 stay by Jay Kim and Dobum Kim (Exh. 47). Representative Kim 
indicated that a representative of Hanbo Steel registered for him at 
the Grand Wailea Resort. Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 26.
    \135\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 116; Telephone Int. with Dobum Kim, July 
10, 1998, at 28-29; registration record from Grand Wailea Resort for 
Jay Kim (Exh. 47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about the evening of January 16, 1994, Dobum Kim--
with the contemporaneous knowledge of Representative Kim--
purchased golf clubs and other golf equipment for 
Representative Kim (including a bag for the clubs) totaling 
approximately $2,369.\136\ Dobum Kim charged the golf purchases 
to his personal American Express card and later obtained 
reimbursement from Hanbo Steel.\137\ Dobum Kim testified that 
on the day after Representative Kim's arrival at the Grand 
Wailea Resort (i.e., January 17, 1994), Representative Kim 
played eighteen holes of golf in Maui with Hanbo Steel Chairman 
Chung, Dobum Kim, and other persons.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\Dep. of Dobum Kim at 125-28; Telephone Int. with Dobum Kim at 
36-39; American Express receipt (Exh. 48).
    \137\Telephone Int. with Dobum Kim, July 10, 1998, at 39-40; Exh. 
48 (American Express charge receipt); American Express statement 
showing personal account number matching account number of purchase 
record of golf equipment) (Exh. 49).
    \138\Dep. of Dobum Kim at 121; Telephone Int. with Dobum Kim, July 
10, 1998, at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim confirmed under oath that he played golf 
in Hawaii with Hanbo Steel Chairman Chung.\139\ He initially 
testified that he ``rented'' golf clubs to play with Mr. 
Chung.\140\ When subsequently asked if golf clubs had been 
purchased for him, he initially testified that he could not 
remember.\141\ Subsequently, he testified that he received a 
gift of three golf clubs in a ``souvenir'' golf bag at the 
airport before he departed Maui.\142\ He denied that anyone 
purchased golf clubs and a golf bag for him at the pro 
shop.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 11-12, 22-23, 32.
    \140\ Id. at 33.
    \141\ Id. at 33-34.
    \142\ Id. at 36-37.
    \143\ Id. at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to credible testimony by Dobum Kim, Hanbo Steel 
also paid for the cost of Representative Kim's lodging at the 
Grand Wailea Resort with the contemporaneous knowledge of 
Representative Kim.\144\ His testimony was corroborated by 
``guest histories'' for Jay Kim, Dobum Kim, and Tae Soo Chung 
provided to the Investigative Subcommittee by the Grand Wailea 
Resort, which show that the same credit card number was used to 
guarantee the room charges for all three individuals.\145\ The 
conclusion that Hanbo Steel paid for Representative Kim's hotel 
bill also is corroborated by the signature on Representative 
Kim's registration record by In Kyu Mok, the secretary to Hanbo 
Steel Chairman Chung, and by the indication on that record that 
Representative Kim's stay at the resort was ``care of'' Dobum 
Kim, a Hanbo employee.\146\ Finally, the Grand Wailea Resort 
determined--based on a review of its records by hotel 
officials--that the credit card actually used to pay the room 
charges for Jay Kim, Tae Soo Chung, and In Kyu Mok was a 
corporate VISA card apparently in the name of Hanbo Steel.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 116.
    \145\ Guest history records from Grand Wailea Resort for Jay Kim 
and Dobum Kim. (Exh. 50); see Exh. 46 (guest history for Tae Soo 
Chung). According to American Express, the account number appearing on 
all three guest histories is an American Express account issued outside 
of the United States. Letter from Ronald A. Gray, Managing Counsel, 
American Express, to David Laufman, July 27, 1998 (Exh. 51).
    \146\ Registration record from Grand Wailea Resort for Jay Kim 
(Exh. 47).
    \147\ Letter from Gregory A. Koestering, Managing Director, Grand 
Wailea Resort, to Paul Lewis, July 23, 1998 (hereinafter ``Letter from 
Gregory A. Koestering'') (Exh. 52); Imprints of VISA cards provided by 
Grand Wailea in connection with registration forms for Jay Kim, Tae Soo 
Chung, and In Kyu Mok (Exh. 53). Mr. Koestering advised Subcommittee 
counsel that the VISA card bears the account number ``4599 5070 0137 
8408,'' and that the imprint of the card, while not fully legible, 
indicates the account holder is ``Han * * * Gen. Cons. Co. Ltd.'' 
Letter from Gregory A. Koestering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to hotel records, the cost of Representative 
Kim's lodging at the Grand Wailea Resort totaled approximately 
$1,066.\148\
    Based on the foregoing, the record indicates that Hanbo 
Steel paid for travel and lodging expenses and golf equipment 
for Representative Kim totaling approximately $3,640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Grand Wailea Resort record of Representative Kim's room 
charges (Exh. 54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim indicated during his testimony that he 
traveled to Hawaii to give a speech to a private 
organization.\149\ The Investigative Subcommittee, however, 
found no credible evidence that Representative Kim's acceptance 
in 1994 of travel expenses and golf equipment from Hanbo Steel 
concerned a fact-finding trip or substantial participation in 
an event as then permitted by House Rule 43, Clause 4. 
Moreover, as discussed more fully below, Representative Kim did 
not report any privately funded travel to Hawaii on his 
Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing, the Investigative Subcommittee 
found substantial reason to reason to believe that 
Representative Kim's acceptance of round-trip travel from 
Honolulu to Maui, lodging at the Grand Wailea Resort, and golf 
clubs and equipment, as detailed above, constituted gifts to 
Representative Kim within the meaning of Clause 4 of then-House 
Rule 43, and that his acceptance of those gifts was in 
violation of that rule. The Investigative Subcommittee also 
found substantial reason to believe that, by accepting those 
gifts, Representative Kim engaged in conduct that does not 
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct as set forth in 
Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the House of Representatives.
    On September 18, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney, Ralph 
Lotkin, provided Subcommittee counsel for the first time with a 
document that he claimed was exculpatory with regard to this 
portion of the SAV. The document appeared to consist of a sales 
receipt corresponding to Dobum Kim's purchase of golf equipment 
for Representative Kim at the pro shop in Hawaii in January 
1994.\150\ Among the items listed on the document are ``golf 
clubs,'' ``headwear,'' ``men's slacks,'' ``gloves,'' and 
``shoes.'' \151\ Mr. Lotkin advised Subcommittee counsel that 
Representative Kim did not receive all of the items indicated 
on the sales receipt, and reiterated Representative Kim's 
position that he received only a few used golf clubs at the 
airport in Hawaii as a gift prior to his departure. In a 
September 25, 1998, letter accompanying Representative Kim's 
answer to the SAV, Mr. Lotkin stated that, ``[b]ased upon Mr. 
Dobum Kim's own sworn testimony to the Investigative 
Subcommittee, the sales slip belied the accuracy of his 
assertions--the so-called golfing materials were purchased at a 
time when Mr. Dobum Kim, himself, testified he was not with 
Representative Kim or, even on the day of the alleged golf 
outing.'' \152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Exh. 55.
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Exh. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to the document provided by Mr. Lotkin on 
September 18, 1998, and his assertion that the document was 
exculpatory, the Subcommittee promptly authorized additional 
action, including the issuance of subpoenas.
    Lyle Matsunaga, currently Controller at Wailea Golf Resort, 
Inc. in Maui, told Subcommittee counsel that the document that 
Mr. Lotkin provided on September 18, 1998, is a cash register 
tape corresponding to the American Express receipt previously 
relied upon by the Subcommittee as evidence of the 
purchase.\153\ Based on data printed on the cash register tape, 
Matsunaga stated his belief that the sales transaction occurred 
on January 16, 1998, at 5:40 p.m. local (i.e., Hawaiian) 
time.\154\ He also advised Subcommittee counsel that the cash 
register tape lists a complete set of Callaway-brand irons with 
a retail price of $1,999, as well as a Callaway ``Big Bertha'' 
club with a retail price of $299.\155\ Additional documents 
that the Subcommittee obtained from Wailea Golf Resort, Inc. 
pursuant to a subpoena confirmed Matsunaga's representations 
concerning the golf clubs.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\ Telephone Interview of Lyle Matsunaga, Sept. 23, 1998, at 6-
7, 22. Mr. Matsunaga advised Subcommittee counsel that employees of 
Wailea Golf Resort, Inc. located that cash register tape on September 
17, 1998, and faxed a copy to Mr. Lotkin later that day. Id. at 20-21.
    \154\ Id. at 23-24. Matsunaga explained that dates on cash register 
tapes in the pro shop correspond to current date in the computer system 
that generates the tapes, and that the time shown corresponds to the 
current system time. Id. at 24.
    \155\ Id. at 27-30.
    \156\ Exh. 57 (SKU descriptions of purchase items).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 28, 1998, Subcommittee counsel interviewed 
Dobum Kim, who had been provided with a copy of the cash 
register tape concerning the January 16, 1994, purchase. During 
that interview, Dobum Kim confirmed that he purchased each of 
the items listed on the cash register tape for Representative 
Kim, including the golf clubs and clothing.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\ Telephone Interview with Dobum Kim, Sept. 28, 1998, at 8-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contrary to Mr. Lotkin's assertion, moreover, the cash 
register tape is not inconsistent with Dobum Kim's prior sworn 
testimony. At his deposition in May 1998, Dobum Kim 
independently recalled the purchase of golf equipment for 
Representative Kim prior to their golf outing.\158\ Mr. Lotkin 
apparently focused on a brief earlier exchange in the 
deposition where Dobum Kim testified that he did not see 
Representative Kim after helping him register at the hotel (on 
January 16, 1994) until dinner that evening, and did not 
mention making any purchases at the pro shop on that specific 
day.\159\ While an inference could be drawn from Dobum Kim's 
testimony that he purchased the golf equipment on the same day 
he played golf with Representative Kim--thereby raising a 
question about the accuracy of the Subcommittee's charge--Dobum 
Kim did not commit himself to a particular day or time of day 
for the golf purchases, and he clearly testified that he played 
golf with Representative Kim on Representative Kim's second day 
in Hawaii, which was January 17, 1998.\160\ Moreover, even if 
there were a discrepancy in Dobum Kim's testimony regarding the 
date of the purchase, he has consistently testified that he 
purchased the items in question for Representative Kim, and his 
testimony is corroborated by documentary evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 124. He first mentioned the purchase 
after discussing the golf outing, indicating that he had forgotten to 
mention it earlier in his testimony.
    \159\ Id. at 117-18.
    \160\ Id. at 117, 121. Dobum Kim also testified at his deposition--
without the aid at that time of a cash register tape--that he purchased 
a ``whole set'' of clubs for Representative Kim (``[f]rom wedge to 
drivers''), and that he also purchased a golf bag, golf shoes, shirts, 
and golf balls for Representative Kim. Id. at 126-27. Thus, his 
testimony later was corroborated by the cash register tape. See Exh. 
55. While the Subcommittee did not obtain documentary confirmation of 
the date on which Dobum Kim played golf with Representative Kim and 
Hanbo Steel Chairman Chung, the documentary evidence regarding 
Representative Kim's travel from Honolulu to Maui on January 16, 1994, 
and the date and time of the cash register receipt from the pro shop 
indicate that they could not have played eighteen holes of golf on 
January 16, 1994. Consequently, the record indicates that they played 
golf on January 17, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, the additional investigative action taken by the 
Subcommittee confirmed its previous determination that 
Representative Kim received gifts consisting of golf equipment 
in violation of Clause 4 of then-House Rule 43. Consequently, 
the Subcommittee retained this portion of Count V of the SAV.

2. Failure to disclose gifts of travel expenses and golf equipment

    As stated above, the Investigative Subcommittee found 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim received 
gifts of travel, lodging, and golf equipment from Hanbo Steel 
in 1994 totalling approximately $3,640.
    At all times during the events described below, Title I of 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, required 
Members of the House of Representatives to file annual 
Financial Disclosure Statements with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives.\161\ At all times during the events described 
below, House Rule 44, Clause 2, provided that title I of the 
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 shall be deemed to be a Rule 
of the House insofar as the law pertains to Members, officers, 
and employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ 5 U.S.C. app. 4, Sec. 101 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the Financial Disclosure Statement for 
1994, section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act required 
House Members to ``disclose on your Financial Disclosure 
Statement all gifts totalling more than $250 from a single 
source other than a relative.'' \162\ The instructions issued 
to House Members for completing their Financial Disclosure 
Statements for 1994 stated that ``[t]he value of all gifts from 
the same source received during the calendar year must be 
totaled to determine if the reporting threshold of $250 has 
been met, except that any gift with a fair market value of $100 
or less need not be counted.'' \163\ The instructions also 
stated that ``[a]ll types of gifts, including travel-related 
expenses provided for your personal benefit, must be reported 
on Schedule VI [of the Financial Disclosure Statement].'' \164\ 
Members were required to report the receipt of travel expenses 
for ``fact-finding'' trips or trips in which they 
``substantially participated'' on Schedule VII of the Financial 
Disclosure Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ Instructions for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement 
Required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, at 22 (1995) (hereafter ``Instructions 
for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement''); see 5 U.S.C. app. 6, 
Sec. 102(a)(2)(A).
    \163\ Instructions for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement, 
supra, at 22.
    \164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim did not report the above-specified gifts 
of travel, lodging, and golf equipment that he received from 
Hanbo Steel in January 1994 on his Financial Disclosure 
Statement for 1994, which was filed in August 1995.\165\ Based 
on the foregoing, the Investigative Subcommittee determined 
that Representative Kim had contemporaneous personal knowledge 
of each of the gifts in question. The Investigative 
Subcommittee also determined that Representative Kim knew, or 
should have known, that each of the gifts was reportable on his 
Financial Disclosure Statement for 1994. Finally, 
Representative Kim did not report the payment or reimbursement 
of any ``fact-finding'' or ``substantial participation'' travel 
expenses on his Financial Disclosure Statement for 1994 with 
respect to the trip to Hawaii in January 1994. Consequently, 
the Investigative Subcommittee found substantial reason to 
believe that Representative Kim violated the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978, as amended, and Clause 2 of Rule 44 of 
the House of Representatives, when he failed to report the 
above-specified gifts from Hanbo Steel on his Financial 
Disclosure Statement for Calendar year 1994, filed in August 
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Exh. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Receipt of $30,000 check from Dobum Kim

    In approximately 1992, Dobum Kim opened a money market 
account (``cash maximizer account'') at Bank of America at the 
direction of Tae Soo Chung, the South Korean Chairman of Hanbo 
Steel.\166\ Subsequently, Chung told Dobum Kim to expect 
transfers to that account of $100,000 and $200,000, 
respectively, by Hanbo Steel officials in other countries.\167\ 
On or about October 18, 1993, $100,000 was transferred by wire 
by an official of Hanbo Steel in another country to the above-
mentioned Bank of America money market account in the United 
States in the name of Dobum Kim.\168\ On or about October 26, 
1993, an additional $200,000 was transferred by wire into the 
same account by a Hanbo Steel official in another country.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 40-45; Exh. 58 (sample copy of account 
statement for Dobum Kim's money market account)
    \167\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 49, 63-66.
    \168\ Exh. 59 (Bank of America statement for money market account 
showing $100,000 transfer); Dep. of Dobum Kim at 46-47, 52-53. The 
actual amount deposited into the money market account was $99,850, 
reflecting an administrative charge of $150. See Exh. 59.
    \169\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 66-68; Exh. 60 (Bank of American 
statement for money market account showing $200,000 transfer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While playing golf with Representative Kim and Dobum Kim in 
Maui on or about January 16, 1994, Hanbo Steel Chairman Chung 
told Dobum Kim to give $30,000 to Representative Kim after 
returning to the continental United States.\170\ According to 
credible testimony by Dobum Kim, Chung gave this instruction to 
Dobum Kim in the presence of Representative Kim.\171\
    A few days after his return to the continental United 
States from Hawaii, Dobum Kim received a telephone call 
directly from Representative Kim.\172\ According to credible 
testimony by Dobum Kim, Representative Kim told him that he 
would like to meet personally with him at Representative Kim's 
home in Diamond Bar, California.\173\ Dobum Kim understood that 
Representative Kim wanted the $30,000 that Tae Soo Chung had 
told Dobum Kim in Hawaii to give to Representative Kim, 
although Representative Kim did not mention the money during 
his telephone call to Dobum Kim.\174\ The two men set a date 
and time for the meeting at Representative Kim's home.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 121-23, 130.
    \171\ Id. at 122. The Subcommittee was unable to interview Hanbo 
Steel Chairman Chung. According to press reports, he is currently in 
prison in South Korea on bribery and embezzlement charges. South Korean 
Court Upholds Prison Term of Hanbo Steel Owner, Associated Press News 
Service, Sept. 25, 1997; Efron, Hanbo Chief, 9 Others Get Jail Time, 
Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1997.
    \172\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 131.
    \173\ Id. at 132.
    \174\ Id. at 132-33.
    \175\ Id. at 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about January 29, 1994, Dobum Kim went alone to 
Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar, California.\176\ 
Representative Kim and his wife, June Kim, both were present 
when Dobum Kim arrived.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\ Id. at 133, 149.
    \177\ Id. at 133-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dobum Kim told Representative Kim that he had come to pay 
him the $30,000 that Tae Soo Chung had directed him in Hawaii 
to give to Representative Kim.\178\ Dobum Kim told 
Representative Kim that he would write a check in the amount of 
$30,000.\179\ Representative Kim told Dobum Kim to make the 
check payable to June Kim.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\ Id. at 135, 150.
    \179\ Id. at 135.
    \180\ Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dobum Kim expressed concern to Representative Kim about the 
legality of the payment.\181\ According to credible testimony 
by Dobum Kim, Representative Kim told him not to be concerned 
because he would be buying books.\182\ Dobum Kim asked 
Representative Kim what he meant.\183\ Representative Kim told 
him that he had written his autobiography, and that it would be 
published in Korea.\184\ Dobum Kim expressed concern about how 
he could buy books that did not yet exist.\185\ Representative 
Kim told him not to worry, and asked him to write the word 
``books'' in the memorandum portion of the check.\186\ 
According to credible testimony by Dobum Kim, Representative 
Kim told him to pretend that he had purchased books in return 
for the check.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\ Id. at 136,151.
    \182\ Id. at 136.
    \183\ Id.
    \184\ Id.
    \185\ Id.
    \186\ Id. at 136-37.
    \187\ Id. at 143-44, 151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dobum Kim wrote the check pursuant to Representative Kim's 
instructions, and gave it directly to Representative Kim.\188\ 
The check was drawn on the money market account that he had 
established at the Bank of America utilizing funds from Hanbo 
Steel.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ Id. at 137, 142, at 149; Exh. 61 (copy of check from Dobum 
Kim for $30,000).
    \189\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 140; Exh. 62 (copy of Bank of America 
statement showing debit of $30,000). The account number of the money 
market account appears at the bottom of the $30,000 check that Dobum 
Kim gave to Representative Kim. The Investigative Subcommittee obtained 
Union Bank records regarding Representative Kim and June Kim from the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The record indicates that June Kim endorsed the $30,000 
check from Dobum Kim and deposited it on March 2, 1994, into a 
joint personal savings account at Union Bank in California in 
the name of Jay C. Kim and June O. Kim.\190\ That conclusion is 
supported by the following evidence:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ Exh. 61 (copy of $30,000 check showing endorsement); Exh. 63 
(deposit slip dated March 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The $30,000 check written by Dobum Kim, made payable 
        to June Kim, is check number 127.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \191\ Exh. 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative Kim recognized the signature of 
        endorsement on the back of the check as June Kim's 
        signature.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 49-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          A deposit slip bears the handwritten name ``June O. 
        Kim,'' the date of March 2, 1994, the net deposit 
        amount of $30,000, and an account number that 
        corresponds to the account number for a joint savings 
        account at Union Bank in the name of Jay C. Kim and 
        June O. Kim.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\ Exh. 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          A statement from Union Bank indicating that $30,000 
        was deposited into the Kims' joint savings account 
        there on March 2, 1994.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Exh. 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          A statement from Bank of America regarding accounts 
        in the name of Dobum Kim, dated March 22, 1994, shows 
        that check number 127 in the amount of $30,000, drawn 
        on the ``cash maximizer'' (i.e., money market) account, 
        was paid on March 2, 1994--the same date as the date on 
        the deposit slip for $30,000 bearing the name ``June O. 
        Kim.'' \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ Exh. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to bank records, three separate withdrawals from 
the Kims' joint savings account at Union Bank--each in the 
amount of $10,000--occurred on March 11, 1994, April 14, 1994, 
and May 9, 1994, respectively.\196\ Bank records also show that 
the $30,000 in funds withdrawn from the joint savings account 
was transferred to a joint checking account at Union Bank in 
the name of Jay C. Kim and June O. Kim, where the money was 
commingled with personal funds.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\ Exh. 65.
    \197\ Exh. 66 (Union Bank records showing three deposits of $10,000 
each to Kim joint checking account).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not until sometime in 1995--several months after the book 
was published in August 1994--were any books delivered in 
connection with the $30,000 check given to Representative Kim 
by Dobum Kim. At that time, June Kim personally gave a few 
copies of Representative Kim's book to Hae Eun Kim, Dobum Kim's 
wife.\198\ Dobum Kim was working for Hanbo Steel in Venezuela 
at the time.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \198\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 144-46.
    \199\ Id. at 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim claimed that a large number of books was 
delivered to the offices of Hanbo Steel in Seoul, South 
Korea,\200\ but he provided no evidence to substantiate his 
claim, and the Subcommittee is unaware of any credible evidence 
to corroborate his claim that books were delivered to Hanbo 
Steel in connection with the $30,000 payment by Dobum Kim in 
January 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \200\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 54-56, 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing, the Investigative Subcommittee 
found substantial reason to believe that the $30,000 check 
given by Dobum Kim to Representative Kim in January 1994 
constituted a gift to Representative Kim within the meaning of 
Clause 4 of then-Rule 43 of the House of Representatives, and 
that his acceptance of the check constituted a violation of 
that rule. The Investigative Subcommittee also found 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim engaged 
in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of the Code of Official Conduct 
as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the House of 
Representatives.
    On September 18, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney, Ralph 
Lotkin, provided Subcommittee counsel for the first time with 
documents that he maintained were exculpatory with respect to 
the charge concerning the payment of $30,000 by Dobum Kim. The 
documents consisted of the following: (1) two pages from 
Representative Kim's personal calendar for January 1994, 
indicating that Representative Kim was in Texas continuously 
during the period of January 28-30, 1994; \201\ (2) a Korean-
language newspaper article dated February 3, 1994 (and 
accompanying translation) reporting that Representative Kim 
attended a fundraising event in Houston on January 28, 1994; 
\202\ (3) a document provided to Mr. Lotkin by American 
Airlines indicating that Representative Kim flew from 
Washington, D.C. to Dallas on January 28, 1994, and flew from 
Dallas to Washington, D.C. on January 31, 1994; and (4) copies 
of FEC disclosure reports filed by Representative Kim's 
campaign reporting contributions by residents of Texas during 
the relevant time period.\203\ Mr. Lotkin advised staff that 
these documents refuted Dobum Kim's testimony that he 
personally gave Representative Kim a $30,000 check at his home 
in Diamond Bar, California, on January 29, 1994. In a September 
25, 1998, letter accompanying Representative Kim's Answer to 
the SAV, Mr. Lotkin asserted that the documents ``establish[], 
without question, that Congressman Kim was in Dallas and 
Houston, Texas, during the weekend of September [sic] 28, 1994, 
and not in California (let alone at his home in Diamond Bar) as 
sworn to and alleged by Dobum Kim.'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ Exh. 67. In a September 25, 1998, letter accompanying 
Representative Kim's Answer to the SAV, Mr. Lotkin asserted that these 
pages constitute ``an extract of the Congressman's 1994 personal 
appointment calendar, maintained in his own handwriting, reflecting his 
activities during the time in question.'' Exh. 56.
    \202\ Exh. 68.
    \203\ Exh. 69. In a letter dated September 30, 1998, Mr. Lotkin 
confirmed that by August 5, 1998, he already had received information 
that ``Representative Kim was not in Diamond Bar, California, on 
January 29, 1994, as alleged by Mr. Dobum Kim.'' Letter from Ralph 
Lotkin to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and the Hon. Ed Pastor, Sept. 30, 
1998 (Exh. 70). Yet neither he nor Representative Kim disclosed the 
pertinent information to the Subcommittee at an August 5, 1998, meeting 
of the Subcommittee, at which Representative Kim was afforded an 
opportunity to discuss the proposed charges in the SAV. Mr. Lotkin also 
acknowledged that he received ``the actual documentary information * * 
* confirming this point * * * late on August 5, 1998.'' Id. American 
Airlines officials advised Subcommittee counsel that, on approximately 
July 30, 1998, an employee of Representative Kim's congressional office 
had requested information regarding Representative Kim's flights on 
American Airlines during the month of January 1994. Interview of Julie 
Nichols and Gary Doernhoefer, Sept. 24, 1998, at 9-10. On August 5, 
1998, an American Airlines employee faxed to Representative Kim's 
congressional office a record of flights taken by Representative Kim on 
American Airlines on which he earned frequent flier miles, which Mr. 
Lotkin provided to Subcommittee counsel for the first time on September 
18, 1998. Id. at 13-14; see Exh. 69.
    \204\ Exh. 56. (bold in original; italics added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee promptly authorized additional action 
regarding the information provided by Mr. Lotkin, including the 
issuance of subpoenas. On September 28, 1998, the Subcommittee 
received ``passenger name records'' from American Airlines in 
compliance with a subpoena. According to American Airlines, 
those records indicate that Representative Kim departed 
Washington, D.C. at 12:39 p.m. on January 28, 1994, on American 
Airlines flight 1307 and arrived at Dallas-Fort Worth 
International Airport (``DFW'') at 3:09 p.m. that day. In 
addition, the records indicate that Representative Kimtook a 
connecting flight from Dallas to Houston later that afternoon. The 
records also indicate, however, that Representative Kim:
          Departed Houston Intercontinental Airport at 9:00 
        a.m. on January 29, 1994 on American Airlines flight 
        395 and arrived at DFW at 10:07 a.m.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \205\ Exh. 71 (letter from Gary R. Doernhoefer, Senior Counsel, 
American Airlines, to David Laufman, Sept. 28, 1998); Exh. 72 
(passenger name records produced by American Airlines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Departed DFW at 11:09 a.m. on January 29, 1994, on 
        American Airlines flight 201, and arrived at Ontario 
        Airport in California (located near Diamond Bar) at 
        12:19 p.m.
          Departed Ontario Airport at 11:24 a.m. on January 30, 
        1994, on American Airlines flight 1900 and arrived at 
        DFW at 4:20 p.m.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \206\ Neither Mr. Lotkin nor Representative Kim had advised the 
Subcommittee of Representative Kim's travel from Texas to California on 
January 29, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, the records produced by American Airlines provide 
substantial credible evidence that Representative Kim was, in 
fact, in the Diamond Bar, California area on January 29, 1994, 
and that he therefore had an opportunity to meet with Dobum Kim 
at his home in Diamond Bar on January 29, 1994, consistent with 
Dobum Kim's testimony.
    The Subcommittee also approved the issuance of a 
testimonial subpoena for Dobum Kim. Because of the 
unavailability due to illness of Dobum Kim's primary attorney, 
Subcommittee counsel interviewed Dobum Kim by telephone on 
September 28, 1998. During that interview, Dobum Kim reaffirmed 
that he went to Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar, wrote 
out a check there in the amount of $30,000, made it payable to 
June Kim at the request of Representative Kim, and personally 
gave it to Representative Kim.\207\ He also recalled that he 
went to Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar ``not in the 
morning, not in the evening,'' but sometime ``during the 
daytime.'' \208\ Thus, Dobum Kim's recollection is consistent 
with the records provided by American Airlines, which indicate 
that Representative Kim could have returned home by early 
afternoon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\ Telephone Interview with Dobum Kim, Sept. 28, 1998, at 16-19.
    \208\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Failure to report gift of $30,000 on Financial Disclosure Statement

    The Investigative Subcommittee found substantial reason to 
believe that the $30,000 check given by Dobum Kim to 
Representative Kim in January 1994 constituted a gift to 
Representative Kim under then-House Rule 43, Clause 4. The 
Investigative Subcommittee also found substantial reason to 
believe that Representative Kim knew, or should have known, 
that the $30,000 check constituted a gift that was reportable 
on Schedule VI of his FDS for 1994.
    At all times during the events described above, Title I of 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, required 
Members of the House of Representatives to file annual 
Financial Disclosure Statements with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives.\209\ At all times during the events described 
above, House Rule 44, Clause 2, provided that title I of the 
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 shall be deemed to be a Rule 
of the House insofar as the law pertains to Members, officers, 
and employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\ 5 U.S.C. app. 4, Sec. 101 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the Financial Disclosure Statement for 
calendar year 1994, section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act 
required House Members to ``disclose on your Financial 
Disclosure Statement all gifts totalling more than $250 from a 
single source other than a relative.'' \210\ Members also were 
required to ``disclose gifts from third parties to your spouse 
or dependent children unless the gifts are totally independent 
of the relationship to you.'' \211\ The instructions issued to 
House Members for completing their Financial Disclosure 
Statements for 1994 stated that ``[t]he value of all gifts from 
the same source received during the calendar year must be 
totaled to determine if the reporting threshold of $250 has 
been met, except that any gift with a fair market value of $100 
or less need not be counted.'' \212\ The instructions also 
stated that ``[a]ll types of gifts, including travel-related 
expenses provided for your personal benefit, must be reported 
on Schedule VI [of the Financial Disclosure Statement].'' \213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\ Instructions for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement 
Required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, at 22 (1995) (hereafter ``Instructions 
for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement''); see 5 U.S.C. app. 6, 
Sec. 102(a)(2)(A).
    \211\ Instructions for Completing Financial Disclosure Statement, 
supra, at 22 (emphasis in original).
    \212\ Id.
    \213\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim did not report the $30,000 received from 
Dobum Kim in January 1994 on his FDS for 1994.\214\ 
Consequently, the Investigative Subcommittee found substantial 
reason to believe that Representative Kim violated the Ethics 
in Government Act of 1978, as amended, and Clause 2 of Rule 44 
of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \214\ Exh. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Attempt to influence statements by Dobum Kim to investigators

    As stated above, Dobum Kim personally tendered a check 
directly to Representative Kim on or about January 29, 1994. 
According to credible testimony by Dobum Kim, he expressed 
concern to Representative Kim about how he could buy booksthat 
did not yet exist.\215\ Representative Kim told Dobum Kim not to worry, 
asked him to write the word ``books'' in the memorandum portion of the 
check, and told him the transaction was ``legal.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 136.
    \216\ Id. at 136-37, 153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to credible testimony by Dobum Kim, 
Representative Kim told Dobum Kim to pretend as though he had 
purchased books in return for the check.\217\ Further, 
Representative Kim told Dobum Kim that if he was questioned 
later by investigative authorities, he should say that he paid 
the $30,000 to purchase copies of Representative Kim's 
book.\218\ Dobum Kim understood that Representative Kim was 
asking him to make false statements to investigators if he was 
questioned later about this matter.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\ Id. at 143-44, 151.
    \218\ Id. at 148, 152-53. According to credible testimony by Dobum 
Kim, June Kim was present for that conversation. Id. at 156-57.
    \219\ Id. at 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early 1995, June Kim attempted to contact Dobum Kim by 
telephone at his residence in California.\220\ At the time of 
June Kim's telephone call, Dobum Kim was unavailable because he 
was working for Hanbo Steel in Venezuela.\221\ June Kim spoke 
to Dobum Kim's wife, Hae Eun Kim, in lieu of speaking to Dobum 
Kim.\222\ June Kim asked Hae Eun Kim to meet her for 
lunch.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\ Id. at 145; Telephone Interview with Hae Eun Kim, July 10, 
1998, at 6, 8.
    \221\ Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim at 7; Dep. of Dobum Kim at 
145.
    \222\ Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim at 7.
    \223\ Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim at 6; Dep. of Dobum Kim at 
146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequently, June Kim and Hae Eun Kim had lunch 
together.\224\ After lunch, June Kim told Hae Eun Kim that if 
representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(``FBI'') asked her if she received books, she should respond 
that she did, in fact, receive books.\225\ Hae Eun Kim 
understood June Kim to be telling her to convey this message to 
her husband, Dobum Kim, as she could not think of any reason 
for someone to ask her about books.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\ Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim at 10.
    \225\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 147, 154 (``June Kim specifically 
mentioned [the] FBI.''); Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim at 12, 18.
    \226\ Telephone Int. with Hae Eun Kim, July 10, 1998, at 13-14; 
Dep. of Dobum Kim at 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1997, the FBI interviewed Dobum Kim in connection with 
the $30,000 check he had given to Representative Kim in January 
1994.\227\ Dobum Kim indicated to the FBI that he communicated 
only with June Kim, rather than Representative Kim, in 
connection with the purchase of copies of Representative Kim's 
book.\228\ Dobum Kim also told the FBI that June Kim had agreed 
to provide him with 2,000 books, but that he had received only 
1,000 books.\229\ Dobum Kim acknowledged under oath to the 
Subcommittee that the above statements he made to the FBI in 
1997 were false, and that he made those false statements 
because Representative Kim had asked him to pretend that he had 
purchased books.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\ Exh. 73 (FBI Notes Regarding Interview of Dobum Kim, dated 
June 3, 1997); Dep. of Dobum Kim at 154-55.
    \228\ Exh. 73.
    \229\ Id.
    \230\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 155, 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing, the Investigative Subcommittee 
found substantial reason to believe that in approximately 
January 1994 Representative Kim attempted to induce Dobum Kim 
to give false information to federal investigative authorities 
if asked about the $30,000 check that he had given to 
Representative Kim. Therefore, the Investigative Subcommittee 
found substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim 
conducted himself in a manner that does not reflect creditably 
on the House of Representatives, in violation of the Code of 
Official Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the 
House of Representatives.

6. False statements to Investigative Subcommittee regarding Dobum Kim

    The Investigative Subcommittee received credible evidence 
that:
          Dobum Kim, a South Korean national in charge of the 
        Los Angeles office of Hanbo Steel and General 
        Construction, a Korean company, had dinner with 
        Representative Kim in California in June 1993.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \231\ Id. at 54; Telephone Interview with Dobum Kim, July 10, 1998, 
at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In late October 1993, Dobum Kim met privately with 
        Representative Kim for approximately thirty minutes in 
        his congressional office in Washington, D.C.\232\ The 
        two men discussed an upcoming meeting in the 
        Washington, D.C. area between Representative Kim and 
        Tae Soo Chung, the South Korean Chairman of Hanbo 
        Steel.\233\ Dobum Kim gave Representative Kim a 
        business card on which the name ``Dobum Kim'' was 
        printed.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \232\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 85-88.
    \233\ Id. at 87-88. Credit card records obtained by the 
Investigative Subcommittee corroborated Dobum Kim's testimony that he 
visited the Washington, D.C. area in October 1993. See Exh. 74 
(American Express receipt regarding Dobum Kim's Oct. 1993 stay at Key 
Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia and restaurant charges).
    \234\ Telephone Int. with Dobum Kim at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On or about October 28, 1993, Dobum Kim had dinner 
        with Representative Kim, Tae Soo Chung, one of Tae Soo 
        Chung's sons, and Jennifer Ahn, at the Palm Restaurant 
        in Washington, D.C.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Telephone Int. of Dobum Kim, July 10, 1998, at 13-14; Dep. of 
Dobum Kim at 93-94; Exh. 74 (American Express receipts for charges at 
Palm Restaurant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Following the dinner at the Palm Restaurant, Dobum 
        Kim and Representative Kim went to Tae Soo Chung's 
        suite at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia 
        (Pentagon City).\236\ Dobum Kim escorted Representative 
        Kim and Jennifer Ahn downstairs when they departed the 
        hotel later that evening.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 96-97. Dobum Kim's testimony that Tae 
Soo Chung stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Pentagon City was corroborated 
by records obtained from the hotel. See Exh. 75 (records from Ritz 
Carlton regarding stay by Tae Soo Chung).
    \237\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 103-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Dobum Kim met Representative Kim in Honolulu on or 
        about January 16, 1994, and accompanied him by air to 
        Maui, where he took Representative Kim to the Grand 
        Wailea Resort.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \238\Id. at 109-10, 112-13; see Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 
1998, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          While in Maui in January 1994, Dobum Kim had dinner 
        with Representative Kim and Tae Soo Chung.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \239\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          At a golf course near the Grand Wailea Resort, Dobum 
        Kim purchased golf clubs and other equipment for 
        Representative Kim in Representative Kim's presence and 
        with his knowledge.\240\ Dobum Kim later played golf 
        with Representative Kim and Tae Soo Chung.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \240\ Id. at 124-27; Exh. 48 (American Express receipt for 
purchases at golf pro shop and corresponding sales receipt); Exh. 55 
(cash register tape relating to purchases at pro shop).
    \241\ Dep. of Dobum Kim at 117, 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          After returning to the continental United States from 
        Hawaii, Representative Kim personally telephoned Dobum 
        Kim and asked him to come to his home in Diamond Bar, 
        California.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\ Id. at 131-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On or about January 29, 1994, Dobum Kim went to 
        Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar, California 
        and gave him a $30,000 check.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \243\ Id. at 133-37; Exh. 61 ($30,000 check from Dobum Kim dated 
Jan. 29, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a letter to Representative Kim dated April 2, 1998, the 
Investigative Subcommittee asked Representative Kim to respond 
in writing to the following question: ``Please describe the 
circumstances surrounding Mr. Dobum Kim's payment of $30,000 to 
buy copies of your book, ``I'm Conservative.'' Please describe 
your relationship, if any, with Mr. Dobum Kim.'' \244\ On or 
about May 21, 1998, Ralph L. Lotkin, counsel to Representative 
Kim, submitted a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Democratic 
Member of the Investigative Subcommittee.\245\ Representative 
Kim personally reviewed, approved, and signed the letter, and 
he acknowledged that the letter was prepared with the 
assistance of counsel.\246\ In reply to the above-specified 
question contained in the Subcommittee's letter to 
Representative Kim dated April 2, 1998, Representative Kim 
responded as follows: ``I do not know who Dobum Kim is or any 
of the circumstances subsumed in your question.'' \247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \244\ Exh. 18.
    \245\ Exh. 19.
    \246\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 68-69.
    \247\ Exh. 19 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When questioned about that answer at his deposition on June 
18, 1998, Representative Kim stated that ``at that time [i.e., 
May 21, 1998] I didn't know who Dobum Kim was, until you 
mentioned today Hanbo. * * * At that time I had no idea who 
Dobum Kim is.'' \248\ Counsel for the Subcommittee then asked: 
``Even though we asked you [in the May 21, 1998, letter] about 
a $30,000 check?'' Representative Kim responded: ``I didn't 
know anything about a $30,000 check.'' \249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \248\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 68.
    \249\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the substantial credible evidence discussed above 
regarding direct personal contact between Dobum Kim and 
Representative Kim, the Investigative Subcommittee found 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim knowingly 
submitted false answers regarding Dobum Kim in his May 21, 
1998, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of 
the Investigative Subcommittee and in his testimony on June 18, 
1998, regarding his response about Dobum Kim in the May 21, 
1998, letter. Therefore, the Investigative Subcommittee found 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim conducted 
himself in a manner that does not reflect creditably on the 
House of Representatives, in violation of the Code of Official 
Conduct as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the House of 
Representatives.
    As stated above, on June 18, 1998, Representative Kim 
testified under oath before the Investigative Subcommittee. 
During his deposition, Representative Kim testified that:
          He did not remember calling Dobum Kim and asking him 
        to come to Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar, 
        California.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He denied that he asked Dobum Kim to come to his 
        house to give him money promised by the Chairman of 
        Hanbo Steel.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \251\ Id. (``Absolutely false.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He did not remember that the man who accompanied him 
        by air from Honolulu to Maui, or anyone else from Hanbo 
        Steel, came to his home in Diamond Bar.\252\ 
        (Subsequently, he qualified his response by stating 
        that, ``to the best of my recollection,'' Dobum Kim did 
        not come to his home.) \253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \252\ Id. at 44-46 (``I don't think he came to my house.'').
    \253\ Id. at 52-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He did not remember Dobum Kim telling him at his home 
        in Diamond Bar that Dobum Kim would write a $30,000 
        check.\254\ (Subsequently, Representative Kim called 
        this allegation ``a wild story.'' \255\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \254\ Id. at 46.
    \255\ Id. at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Dobum Kim has never given him a $30,000 check.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \256\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Dobum Kim did not write out a $30,000 check at 
        Representative Kim's home in Diamond Bar.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \257\ Id. at 50 (``Absolutely nonsense. * * * It didn't happen.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He did not remember telling Dobum Kim to write the 
        word ``books'' on the check for $30,000.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \258\ Id. at 53-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He did not remember telling Dobum Kim to write 
        ``books'' on the check in order to create the 
        appearance that he had paid for books.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\ Id. at 54-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He did not tell Dobum Kim what to say to 
        investigators if asked about the $30,000 check.\260\ 
        (Subsequently, Representative Kim stated that ``[t]o 
        the best of my recollection, I don't believe I did.'' 
        \261\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\ Id. at 58-59.
    \261\ Id. at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He does not know what happened to the proceeds from 
        the $30,000 check given by Dobum Kim.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \262\ Id. (``I just don't have any idea.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He has no knowledge that a deposit slip in the amount 
        of $30,000, dated March 2, 1994, and apparently filled 
        out by June Kim, corresponds in any way to the check 
        written by Dobum Kim in the amount of $30,000 in 
        January 1994.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \263\ Id. at 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on credible evidence in the record, as discussed 
above, the Investigative Subcommittee found substantial reason 
to believe that the above testimony by Representative Kim was 
knowingly false. Therefore, the Subcommittee found substantial 
reason to believe that Representative Kim engaged in conduct 
that does not reflect creditably on the House of 
Representatives, in violation of the Code of Official Conduct 
as set forth in Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the House of 
Representatives.

 F. Count VI: Violations of House Rule 51 and House Rule 43, Clause 1 
  (Receipt of Improper Gifts to Pay Partial Reimbursement to House of 
      Representatives for Excess Outside Earned Income from Book)

    In approximately February 1994, Representative Kim entered 
into a contract with Sungmoon Publishing Company, a South 
Korean company, to publish his autobiography.\264\ According to 
Representative Kim, the book was published in August 1994.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \264\ Exh. 76 (contract between Jay Kim and Sungmoon Publishing 
Company).
    \265\ Exh. 77 (letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, 
Feb. 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about February 21, 1995, Representative Kim wrote a 
letter to the Committee requesting ``a ruling on the acceptance 
of proceeds from a book I wrote.'' \266\ Other correspondence 
and communications between Representative Kim and the Committee 
followed regarding his income from the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \266\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 15, 1995, the Committee sent a letter to 
Representative Kim advising him of its determination that his 
income from the book, as represented to the Committee, ``does 
not qualify for the exception to the outside earned income 
limit for copyright royalties received from established 
publishers pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms.'' 
\267\ The Committee expressed particular concern about a 
purported agreement between Representative Kim and Heon Kim, a 
South Korean national, pursuant to which Representative Kim 
purportedly received royalties from Heon Kim consisting of 
forty percent of the gross proceeds of sales of his book in 
South Korea by Heon Kim.\268\ Representative Kim had first 
mentioned this royalty arrangement to the Committee in a letter 
to the Committee dated March 17, 1995. In that letter, he 
stated that ``[f]rom the final price of the book the publisher 
takes 50% of the proceeds, the bookbroker (marketing firm) 
[i.e., Heon Kim] receives 10% and the remaining 40% represents 
the royalty I am given. * * *'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \267\ Exh. 78 (letter from Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking 
Democratic member Jim McDermott to the Hon. Jay Kim, May 15, 1995 
(citing House Rule 47, clause 3(e)(5)).
    \268\ Id.
    \269\ Exh. 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its letter dated May 15, 1995, the Committee advised 
Representative Kim that ``your total book income for 1994 (from 
both the publisher and the marketing agent), added with any 
other outside income you may have earned in 1994, is subject to 
the $20,040 cap.'' \270\ Consistent with precedent regarding 
violations of the cap on outside earned income, the Committee 
told Representative Kim that ``you must either return the 
earned income you received in 1994 in excess of $20,040 or make 
donations to charity in an equivalent sum.'' \271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \270\ Exh. 78.
    \271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about August 3, 1995, Representative Kim filed his 
annual Financial Disclosure Statement (``FDS'') for calendar 
year 1994.\272\ On that FDS, he reported earned income from 
``Book Publishing'' of $132,298, noting on the report that 
``proceeds being refunded per 5/15/95 Standards Ctte. 
Communication.'' \273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\ Exh. 28.
    \273\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The next day, Representative Kim sent a letter to the 
Committee acknowledging that the amount of excess earned income 
in question was $112,258, based on the income reported in his 
FDS for 1994.\274\ Based on the information provided by 
Representative Kim, the Committee reconfirmed that $112,258 
constituted the amount of the required reimbursement in an 
October 26, 1995, letter of agreement signed by Representative 
Kim.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \274\ Exh. 80 (letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, 
Aug. 4, 1995). The amount of $112,258 represents the difference between 
$132,298--the amount of book income reported by Representative Kim--and 
the $20,040 cap on outside income.
    \275\ Exh. 81 (letter from Committee Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and 
Ranking Democratic Member Jim McDermott to Hon. Jay Kim, Oct. 26, 1995 
(signed and agreed to by Rep. Kim)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about December 31, 1997, Representative Kim 
transmitted three checks to the Committee totaling $20,000 in 
partial satisfaction of his obligation to repay excess earned 
income from his book.\276\ The checks consisted of a $10,000 
cashier's check purchased on December 31, 1997 from First Union 
National Bank of Virginia, payable to the U.S. Treasury; a 
personal check in the amount $4,000 dated December 31, 1997, 
drawn on the joint account of Jay Changjoon Kim and June Kim at 
California Korea Bank in Rowland Heights, California; and a 
personal check in the amount of $6,000 dated December 31, 1997, 
drawn on the joint account of Jay Kim and June Kim at the 
Congressional Federal Credit Union in Washington, D.C.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \276\ Exh. 82 (letter from the Hon. Jay Kim to the Hon. James V. 
Hansen, Dec. 31, 1997 (copies of checks enclosed with letter)).
    \277\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about January 23, 1998, Representative Kim submitted 
a second cashier's check to the Committee in the amount of 
$20,000, payable to the U.S. Treasury, in partial satisfaction 
of his obligation to repay excess earned income from his 
book.\278\ That cashier's check also was purchased from First 
Union National Bank of Virginia.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \278\ Exh. 83 (letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. James V. Hansen and 
Hon. Howard L. Berman, Jan. 23, 1998 (with copy of $20,000 cashier's 
check)).
    \279\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By Representative Kim's own admission, Jennifer Ahn 
purchased and transmitted to him the two cashier's checks in 
the amounts of $10,000 and $20,000 that he submitted to the 
Committee on or about December 31, 1997, and January 23, 1998, 
respectively, in partial reimbursement for excess earned income 
from his book.\280\ Ahn confirmed under oath that she purchased 
both cashier's checks on behalf of Representative Kim.\281\ 
Ahn, who resides in Northern Virginia, assisted Representative 
Kim with the marketing of his book in South Korea and the 
United States, and has helped to raise funds for his campaigns 
for election to the U.S. House of Representatives.\282\ Heon 
Kim, who purportedly served as a marketing agent for sales of 
Representative Kim's book in South Korea, is Ahn's brother-in-
law.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \280\ Exh. 19; Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 144, 174.
    \281\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 124-25, 144-45.
    \282\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 138-41, 147, 155-56, 
167, 171, 176; Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 30-31.
    \283\ Exh. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both Ahn and Representative Kim testified that the funds 
Ahn used to purchase the cashier's checks derived from proceeds 
from sales of Representative Kim's book to which he was 
entitled.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 149-50; Dep. of 
Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ahn testified that in October or November 1997, 
Representative Kim contacted her and told her that he was 
required to repay money to the House of Representatives or the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in connection with 
his book.\285\ According to Ahn, Representative Kim told her 
that he wanted Heon Kim to repay to him $30,000 that he had 
previously loaned to Heon Kim in order to pay part of the 
reimbursement owed for excess outside earned income.\286\ 
According to Ahn, the $30,000 represented proceeds from sales 
of Representative Kim's book by Heon Kim to which 
Representative Kim was entitled.\287\ Ahn testified that in 
approximately 1995 Heon Kim had asked if he could ``borrow'' 
the $30,000 in sales proceeds because of financial difficulties 
at the time relating to medical problems.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \285\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 90, 92, 95.
    \286\ Id. at 92-93, 94.
    \287\ Id. at 98.
    \288\  Id. at 97-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ahn testified that she conveyed Heon Kim's request to 
Representative Kim, and that Representative Kim agreed.\289\ 
According to both Ahn and Representative Kim, the purported 
agreement between Heon Kim and Representative Kim regarding 
deferred payment of the $30,000 was solely a verbal 
agreement.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \289\ Id. at 95, 99, 102.
    \290\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 99; Dep. of Hon. Jay 
Kim, June 9, 1998, at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In late 1997, according to Ahn, Representative Kim told her 
to ``get the money back'' that he purportedly had loaned to 
Heon Kim.\291\ According to Ahn, Heon Kim began to repay the 
$30,000 ``loan'' from Representative Kim in periodic 
installments beginning in 1996.\292\ She testified that 
sometimes Heon Kim personally paid her in cash in Korea, and 
sometimes he wired money to her in the United States.\293\ She 
kept no records of any of the payments by Heon Kim, according 
to her testimony.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \291\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 92, 94-95, 105.
    \292\ Id. at 109-10, 113.
    \293\ Id. at 106, 109-10.
    \294\ Id. at 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Ahn, she already had received repayment from 
Heon Kim of the entire $30,000 by the time that Representative 
Kim asked her to ``get the money back'' from Heon Kim.\295\ She 
testified that she did not inform Representative Kim she had 
previously received the money, however, because ``[h]e never 
asked for it.'' \296\ According to Ahn, she had been in 
possession of most of the $30,000 for a year or more before 
Representative Kim asked her for the money.\297\ Ahn further 
testified that she used some of the money that Heon Kim had 
repaid to pay her own expenses, deposited some of it in a 
personal financial account, and invested some of it in mutual 
funds.\298\ She testified that she liquidated personal 
investments to obtain funds with which to purchase the 
cashier's check in the amount of $10,000 in December 1997.\299\ 
She also testified that she used the proceeds from a loan by a 
close personal friend in South Korea to purchase the cashier's 
check in the amount of $20,000 in January 1998.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \295\ Id. at 105, 107, 110, 112.
    \296\ Id at 114; see also id. at 110-11.
    \297\ Id. at 114.
    \298\ Id at 111, 118.
    \299\ Id. at 119-20, 122-23, 126, 133, 146.
    \300\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 42-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ahn testified that she gave Representative Kim a cashier's 
check for only $10,000 in December 1997--rather than funds 
totaling $30,000--``because that's all I could afford at the 
time.'' \301\ According to Ahn, Representative Kim asked her 
when she could pay the remaining $20,000, and she said she 
would make the payment as soon as possible.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 128.
    \302\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim initially addressed the matter of the 
cashier's checks purchased by Jennifer Ahn in a May 21, 1998, 
letter from his attorney--which Representative Kim personally 
reviewed, approved, and signed--to the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member of the Investigative Subcommittee. In that 
letter, Representative Kim stated as follows:

          At approximately the time funds were being deposited 
        into my wife's personal checking account in South Korea 
        as a result of sales of my book, Ms. Ahn's brother-in-
        law, Mr. Hong [sic] Kim, inquired if he could borrow 
        approximately $30,000 because of medical and financial 
        problems. I agreed to lending Mr. Kim the money. 
        Accordingly, Mr. Kim retained $30,000 of my book 
        proceeds instead of depositing such sums into my wife's 
        bank account. This was an interest-free loan to be 
        repaid when Mr. Kim was financially able to do so.
          Subsequently, Mr. Kim was able to repay me the 
        $30,000 and I recently learned that he did so by 
        transferring such sums to his sister-in-law, Ms. Ahn, 
        over a period of time. It is my further understanding 
        that the funds were on deposit in one of Ms. Ahn's 
        equity or other banking accounts. Ms. Ahn did not 
        immediately remit the repayment to me nor did I press 
        her for it. When I became responsible to repay what was 
        considered to be excessive outside earned income as a 
        result of sales of my book, it became necessary to 
        acquire the funds previously repaid by Mr. Hong [sic] 
        Kim. To this end, Ms. Ahn transferred to me the $30,000 
        * * * [in the form of] two [cashier's] checks of 
        $10,000 and $20,000.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \303\ Exh. 19.

    At his deposition, Representative Kim adopted under oath 
the statements quoted above from his letter of May 21, 
1998.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \304\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is undisputed that Jennifer Ahn purchased and 
transmitted two cashier's checks to Representative Kim 
totalling $30,000, and that Representative Kim used the 
cashier's checks to make a partial reimbursement to the U.S. 
Treasury for excess earned income from his book. There is no 
evidence in the record that the $30,000 received by 
Representative Kim represents payment for any services rendered 
by Representative Kim, or investment income earned by 
Representative Kim.
    The Investigative Subcommittee therefore would have to 
credit representations by Representative Kim and Jennifer Ahn 
that the cashier's checks represented deferred income from book 
sales by Heon Kim in order to find that the cashier's checks 
did not constitute improper gifts to Representative Kim.
    Based on a review of the record as a whole, the 
Investigative Subcommittee did not credit Representative Kim's 
or Jennifer Ahn's explanations regarding the origins of the 
funds that Ahn used to purchase the cashier's checks.
    First, the only evidence offered during the inquiry in 
support of the claim that the cashier's checks represented 
deferred repayment of a $30,000 loan by Representative Kim to 
Heon Kim was the testimony of Representative Kim and Jennifer 
Ahn, a close associate of Representative Kim. Representative 
Kim acknowledged that no written agreement existed between 
himself and Heon Kim, and Ahn provided no documentary evidence 
to substantiate her testimony that Heon Kim made periodic loan 
repayments to her in cash or by wire transfer in connection 
with Representative Kim's book.
    Second, the Investigative Subcommittee found it implausible 
that Representative Kim would have agreed to defer repayment by 
Heon Kim of $30,000 during the period in question. According to 
disclosure reports filed by his campaign with the Federal 
Election Commission (``FEC''), his campaign owed him more than 
$200,000 during the period of November 28, 1994, to September 
30, 1996, a period that overlaps with the period in which Heon 
Kim purportedly owed $30,000 to Representative Kim.\305\ In 
addition, Representative Kim was confronting legal fees at the 
time relating to the criminal investigation by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.\306\ 
In light of the substantial personal debt that he confronted 
during the relevant time period, the Investigative Subcommittee 
did not credit the notion that Representative Kim would have 
foregone repayment of $30,000. Further, at no time prior to the 
Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry did Representative Kim 
advise the Committee that he was owed $30,000 by a South Korean 
national in connection with the book, or that he was seeking 
repayment of the money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \305\ Exh. 84 (Report of Receipts and Disbursements filed with FEC 
by Jay Kim for Congress (dated Dec. 20, 1994) (excerpt of post-election 
report showing $254,500 in outstanding loans owed to Jay Kim); Report 
of Receipts and Disbursement filed with FEC by Jay Kim for Congress 
(dated July 13, 1995) (excerpt of July 31 mid-year report showing 
$222,500 in outstanding loans owed to Jay Kim); Report of Receipts and 
Disbursements filed with FEC by Jay Kim for Congress (dated Oct. 9, 
1996) (excerpt of Oct. 15 quarterly report showing $213,000 in 
outstanding loans owed to Jay Kim). By June 30, 1997, the campaign 
still owed Representative Kim as much as $178,000 from personal loans 
he reportedly had made to the campaign. Report of Receipts and 
Disbursement filed with FEC by Jay Kim for Congress (July 31 Mid-Year 
Report dated July 28, 1997) (Exh. 85).
    \306\ Dep. of Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, Heon Kim's purported debt to Representative Kim is 
premised upon a purported marketing agreement between Heon Kim 
and Representative Kim whereby the publisher of Representative 
Kim's book was entitled to fifty percent of the revenue from 
Heon Kim's sales of the book. The publisher, however, advised 
counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee that he has no 
knowledge of such an agreement; that neither Heon Kim nor 
Sunkyong Bookstore (Heon Kim's business) was under any 
obligation to remit any percentage of subsequent sales of the 
book; and that neither Heon Kim nor Sunkyong Bookstore gave any 
money, either directly or indirectly, to the publishing company 
in connection with sales of the book by Hun Kim or Sunkyong 
Bookstore.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \307\ Telephone Int. of Chul Song, Apr. 6, 1998, at 7, 25-26; 
Letter from Committee Counsel David H. Laufman to Chul Song, July 10, 
1998 (and accompanying Korean translation) (Exh. 86); Letter (in 
Korean) from Chul Song to David H. Laufman, July 14, 1998 (and 
accompanying English translation) (Exh. 87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee also interviewed 
Heon Kim by telephone with the assistance of a translator. When 
asked if he had ``any agreements with Jay Kim regarding the 
sale or marketing of his book,'' Heon Kim responded, ``As far 
as I remember, I don't think there was one. * * * To the best 
of my recollection, there was no agreement with Jay Kim.'' 
\308\ Subsequently, he stated that he ``I don't remember 
exactly whether there was an agreement or not.'' \309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \308\ Telephone Interview of Heon Kim, Apr. 24, 1998, at 9.
    \309\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heon Kim also told Subcommittee counsel that he could not 
remember if Representative Kim received any money from his 
involvement in the sale of Representative Kim's book in 
Korea.\310\ Nor did he have any recollection of retaining a 
percentage of the proceeds from his sales of Representative 
Kim's book, or remitting fifty percent of the sales proceeds to 
the publisher.\311\ Finally, Heon Kim told Subcommittee counsel 
that he did not remember whether Representative Kim received 
any money from his sale of Representative Kim's book.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \310\ Id. at 9-10.
    \311\ Id. at 11.
    \312\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As stated above, Jennifer Ahn is Heon Kim's sister-in-law 
and worked with Heon Kim to market Representative Kim's book in 
South Korea.\313\ She testified that she has no knowledge of 
any agreement or understanding between Heon Kim and 
Representative Kim regarding how much money Representative Kim 
would receive from sales of his book in South Korea.\314\ She 
also testified that she has no knowledge of whether Heon Kim 
received a percentage of the proceeds from sales of Jay Kim's 
book in South Korea.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \313\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 138-41, 144-45, 155-
57, 160-62.
    \314\ Id. at 159 (``I don't know. I don't think so, no.'').
    \315\ Id. at 158. The Subcommittee also found it implausible that 
Ahn would have waited more than one year to inform Representative Kim 
that she had received $30,000 purportedly owed to him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the record as a whole, the Investigative 
Subcommittee therefore found substantial reason to believe that 
the cashier's checks transmitted by Jennifer Ahn to 
Representative Kim in approximately December 1997 and January 
1998, respectively, constituted gifts within the meaning of 
House Rule 51, and that Representative Kim's acceptance of the 
checks was in violation of that rule. The record further 
supports the conclusion that Representative Kim used those 
improper gifts to make a partial reimbursement to the U.S. 
Treasury in connection with his violation of the limit on 
outside earned income. For that reason, the Investigative 
Subcommittee also found substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Kim conducted himself in a manner that does not 
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives, in 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct as set forth in 
Clause 1 of Rule 43 of the House of Representatives.
    On September 18, 1998--nearly two months after the draft 
SAV served on Representative Kim--Representative Kim's 
attorney, Ralph Lotkin, provided the Subcommittee with a letter 
from Heon Kim offered as exculpatory evidence with regard to 
Count VI of the SAV.\316\ The letter, which is dated August 20, 
1998, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \316\ Exh. 88.

          I, Heon Kim, borrowed $30,000.00 from Congressman Jay 
        Kim from which I obtained by keeping portions of the 
        book sale money from the Congressman's book and that my 
        agreement with Congressman Jay Kim's matter only was 
        verbal.
          When I was questioned by Committee counsels, I was 
        not specifically asked about $30,000.00 transaction. 
        And it would be incorrect for Committee to conclude 
        that I did not have a personal agreement with 
        Congressman Jay Kim.
          The confusion about this matter may due [sic] to the 
        language difficulties and I did not completely 
        understand what their questions were about.
          I would like to have the opportunity to appear before 
        the Committee to testify.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \317\ Attached to the letter from Heon Kim was a ``Notarial 
Certificate,'' apparently signed by an attorney in South Korea, stating 
that ``HEON KIM personally appeared before me and admitted his (her) 
subscription to the attached letter'' on August 19, 1998. Id.

    On September 24, 1998, Subcommittee counsel interviewed 
Heon Kim again by telephone to question him about the letter 
provided by Mr. Lotkin.\318\ Although the interview had been 
arranged to discuss the affidavit, Heon Kim was reluctant to 
discuss it.\319\ He began the interview, for example, by 
stating that ``I do not have much to say. And frankly speaking, 
I do not understand the reason why I am getting questioned. * * 
* [T]he letter that I sent you * * * explains everything that I 
have to say about the case. That's all I have to say.'' Upon 
further questioning, Heon Kim stated that he had personally 
written the letter, in English, after Mr. Lotkin had contacted 
him.\320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \318\ Ms. Ansook Park, who provided translation in the first 
interview with Heon Kim on April 24, 1998, also provided translation 
for this interview.
    \319\ Heon Kim advised Subcommittee counsel that he was not feeling 
well at the time because of a cold that complicated problems resulting 
from a kidney illness. Telephone Interview of Heon Kim, Sept. 24, 1998, 
at 3-4. He also said he was not in good health at the time of his first 
interview in April 1998. Id. at 8.
    \320\ Id. at 7-9. Heon Kim acknowledged that he is ``[j]ust a 
little bit'' fluent in English, yet he maintained that he wrote the 
August 20, 1998, letter in English by himself, and that no one else had 
any involvement in preparing the letter. Id. at 6, 9-10. He told 
Subcommittee counsel that he did not communicate with Jennifer Ahn 
regarding the letter, and indicated that he had spoken only to Ralph 
Lotkin. Id. at 10. He did not respond directly, however, to the 
question of whether he had spoken directly to Representative Kim about 
the letter. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heon Kim was reluctant to provide substantive responses to 
questions by Subcommittee counsel. He stated that he had 
received money from his sales of Representative Kim's book, but 
he declined to confirm the amount of money he had 
received.\321\ He also said that he had repaid the money and 
had transmitted repayment by wire transfers and cash.\322\ He 
refused, however, to identify the person or persons to whom he 
wired the money or paid the cash.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \321\ Id. at 14.
    \322\ Id. at 16.
    \323\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When asked why he did not mention the $30,000 ``loan'' 
during his first interview, Heon Kim responded that ``since you 
[did] not ask such questions, I didn't answer such questions * 
* *.'' \324\ In fact, Subcommittee counsel posed questions to 
Heon Kim during his first interview that should have elicited 
mention of the purported $30,000 loan. The following two 
exchanges occurred during the first interview:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \324\ Id. at 13-14.

    Q. All I am asking you is if you know whether Jay Kim 
received any money from your involvement in the sale of Jay 
Kim's book in Korea.
    A. I cannot remember now.\325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \325\ Telephone Interview of Heon Kim, Apr. 24, 1998 at 9-10.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q. Are you telling us, Mr. Kim, that you do not remember 
whether Jay Kim received any money from your sale of his book? 
Or are you saying that he did not in fact receive any money 
from the sale of his book?
    A. I'm saying I don't remember whether he did or not.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \326\ Id. at 12.

    Not until after Representative Kim's attorney apparently 
contacted Heon Kim, following the Subcommittee's adoption of 
the SAV (or the draft SAV), did he remember ``borrowing'' 
$30,000 in book proceeds from Representative Kim.
    Finally, in his August 20, 1998, letter, Heon Kim stated 
that ``I would like to have the opportunity to appear before 
the Committee to testify.'' In his interview on September 24, 
however, he stated that ``the letter that I sent you was sent 
because I thought it was the last thing that I could do 
relating to this matter. * * * And * * * I would really like to 
ask you to stop questioning me * * * relating to this matter, 
because * * * the content of the letter reflects all the 
information that I have that I know relating to the matter.'' 
\327\ In addition, he declined an offer by Subcommittee counsel 
to reschedule the telephone interview at a time convenient to 
him.\328\ Thus, Heon Kim's purported interest in testifying 
before the Committee appears to be contrived and disingenuous, 
particularly in light of his health problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \327\ Id. at 8-9.
    \328\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For all the reasons specified above, the Investigative 
Subcommittee was unable to accord significant probative value 
to the August 20, 1998, letter from Heon Kim. Consequently, the 
Subcommittee reaffirmed its previous conclusion regarding the 
cashier's checks purchased by Jennifer Ahn and retained Count 
VI of the SAV.

              V. Results of Inquiry Regarding Other Issues

    The following section of the Report discusses evidence 
regarding matters within the scope of the Investigative 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction that did not result in charges 
against Representative Kim. This evidence is included in the 
Report to ensure that there is an accessible public record of 
the results of the inquiry concerning each matter within the 
scope of the Subcommittee's investigation. The Subcommittee 
emphasizes that no charges were brought against Representative 
Kim with respect to these matters, and that no inferences of 
guilt or liability should be drawn from the presentation of the 
evidence.

A. Violations of Federal Election Campaign Laws by Representative Kim's 
                           Campaign Committee

    Representative Kim's campaign committee pleaded guilty to 
five felonies related to the 1992-1996 campaigns.\329\ The 
Subcommittee determined that, through his admissions, 
Representative Kim had knowledge of several of these felonies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \329\ Exh. 3. In addition to the guilty pleas discussed in this 
section, Representative Kim's campaign committee also pleaded guilty to 
three additional felonies: (1) concealing $19,000 in corporate 
contributions in FEC reports filed from approximately October 14, 1992 
through approximately January 11, 1993, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001; (2) between approximately May 21, 1992 and January 27, 1993, 
concealing illegal corporate contributions by altering the names on 
checks to omit their corporate designations or by falsely reporting to 
the FEC that the contributors had been ``verified not incorporated,'' 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001; and (3) filing a false report to 
the FEC on approximately May 26, 1992, which falsely stated that the 
campaign received a $1,000 contribution from ``Korean Air Travel,'' 
when the contribution was, in fact, from Korean Air, a corporation, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Id. In 1995 and 1996, the Department 
of Justice also obtained guilty pleas from five multinational 
corporations in connection with illegal contributions to Representative 
Kim's 1992 election. The Subcommittee interviewed witnesses in an 
effort to ascertain whether Representative Kim was involved in these 
illegal contributions, but was unable to resolve this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Guilty plea by Representative Kim's campaign and knowledge by 
        Representative Kim of false statements by his campaign 
        committee to the FEC regarding contributions by Jaycee Kim, 
        Song Nien Yeh, and Robert Yu

    On or about July 28, 1997, Representative Kim signed a plea 
agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Central District of California on behalf of the Jay Kim For 
Congress Committee (hereinafter, ``campaign committee''), his 
campaign committee, regarding an investigation relating to the 
financing of his 1992, 1994, and 1996 campaigns for election to 
the House of Representatives.\330\ Representative Kim agreed to 
waive indictment by a grand jury and to plead guilty on behalf 
of his campaign committee to filing a false statement with the 
Federal Election Commission in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001. The plea agreement that Representative Kim entered 
into on behalf of his campaign was filed with the United States 
District Court for the Central District of California on or 
about July 31, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \330\ Exh. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about August 11, 1997, the campaign committee was 
convicted of filing a false statement with the FEC pursuant to 
the campaign's plea agreement. The campaign committee 
stipulated to the following facts as the factual basis for the 
guilty plea:

          14. On or about April 15, 1992, defendant JUNE KIM 
        accepted two checks, each in the amount of 
        approximately $9,000 from Jaycee Kim. On the same day, 
        defendant JUNE KIM deposited one of the checks into a 
        bank account of J&J properties, a business owned by 
        defendants JAY KIM and JUNE KIM, and the other check 
        into a joint personal bank account of defendants JAY 
        KIM and JUNE KIM. Also on the same day, defendant JUNE 
        KIM wrote two $9,000 checks to defendant JAY KIM FOR 
        CONGRESS COMMITTEE, one from each of the above 
        accounts, and deposited the checks into the campaign's 
        bank account. An agent of defendant JAY KIM FOR 
        CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew that the payments from Jaycee 
        Kim were an illegal excessive contribution.
          15. On or about May 22, 1992, defendant JAY KIM 
        accepted a $50,000 loan from Song Nien Yeh, whom 
        defendant JAY KIM knew was a Taiwanese national. 
        Defendant JAY KIM deposited the $50,000 payment into 
        his personal bank account. On May 26, 1992, defendant 
        JAY KIM wrote a $50,000 check on his personal bank 
        account and deposited the check into the bank account 
        of defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE. Defendant 
        JAY KIM knew that the payment from Song Nien Yeh was an 
        illegal excessive and foreign contribution.
          16. In or about June, 1992, defendant JAY KIM asked 
        Michael Li, a campaign fundraiser, to attempt to 
        arrange a loan for the campaign from Robert Yu. On or 
        about June 11, 1992, Robert Yu gave Michael Li a 
        $30,000 check written on the account of Chi-Hu Yu, a 
        Taiwanese national who was Robert Yu's sister. On or 
        about June 15, 1992, Michael Li gave a $30,000 check to 
        defendant JAY KIM and told defendant JAY KIM that the 
        money was from Robert Yu. On June 18, 1992, defendant 
        JUNE KIM deposited the $30,000 check that Michael Li 
        had given to defendant JAY KIM into a joint personal 
        bank account of defendants JAY KIM and JUNE KIM. On or 
        about June 19, 1992, defendant JUNE KIM wrote a $25,000 
        check on the joint personal bank account and deposited 
        the check into the account of defendant JAY KIM FOR 
        CONGRESS COMMITTEE. Defendants JAY KIM and an agent of 
        defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew that the 
        payment from Chi-Hu Yu, Robert Yu, and Michael Li was 
        an illegal excessive contribution.
          17. As defendants JAY KIM and an agent of defendant 
        JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew, beginning on or 
        about September 15, 1992 and continuing to on or about 
        January 24, 1997, at least one, and at times all, of 
        the loans described in paragraphs 14-16, above, were 
        reported by defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE to 
        the Federal Election Commission in campaign finance 
        reports as loans from the personal funds of defendant 
        JAY KIM, rather than from the individuals whom 
        defendants JAY KIM and an agent of defendant JAY KIM 
        FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew were the true sources of 
        the illegal foreign and/or excessive loan 
        contributions. As a result, defendant JAY KIM FOR 
        CONGRESS COMMITTEE concealed from the Federal Election 
        Commission the true sources and illegal nature of the 
        loan contributions.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \331\ Exh. 3 (emphasis added). At his court appearance to enter a 
guilty plea, Representative Kim also stipulated to an identical 
statement of facts in his personal plea agreement, although he did not 
personally plead guilty to Count Five of the information. Exh. 2 at 27. 
On May 20, 1992, the campaign committee filed a report with the FEC 
listing the Jaycee Kim contributions as a $9,000 loan from ``Jay and 
June Kim'' and a $9,000 loan from ``J&J Properties'' (a company 
operated by the Kims). Exh. 89 (Sch. C). The next day, the report was 
amended to list the contribution as a $18,000 loan to the campaign 
committee from Representative and Mrs. Kim. Exh. 90 (Sch. C). Other FEC 
disclosure statements related to this plea included a July 1992 report 
filed by Representative Kim's campaign committee listing a $50,000 loan 
to the campaign from Representative Kim on May 26, 1992 (related to the 
illegal Song Nien Yeh contribution) and also listing a $25,000 check as 
a loan from Representative Kim to his campaign (related to the illegal 
contribution by Robert Yu). Exh. 91 (Sch. C).

    Representative Kim discussed the violations to which his 
campaign committee pleaded guilty on two occasions. In his 
letter to the Subcommittee dated January 29, 1998, 
Representative Kim stated that he did not dispute any element 
of the plea agreement he entered into on behalf of his campaign 
committee, including thecorresponding Statement of Facts.\332\ 
On June 8, 1998, Representative Kim testified under oath before the 
Investigative Subcommittee that he stood by and adopted under oath the 
provisions of the Statement of Facts relating to false statements to 
the FEC by his campaign committee.\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \332\ Exh. 17.
    \333\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 59-63, 152-161. 
Representative Kim adopted paragraphs 14-17 of the Statement of Facts 
attached to his personal plea agreement. Those paragraphs, however, are 
identical to paragraphs 14-17 of the Statement of Facts incorporated 
within his campaign committee's plea agreement. See Exhs. 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee took no further action regarding this 
matter because Representative Kim personally was not convicted 
of the above-specified violations committed by his campaign 
committee.

2. Guilty plea by Representative Kim's campaign and knowledge by 
        Representative Kim of false statements by his campaign 
        committee to the FEC regarding in-kind corporate contributions 
        by JayKim Engineers, Inc.

    In the plea agreement that he entered into on behalf of his 
campaign committee,\334\ Representative Kim agreed to plead 
guilty on behalf of his campaign committee to filing a false 
statement with the FEC in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. On 
or about August 11, 1997, the campaign committee was convicted 
of filing a false statement with the FEC pursuant to its plea 
agreement. The campaign committee stipulated to the following 
facts as the factual basis for the guilty plea:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \334\ Exh. 3.

          9. Beginning in or about March, 1992, through in or 
        about July, 1993, defendant JAY KIM caused JayKim 
        Engineers, Inc., to contribute to defendant JAY KIM FOR 
        CONGRESS COMMITTEE approximately $83,248 in in-kind 
        contributions. The in-kind contributions included 
        office space, printing expenses, automobile expenses, 
        postage, Federal Express expenses, food and travel 
        expenses, janitorial services, and secretarial and 
        other personnel services. The in-kind contributions had 
        an aggregate value of more than $2,000 in 1992 and more 
        than $2,000 in 1993. Defendant JAY KIM knew that it was 
        illegal for corporations, including JayKim Engineers, 
        Inc. to make contributions, including in-kind 
        contributions, to federal election campaigns such as 
        his, but he caused JayKim Engineers, Inc., to make 
        those contributions anyway.
          10. Beginning in or about March 1992 and continuing 
        until July, 1993, defendant JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS 
        COMMITTEE, through defendant JAY KIM and other of its 
        agents and employees, knowingly accepted the in-kind 
        corporate resources contributed by JayKim Engineers, 
        Inc., even though they knew the contributions were 
        illegal. Thereafter, from on or about April 13, 1992 
        through on or about July 30, 1993, defendant JAY KIM 
        FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE submitted to the Federal 
        Election commission campaign finance reports which 
        failed to report that JayKim Engineers, Inc., 
        contributed in-kind corporate resources to defendant 
        JAY KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, even though defendant 
        JAY KIM and other agents and employees of defendant JAY 
        KIM FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE knew that those 
        contributions were legally required to be reported. By 
        failing to report the contributions, defendant JAY KIM 
        FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE concealed the illegal JayKim 
        Engineers, Inc. corporate contributions from the 
        Federal Election Commission.\335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \335\ Exh. 3 (Statement of Facts, paras. 9-10). Representative Kim 
also stipulated to an identical statement of facts in his personal plea 
agreement, although he did not personally plead guilty to Count Five of 
the information. Exh. 2 (guilty plea hearing, August 11, 1997, at 27). 
Representative Kim pleaded personally to Count Six of the information 
and stipulated personally to paragraph 9 of the Statement of Facts, 
which is identical to paragraph 9 of the Campaign Statement of Facts.

    Representative Kim discussed the violations to which his 
campaign committee pleaded guilty on two occasions. In his 
letter dated January 29, 1998, he told the Subcommittee that he 
did not dispute any element of the plea agreement that he 
entered into on behalf of the campaign committee, including the 
Statement of Facts.\336\ On June 8, 1998, Representative Kim 
testified under oath before the Investigative Subcommittee that 
he stood by and adopted under oath the provisions of the plea 
agreement relating to false statements to the FEC by his 
campaign committee regarding in-kind corporate 
contributions.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \336\ Exh. 17.
    \337\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 145-149. 
Representative Kim adopted paragraphs 9-10 of the Statements of Facts 
attached to his personal plea agreement. Those paragraphs, however, are 
identical to paragraphs 9-10 of the Statement of Facts associated with 
his campaign committee's plea agreement. See Exhs. 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee took no further action regarding this 
matter because Representative Kim personally was not convicted 
of the above-specified violation committed by his campaign 
committee.

 B. Transfer of $86,000 from June Kim's Bank Account in South Korea to 
                    the United States in August 1994

    Among the materials provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office 
to the Investigative Subcommittee were documents indicating 
that June Kim transferred approximately $86,000 on August 2, 
1994, from an account in her name at Cho Hung Bank in Seoul, 
South Korea, to a bank account in California in the name of 
Representative Kim.\338\ Officials at the U.S. Attorney's 
Office indicated to Subcommittee counsel that they had obtained 
the documents in connection with a book written by 
Representative Kim in 1994 in an effort to determine whether 
income attributed to book sales in fact represented illegal 
foreign contributions to Representative Kim's campaign. The 
Investigative Subcommittee subsequently sought additional 
information about this matter based on Representative Kim's 
guilty plea to receiving an illegal campaign contribution from 
a foreign national in 1992 and its concern about the source of 
excess outside earned income from Representative Kim's book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \338\ Exh. 92 (copies of wire transfers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to determine whether the $86,000 in wire 
transfers represented proceeds from sales of Representative 
Kim's book, it was necessary for the Investigative Subcommittee 
to obtain background information regarding the publication, 
marketing, and sales of the book. The Subcommittee learned that 
in February 1994, Representative Jay Kim entered into a written 
agreement with Sungmoon Publishing Company (``Sungmoon''), a 
Korean company, to publish his autobiography.\339\ Under the 
terms of the publishing agreement, Sungmoon retained exclusive 
rights to sales of the book in South Korea,\340\ while 
Representative Kim retained exclusive rights to sales of the 
book outside of South Korea.\341\ The publishing agreement, 
which was signed and initialed by Representative Kim,\342\ 
provided for Representative Kim to receive a single $25,000 
payment from Sungmoon in equivalent Korean currency for 
producing a manuscript, to be calculated at the exchange rate 
of 800 won to $1.\343\ The agreement further specified that the 
payment for the manuscript would be made directly to June Kim, 
``the Author's designated agent,'' in Seoul, Korea on or before 
February 15, 1994.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \339\ Exh. 76 (para. 6 of publishing agreement).
    \340\ Id. (para. 13); see Telephone Interview of Chul Song, Apr. 6, 
1998, at 13 (president and owner of publishing company) (hereinafter 
``Chul Song. Int.'').
    \341\ Exh. 76 (para. 13); see Chul Song Int. at 13.
    \342\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 14-16.
    \343\ Exh. 76 (para. 6).
    \344\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The publishing agreement did not entitle Representative Kim 
to any royalties or other remuneration from Sungmoon.\345\ 
Thus, the only financial obligation the publisher had to 
Representative Kim was to pay him the equivalent of $25,000 for 
producing the manuscript.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \345\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 19. Indeed, Paragraph 
13 of the publishing agreement stated that ``[t]he Author [i.e., Jay 
Kim] agrees not to have or make any claim for any of the profits 
realized by the Publisher from marketing and/or sale of the published 
book in Korea.'' Exh. 76.
    \346\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the execution of the publishing agreement, 
Representative Kim drafted the book with the assistance of a 
ghostwriter.\347\ Jennifer Ahn, a Korean-American who 
previously had helped to raise funds for Representative Kim's 
campaign, assisted in the production of the manuscript.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \347\ Id. at 36.
    \348\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 161-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 15, 1994, June Kim received from the publisher 
Korean currency (in cash) totaling the equivalent of 
$25,000.\349\ According to the publisher, the payment was made 
in cash at the request of Jay Kim.\350\ Bank records provided 
to the Subcommittee by Mrs. Kim indicate that she deposited the 
money into a savings account in her name at Ho Hung Bank in 
Seoul, South Korea, and that the account was opened on the same 
day the deposit was made.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \349\ Exh. 93 (receipt for 20 million won); see Chul Song Int. at 
24, 33.
    \350\ Chul Song Int. at 33.
    \351\ Exh. 94 (letter from June O. Kim to David H. Laufman, June 8, 
1998; Cho Hung Bank records showing deposit of 20 million won into 
account #312-04-380020 of June Kim on February 15, 1994; and English 
translation of bank records); see also Letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. 
Lamar S. Smith and Hon. Ed Pastor, May 21, 1998 (``[A]ny revenues 
received from the sales of my book were deposited into Mrs. Kim's bank 
account in South Korea.'') (Exh. 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the publisher, the payment of $25,000 was the 
only payment made to Jay Kim by the publisher in connection 
with the book.\352\ Pursuant to the publishing agreement, 
Representative Kim did not receive any royalties or other 
proceeds from the publisher.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \352\ Chul Song Int. at 24.
    \353\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's book was published in South Korea in 
August 1994.\354\ According to information provided by the 
publisher, Sungmoon printed 20,000 copies of the book.\355\ It 
sold approximately 17,000 copies in Korea, and distributed an 
additional 3,000 copies free for promotional purposes.\356\ 
Publishing records indicate that Sungmoon made its first sales 
of the book on August 23, 1994, and its last sales on December 
29, 1994.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \354\ Telephone Interview of Myungsuk Park, Apr. 13, 1998, at 24; 
Letter from Hon. Jay Kim to Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, Feb. 21, 1995 (Exh. 
77).
    \355\ Chul Song Int. at 18; Exh. 95 (printing and sales information 
from Sungmoon, and English translation).
    \356\ Id. According to another official at Sungmoon Publishing 
Company, the 3,000 books distributed for free included books that were 
given to persons who attended a book-signing party at the Hilton Hotel 
in Seoul in late August or September 1994. Telephone Int. with Myungsuk 
Park, Apr. 13, 1998, at 27; Chul Song. Int. at 17; see Dep. of Jennifer 
Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 170 (recalling that book-signing ceremony 
occurred in late August or September 1994).
    \357\ Exh. 95; see Chul Song Int. at 28 (regarding sales records 
provided by publisher).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he entered into an 
unwritten agreement with Heon Kim, a South Korean national, to 
market the book in South Korea.\358\ Heon Kim is the brother-
in-law of Jennifer Ahn \359\ and owned a business in South 
Korea operating under the name Sunkyong Books 
(``Sunkyong'').\360\ According to Representative Kim, he 
entered into a marketing agreement with Heon Kim because the 
publisher, Sungmoon, lacked commercial marketing 
capability,\361\ and because Jennifer Ahn recommended Heon Kim 
and said he possessed marketing experience.\362\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \358\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9,1998, at 47; see also Exh. 19.
    \359\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 51.
    \360\ Telephone Interview of Heon Kim, Apr. 24, 1998, at 4.
    \361\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 51.
    \362\ Id. at 51-53, 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a letter that Representative Kim sent to the 
full Committee in March 1995, he received proceeds from Heon 
Kim's sales of the book based on the following formula: ``From 
the final price of the book, the publisher takes 50% of the 
proceeds, the book-broker [i.e., Heon Kim] receives 10% and the 
remaining 40% represents the royalty I am given.'' \363\ At his 
deposition, Representative Kim reaffirmed under oath that this 
formula governed the proceeds he received in connection with 
Heon Kim's sales of the book in South Korea.\364\ He explained 
that he was entitled to 40 percent of the final price of each 
book sold by Heon Kim.\365\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \363\ Exh. 79.
    \364\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9,1998, at 54-59, 69-71.
    \365\ Id. at 59. According to Representative Kim, he met ``once 
briefly'' with Heon Kim in South Korea. Id. at 52. He testified that 
except for that occasion, he had no further direct contact with Heon 
Kim and communicated with Jennifer Ahn regarding the marketing of the 
book in South Korea. Id. at 61-62. Through Jennifer Ahn, Representative 
Kim testified that he provided the names of potential book purchasers 
to Heon Kim, including former colleagues, relatives, friends, churches, 
colleges and universities, government agencies, alumni, and Korean 
businesses and banks. Id. at 63-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Records prepared by Sungmoon, the publisher,\366\ indicate 
that Sunkyong Book Store (i.e., Heon Kim) purchased 8,520 books 
directly from Sungmoon--approximately one-half of all the books 
sold in South Korea by Sungmoon.\367\ According to the 
publisher's records, Sunkyong made its first purchase of books 
on September 8, 1994, and its last purchase on December 29, 
1994.\368\ Representative Kim testified that he has no 
knowledge of how many books Heon Kim purchased from the 
publisher, the price he paid for the books, or what he did with 
the books he purchased from the publisher.\369\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \366\ Exh. 95; see Telephone Interview with Myungsuk Park, Apr. 13, 
1998, at 26 (publishing official) (``We sold a lot of books to Sun Kong 
Bookstore, which was owned by Mr. Heon Kim.'').
    \367\ Telephone Int. with Myungsuk Park, Apr. 13, 1998, at 34-36.
    \368\ Exh. 95; see Telephone Interview with Chul Song, Apr. 6, 
1998, at 30.
    \369\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, at 60, 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Representative Kim's testimony and a May 21, 
1998, letter from Representative Kim's attorney to the 
Investigative Subcommittee--reviewed and approved by 
Representative Kim--Heon Kim deposited book proceeds to which 
Representative Kim was entitled into June Kim's account at a 
bank in South Korea, purportedly pursuant to June Kim's 
instructions.\370\ Representative Kim testified that he 
personally had no involvement in directing Heon Kim regarding 
what to do with proceeds from sales of Representative Kim's 
book.\371\ He also testified that he did not receive ``any 
money'' from Heon Kim, ``not even [a] penny.'' \372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \370\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 73, 75; Exh. 19.
    \371\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 78.
    \372\ Id. at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Representative Kim, persons other than Heon 
Kim may have deposited money into June Kim's bank account in 
Korea in connection with their purchase(s) of the book.\373\ He 
testified that two persons bypassed Heon Kim and purchased 
books directly from the publisher, subsequently making deposits 
to June Kim's bank account.\374\ In those instances, he 
testified that his share of the gross proceeds was 50 percent 
rather than 40 percent, as the buyer did not pay Heon Kim's 10 
percent commission.\375\ Representative Kim testified that he 
did not know how many books were involved in those purported 
purchase transactions.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \373\ Id. at 92. According to several witnesses, third parties may 
deposit funds, including cash, into bank accounts in the name of 
another person in South Korea. See, e.g., Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 51. 
Their testimony was corroborated by records regarding June Kim's 
account at Cho Hung Bank in Seoul, South Korea, which reflect deposits 
made by third parties.
    \374\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim at 96-97, 99.
    \375\ Id. at 97.
    \376\ Id. at 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the book's publication, the book was marketed in 
South Korea primarily by Heon Kim and Jennifer Ahn.\377\ Ahn 
testified that she marketed the book to South Korean companies 
and to friends and former school acquaintances of 
Representative Kim.\378\ According to Ahn, many friends of 
Representative Kim's who were executives at Korean companies 
ordered his book in bulk to distribute to their employees.\379\ 
Ahn's testimony was corroborated by Myungsuk Park, an official 
at Sungmoon Publishing Company, who told Subcommittee counsel 
that Ahn was instrumental in obtaining book orders from Korean 
companies Samsung Electronics and Gold Star.\380\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \377\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 138-41, 147, 155-56. 
Ahn testified that Heon Kim was primarily responsible for marketing the 
book in South Korea, but she could not identify anyone to whom Heon Kim 
sold the book. Id. at 155-56.
    \378\ Id. at 138-41, 147.
    \379\ Id. at 138-40.
    \380\ Telephone Interview with Myungsuk Park, Apr. 13, 1998, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Ahn, June Kim also was involved in marketing 
Representative Kim's book in South Korea.\381\ Ahn testified 
that Mrs. Kim monitored the amount of money deposited into her 
South Korean bank account from book sales.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \381\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 147.
    \382\ Id. at 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that his friends, relatives, 
and former classmates in South Korea also helped to promote the 
book.\383\ He further testified that he did not personally have 
any involvement in promoting the book in South Korea except for 
attending a book-signing party at the Hilton Hotel in 
Seoul.\384\ Jennifer Ahn testified that she did not remember 
whether she discussed the marketing or sales of the book with 
Representative Kim at the time, and that she discussed 
marketing and sales primarily with June Kim, with whom she was 
``very close at that time.'' \385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \383\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 42.
    \384\ Id. at 43.
    \385\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Ahn, Heon Kim was principally responsible for 
collecting money for book sales in South Korea and arranging 
for shipment to the purchaser.\386\ Ahn testified that Heon Kim 
arranged for money from book sales to be deposited into an 
account of June Kim's at Cho Hung Bank in Seoul.\387\ Ahn also 
testified that June Kim sometimes directed Heon Kim to use 
proceeds from book sales in Korea to buy extra books for 
delivery to Korean companies that were purchasing the 
book.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \386\ Id. at 148-49.
    \387\ Id. at 148.
    \388\ Id. at 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he has no knowledge of 
whether anyone tried to market the book or obtain advance 
orders prior to the book's publication, either in South Korea 
or the United States.\389\ He also testified that he has no 
knowledge that June Kim, Jennifer Ahn, or the publisher 
received any money in connection with the book prior to its 
publication.\390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \389\ Id. at 37.
    \390\ Id. at 38-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Copies of wire transfers originally obtained by the FBI 
from the New York branch of Cho Hung Bank indicate that on or 
about August 2, 1994, June Kim transferred approximately 
$86,000 from her savings account at Cho Hung Bank in South 
Korea to a joint equity line of credit account that she and Jay 
Kim maintained at California Korea Bank in Rowland Heights, 
California.\391\ According to Ahn, June Kim told her that she 
had wired money from South Korea to the United States that 
represented earnings from book sales in Korea, although Ahn was 
unsure whether the wire transfers mentioned by Mrs. Kim related 
to the August 2, 1994, transfers.\392\ A bank statement from 
California Korea Bank regarding the Kims' joint equity line of 
credit account, dated August 15, 1994, indicates a payment of 
$22,126 to the account on August 2, 1994, and a separate 
payment of approximately $52,944.\393\ Thus, the bank account 
indicates payments during the relevant time period totaling 
only approximately $75,070, rather than $86,000. The 
Subcommittee was unable to resolve this discrepancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \391\ Exh. 92 (copies of wire transfers). The ``ordering customer'' 
identified on the documents reflecting transfers on August 2, 1994, is 
``Kim Jung Ok,'' June Kim's Korean name, while the ``beneficiary 
customer'' identified on the wire transfers is ``Jay Chang Jon Kim,'' 
Representative Kim's Korean name. Id. The money from June Kim's account 
at Cho Hung Bank was transferred in two separate amounts of $64,000 and 
$22,151, respectively. Id. Records regarding June Kim's account at Cho 
Hung Bank, provided to the Investigative Subcommittee by June Kim, 
indicate that approximately $86,874 was withdrawn from Mrs. Kim's 
account in three transactions on August 1, 1994, and that additional 
withdrawals totaling approximately $45,385 were made in two 
transactions on August 2, 1994. Exh. 94 (records from Cho Hung Bank 
regarding account #312-04-380020 in name of June Kim).
    \392\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1994, at 152-53.
    \393\ Exh. 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he has no knowledge about 
the transfer of approximately $86,000 from an account in South 
Korea to an account in the United States under his or his 
wife's control.\394\ He also testified that he has never 
discussed the transfer of this money with June Kim.\395\ He 
expressed an assumption that the money derived from book sales, 
but testified that he has no actual knowledge that the money 
related to sales of his book.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \394\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 103-05.
    \395\ Id. at 107.
    \396\ Id. at 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a February 21, 1995, letter from Representative Kim to 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, he stated that 
``[a]t present, some 20-40,000 volumes have been sold in Korea 
and I have received approximately $120,000 in royalties so 
far.'' \397\ In the joint Federal personal income tax return 
for tax year 1994, Representative and Mrs. Kim reported gross 
income from Jay Kim's book totaling $146,000.\398\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \397\ Exh. 77.
    \398\ Exh. 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he did not concern 
himself with the financial aspects of his book, that June Kim 
was the source of this information, and that he had no 
independent information regarding the number of books sold or 
the gross proceeds frombook sales.\399\ He further testified 
that he relied on the information conveyed to him about book sales, and 
that he made no effort to verify the information.\400\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \399\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 83.
    \400\ Id. at 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee was able to confirm only 
$30,000 received by, or on behalf of, Jay Kim in connection 
with his book--the $25,000 payment for the manuscript in 
February 1994 and a $5,000 payment by Jennifer Ahn and Image 
International in October 1994 resulting from sales of 
Representative Kim's book in the United States.\401\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \401\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 197-200; Letter from 
Jennifer Ahn to Representative Jay Kim, Oct. 27, 1994 (Exh. 98). 
Representative Kim testified that he never received the $5,000 check 
and did not recall seeing a cover letter accompanying the check 
addressed to him. Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 113-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee was unable to confirm that 
the approximately $86,000 in funds transferred from June Kim's 
account at Cho Hung Bank on August 2, 1994, constituted 
proceeds from the sales of Representative Kim's book. Certain 
information from the publisher and from Cho Hung Bank, however, 
raised questions about how the funds comprising the August 2, 
1994, transfers could have represented proceeds from book 
sales.
    As indicated above, the wire transfers occurred 
approximately three weeks before the first sales of the book 
reported by the publisher and more than one month before the 
first purchase of books by Sunkyong Books (i.e., Hun Kim). In 
addition, records from Cho Hung Bank relating to June Kim's 
account there in 1994 indicate that the bulk of the funds 
comprising the approximately $86,000 transferred in August 1994 
initially was deposited substantially before the book was 
published in August 1994: \402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \402\ Exh. 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          20 million won (approximately $24,640) was deposited 
        to June Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank in South Korea 
        on February 16, 1994, in addition to the deposit of the 
        same amount the previous day in connection with the 
        publisher's payment for a manuscript.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \403\ Id. (record from Cho Hung Bank for account #312-04-380020). 
The Subcommittee's calculation of dollar amounts is based on 
information about exchange rates provided by the Department of the 
Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On February 21, 1994, 6.8 million won (approximately 
        $8,400) was deposited into June Kim's account at Cho 
        Hung Bank.\404\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \404\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          During the period of March 24-26, 1994, deposits 
        totaling over 9.9 million won (equal to approximately 
        $12,420) were made to June Kim's account at Cho Hung 
        Bank.\405\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \405\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On May 27, 1994, approximately 81.83 million won 
        (approximately $101,853 was deposited into June Kim's 
        account at Cho Hung Bank.\406\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \406\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite concerns raised by certain evidence obtained during 
the inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee did not find 
substantial reason to believe that Representative Kim committed 
any violations of law or House rules with respect to the 
approximately $86,000 in wire transfers made in early August 
1994. The Subcommittee was unable to confirm the nature and 
origin of deposits made to June Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank 
in Seoul, South Korea during the period of February through May 
1994, on which the wire transfers apparently were based. In 
addition, the Subcommittee found no credible evidence that the 
approximately $75,070 transferred into the Kims' joint equity 
line of credit account at California Korea Bank was used, 
either directly or indirectly, to make political contributions 
to Representative Kim's campaign committee.
    Representative Kim testified that he has never asked anyone 
in South Korea, either directly or indirectly, to give him 
money for use in one of his campaigns for election to the House 
of Representatives.\407\ He also testified that he has never 
asked anyone to try to raise money from sources in South Korea 
for use in one of his campaigns for election to the House of 
Representatives.\408\ When asked if a citizen or corporation of 
South Korea has ever given him money, either directly or 
indirectly, for use in one of his campaigns for election to the 
House of Representatives, Representative Kim asserted his 
rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with 
respect to matters outside the scope of the plea 
agreement.\409\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \407\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 122.
    \408\ Id.
    \409\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reimbursement of Excess Earned Income from Representative Kim's Book

    At the request of Representative Kim's Chief of Staff, 
Matthew Reynolds, a staff attorney of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct met with June Kim, Representative 
Kim's wife, on or about February 14, 1995.\410\ The meeting 
concerned a book that Representative Kim had written about his 
life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \410\ Exh. 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At their meeting, Mrs. Kim advised the staff attorney that 
Representative Kim's book had been published in 1994, and that 
approximately $25,000 in royalties had been received in 1994. 
Mrs. Kim also said that she had served as Representative Kim's 
agentin the book negotiations, that his rights were assigned to 
her, and that she, rather than Representative Kim, had received the 
royalty payments.\411\ Mrs. Kim also told the staff attorney that the 
royalty rate was approximately 50 percent, and that the royalty 
payments had been made by a marketing agent, rather than by the 
publisher.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \411\ Id.
    \412\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about February 21, 1995, Representative Kim wrote a 
letter to the Committee in which he requested ``that the 
Committee provide a ruling on the acceptance of proceeds from a 
book I wrote.'' \413\ In the letter, he stated that ``I 
completed writing [the book] in June 1994, and it was published 
in August 1994.'' He also stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \413\ Exh. 77.

          Unlike in the United States, where the publisher is 
        also the marketing agent, the Korean publisher of my 
        book prints textbooks for schools mostly and lacks 
        adequate commercial marketing capability. Therefore, in 
        order to distribute I'm Conservative, I entered into a 
        separate agreement with a designated, licensed Korean 
        marketing firm. This firm was directly responsible for 
        selling the book and, in accordance with normal 
        practice, received a commission for every copy sold. I 
        receive a royalty from the publisher through the 
        marketing agent.
          At present, some 20-40,000 volumes have been sold in 
        Korea and I have received approximately $120,000 in 
        royalties thus far.\414\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \414\ Id.

    On or about February 28, 1995, Representative Kim's office 
provided the Committee with a copy of a publishing contract 
between Representative Kim and Sungmoon Publishing Company 
(``Sungmoon'') regarding Representative Kim's 
autobiography.\415\ The contract had been executed in February 
1994.\416\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \415\ Exh. 76.
    \416\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed above, under the terms of the publishing 
contract, Sungmoon retained exclusive rights to sales of the 
book in South Korea,\417\ while Representative Kim retained 
exclusive rights to sales of the book outside of South 
Korea.\418\ The contract provided for Representative Kim to 
receive a single payment from Sungmoon of $25,000 in Korean 
currency for producing a manuscript.\419\ The contract did not 
entitle Representative Kim to any royalties or other 
remuneration from Sungmoon,\420\ and it did not include any 
mention of a marketing agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \417\Id. (para. 13); see Chul Song Int. at 13 (president and owner 
of publishing company).
    \418\ Id. (para. 13); see Chul Song Int. at 13.
    \419\ Id. (para. 6).
    \420\ Dep. of Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 19. Indeed, Paragraph 13 of 
the publishing agreement stated that ``[t]he Author [i.e., Jay Kim] 
agrees not to have or make any claim for any of the profits realized by 
the Publisher from marketing and/or sale of the published book in 
Korea.'' Exh. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about March 17, 1995, Representative Kim wrote a 
second letter to the Committee ``[i]n response to the 
Committee's request for additional information regarding the 
book I wrote.'' \421\ In the letter, he stated that he ``used 
the services of a designated, licensed Korean marketing firm. 
While this may appear unconventional to the average American, 
no written agreement exists between me, the marketer and the 
publisher. * * * In Korea, a man's word and reputation are 
worth much more than any collateral or written contract.'' 
\422\ Thus, after previous indications to the contrary, 
Representative Kim now represented to the Committee that no 
written agreement with a marketing agent existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \421\ Exh. 77.
    \422\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's letter of March 17, 1995, further 
stated that ``[t]he agreement that I reached with Hun Kim, the 
licensed, marketing representative in Korea is as follows:
          The marketing firm--acting like a wholesaler--sells 
        the books to institutions, organizations and 
        associations. * * *
          Retail sales to book stores are prohibited by 
        agreement with the publisher. (The publisher is 
        responsible for this marketing. * * *)
          From the final price of the book the publisher takes 
        50% of the proceeds, the book-broker (marketing firm) 
        receives 10% and the remaining 40% represents the 
        royalty I am given. * * * [Emphasis added.]
          The sales are almost exclusively limited to South 
        Korea. The book was written in Korean for the Korean 
        market. I did bring a few back to the U.S. to give as 
        gifts to Korean friends and family. A very few were 
        sold to my campaign committee which then provided them 
        as gifts.'' 423
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \423\ Id.

    On or about March 21, 1995, Representative Kim's Chief of 
Staff, Matthew Reynolds, sent a memorandum to Committee counsel 
regarding Representative Kim's book.\424\ In the memorandum, 
Reynolds stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \424\ Exh. 100.

    In reference to your request for further information about 
what kinds of associations and organizations to which the book-
broker sold I'm Conservative, here's what the Congressman told 
me:
          Churches. (Please note that Korea is predominantly 
        Christian--it is the only East Asian country that is 
        so. The congregations tend to be far larger than in the 
        United States--some are in the tens of thousands!''
          Colleges and Universities. (Sold to faculty & 
        students.)
          Select Government Agencies (those with an interest in 
        U.S. politics & Congress. * * *''
          Alumni of Rep. Kim's school.
          Korean businesses and banks. (Sold to members of 
        trade associations and to employees of banks and 
        businesses--large and small.)
    The marketing agent/book-broker is responsible for selling 
the book to these customers. The Congressman has not been 
involved in the process and does not know all of the groups the 
marketer has contacted. With the exception of a book-signing 
reception, the sales are not associated with any appearances, 
speeches, etc. of the Congressman. * * * As he noted in his 
February 21st letter, some 20-40,000 books have been sold.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \425\ Id. (emphasis added).

    On or about March 31, 1995, Matthew Reynolds submitted 
another memorandum to Committee counsel regarding 
Representative Kim's book in response to counsel's ``additional 
questions about the `bulk' sale of Congressman Kim's book in 
Korea * * *'' \426\ In that memorandum, Mr. Reynolds stated 
that Mr. Kim checked with the marketers [emphasis added] and 
received the following answers. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \426\ Exh. 101.

          No sales were made to government agencies. In their 
        initial discussions about potential sales, Mr. Kim and 
        his marketing representative included government 
        agencies as potential customers. Therefore, Mr. Kim 
        assumed such sales had eventually occurred and this 
        assumption was subsequently relayed to you in my March 
        21 memo. However, upon checking with the marketing 
        agent, Mr. Kim found out that such sales never 
        materialized. * * *
          Apparently, many Korean companies purchased 
        ``blocks'' of books which were then distributed as 
        gifts and resource materials to employees. In the case 
        of associations, they were distributed to members of 
        the associations. * * *
          As with the businesses, a select number of [alumni] 
        class ``leaders'' purchased ``blocks'' of books which 
        were then given away to other alumni and school 
        associates of the Congressman.\427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \427\ Id. (emphasis added).

    On or about May 15, 1995, the Committee sent a letter to 
Representative Kim advising him of its determination that his 
income from the book, as represented to the Committee, ``does 
not qualify for the exception to the outside earned income 
limit for copyright royalties received from established 
publishers pursuant to usual and customary contractual terms.'' 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ The Committee explained that Representative Kim's book--

arrangement * * * was not usual and customary for the following 
reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \428\ Exh. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Your contract with the publisher specifies that you 
        are not entitled to any share of the profits realized 
        by the publisher from the sale of the book in Korea. 
        Instead, you received a flat fee of $25,000. Payments 
        which are unrelated to actual or potential sales of a 
        book do not qualify as royalties.
          The bulk of the payments that you received 
        (approximately $95,000) came from a marketing agent, 
        based on an unwritten agreement that you would receive 
        40% of the proceeds of sales arranged by that agent. 
        This does not comply with the exception for royalties 
        received from established publishers pursuant to usual 
        customary terms for two reasons: (1) you received these 
        payments from a marketing agent, rather than an 
        established publisher; and (2) 40% royalties is well in 
        excess of the 10-15% that is customary in United States 
        publishing contracts.
          In United States book contracts, the publisher 
        customarily agrees to obtain the copyright in the name 
        of the author. According to your contract, the 
        publisher retains the copyright on your book. This 
        provision is not only unusual, but is suggests that the 
        payments you received were not copyright royalties, 
        since you do not hold the copyright.
          All of you payments from the marketing agent derive 
        from bulk book sales to groups such as Korean 
        businesses and trade associations, churches, and 
        colleges and universities. Such large purchases, which 
        may or may not be related to the actual interest of 
        individual readers, present the very potential for 
        conflict of interests that the outside earned income 
        limitations were intended to eliminate.'' \429\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \429\ Id.

    ``Therefore,'' the Committee advised Representative Kim, 
``your total book income for 1994 (from both the publisher and 
the marketing agent), added with any other outside income you 
may have earned in 1994, is subject to the $20,040 cap.'' \430\ 
Consistent with precedent regarding violations of the cap on 
outside earned income, the Committee told Representative Kim 
that ``you must either return the earned income you received in 
1994 in excess of $20,040 or make donations to charity in an 
equivalent sum. We further require that you report back to the 
Committee when you have complied with this ruling.'' \431\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \430\ Id.
    \431\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about August 3, 1995, Representative Kim filed his 
annual Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1994. 
He reported earned income from ``Book Publishing'' of $132,298, 
noting on the report that ``proceeds being refunded per 5/15/95 
Standards Ctte. Communication.''
    The next day, Representative Kim sent a letter to the 
Committee regarding the required book 
reimbursement.432 In the letter, Representative Kim 
stated that ``[a]s I reported in my 1994 Financial Disclosure 
[Statement], I received a total sum of $132,298'' in connection 
with the book.433 Representative Kim told the 
Committee that ``$112,258 [i.e., the difference between 
$132,298 and $20,040] is a considerable amount of money. I do 
not have the kind of liquidity to make a full, immediate 
reimbursement at this time.'' 434 Representative Kim 
therefore asked the Committee to ``accept a modified 
installment plan.'' He stated that ``I believe the fairest way 
to fulfill the Committee's direction is to reimburse those who 
actually purchased my life story. Since these books were sold 
in Korea to Koreans, I face the additional challenge of 
identifying as many customers as possible.'' 435
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \432 \Exh. 80.
    \433 \Id.
    \434 \Id.
    \435 \Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim also advised the Committee that he was 
scheduled to travel to South Korea beginning on August 11, 
1995, and that he planned ``to meet with the Korean publisher 
and marketer of my book during whatever free time I can make 
available in my forthcoming trip.'' 436 Finally, 
Representative Kim stated that ``I hope to be able to present a 
concrete plan to the Committee sometime soon thereafter.'' 
437
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \436 \Id.
    \437 \Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about September 8, 1995, Representative Kim advised 
the Committee by letter that ``I have been working hard to 
identify to the fullest extent possible those who bought the 
book in Korea. I propose that I refund the book buyers through 
[a] series of five reimbursements of approximately $22,000 
annually (with the final reimbursement totalling $24,258).'' 
438
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \438 \Exh. 102 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee responded to Representative Kim's proposal by 
stating that it had ``serious reservations about your proposal 
to return the excess income over a five-year period. The 
Committee believes this matter should be resolved in this term 
of Congress, making final reimbursement due no later than 
September 30, 1996. Accordingly, we request that by no later 
than September 25, 1995, you furnish the Committee with either 
a proposal for refunding the amount in question by September 
30, 1996, or information demonstrating that such a schedule 
would impose a personal hardship.'' 439
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \439 \Exh. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following day, September 21, 1995, Representative Kim 
replied by letter to the Committee, stating that ``refunding 
the amount in question by September 30, 1996 would impose a 
genuine personal hardship.'' 440 He also stated that 
he now intended to ``dispute [the Committee's] initial 
findings,'' said ``the Committee has misunderstood the nature 
of my publishing agreement,'' and requested ``the opportunity 
to personally appear before the Committee.'' 441 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \440 \Exh. 104.
    \441 \Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At his deposition, the Investigative Subcommittee afforded 
Representative Kim an opportunity to explain the ``genuine 
personal hardship'' that he cited in his letter of September 
21, 1995.442 Representative Kim responded that 
``[w]e had a genuine hardship at that time. * * * I just didn't 
have the $112,000. * * * I had a property that was depreciated. 
It was a bad year.'' 443 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \442 \Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 156.
    \443 \Id. at 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 24, 1995, Representative Kim personally appeared 
before the Committee and discussed his concerns about the 
Committee's decision regarding his book.444
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \444 \Exh. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about October 26, 1995, the Committee sent a letter 
to Representative Kim in which it reiterated its previous 
decision that he exceeded the limit on outside earned income in 
1994, and that he must pay back the excess income of 
$112,258.445 The amount of reimbursement imposed by 
the Committee was based on Representative Kim's previous 
representation--as manifested in his letter to the Committee of 
August 4, 1995, and his Financial Disclosure Report for 1994--
that he received a total of $132,298 in connection with the 
book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \445 \Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee advised Representative Kim in its October 26, 
1995, letter that ``[y]ou have agreed to return the excess, and 
based on that assurance, the Committee is foregoing further 
disciplinary action. Since we believe it would be impossible to 
refund the money to the actual purchasers of the book, we have 
determined that you must donate $112,258 either to charities 
qualified under Sec. 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Tax Code or to the 
U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.'' 446 The 
Committee further advised Representative Kim that he could 
divide the total payment into three installments, payable 
according to the following schedule: $37,500 due no later than 
December 31, 1995; $37,500 due no later than October 1, 1996; 
and $37,258 due no later than October 1, 1997.447 
The Committee stated that it does ``not anticipate granting any 
further extensions at this time.'' \448\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \446 \Id.
    \447 \Id.
    \448 \Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the conclusion of the Committee's letter of October 26, 
1995, the Committee asked that Representative Kim ``signify 
your intent to comply with the terms set out in this letter by 
signing below and returning the original signed letter to the 
Committee by November 10, 1995. We urge you to have the letter 
reviewed by your attorney before you sign it.'' 449 
Representative Kim signed the original letter next to the words 
``Agreed to'' and returned it to the Committee.450
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \449 \Id. (emphasis in original).
    \450 \Id.; Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 158-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At his deposition, Representative Kim testified under oath 
that it was his intent to comply with the installment schedule 
set forth in the letter of agreement dated October 26, 1995, at 
the time he signed the letter.451 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \451 \Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim did not comply with the payment schedule 
set forth in the October 26, 1995, agreement. He failed to make 
any reimbursements by December 31, 1995, or October 1, 1996--
the first two payment deadlines. As the Committee lateradvised 
Representative Kim, he also ``made no effort to inform the Committee 
that payments had not been made according to [the] schedule.'' \452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \452\ Exh. 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee found credible evidence that funds were 
available to Representative Kim to make at least partial 
reimbursement payments during the period encompassing the first 
two payment deadlines set by the Committee in the October 26, 
1995, letter of agreement. For example, according to a 
disclosure report filed by his campaign with the Federal 
Election Commission on or about October 9, 1996, Representative 
Kim:
          Loaned $5,000 to his campaign from his personal funds 
        on January 22, 1996.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \453\ Exh. 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Loaned $5,000 to his campaign from personal funds on 
        January 30, 1996.\454\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \454\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Loaned $2,000 to his campaign from personal funds on 
        May 2, 1996.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \455\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Loaned $5,000 to his campaign from personal funds 
        during the period of July 1-September 30, 1996.\456\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \456\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee afforded Representative Kim an opportunity 
to explain why he made loans to his campaign with personal 
funds that could have been used to repay excess outside earned 
income from book, as he had agreed to do. Representative Kim 
testified that ``I have a choice whether to forget the 
campaign, or pay the committee and forget the campaign.'' \457\ 
He also testified that the criminal investigation conducted by 
the Department of Justice had intimidated potential campaign 
donors, and that he ``was having trouble raising money.'' \458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \457\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 165.
    \458\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim claimed that he had personally advised 
then-Committee Chairman Nancy Johnson that he was making 
personal loans to his campaign, and that there was an 
``understanding'' that such loans did not present a problem 
with respect to his obligation to repay excess earned income 
relating to the book.\459\ The Committee has no record of such 
a conversation between Representative Kim and Chairman Johnson, 
or of any ``understanding'' sanctioning personal loans by 
Representative Kim to his campaign in lieu of making 
reimbursement payments regarding the book. Representative 
Johnson advised Subcommittee counsel that she never told 
Representative Kim, either directly or indirectly, that he 
could loan money to his campaign in lieu of making 
reimbursement payments regarding his book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \459\ Id. at 166-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the period of November 26-December 31, 1996, 
Representative Kim's campaign repaid him $30,000 in partial 
satisfaction of outstanding loans by Representative Kim to the 
campaign, according to a disclosure report that his campaign 
filed with the FEC on or about January 24, 1997.\460\ At his 
deposition, Representative Kim did not remember receiving this 
$30,000 payment from the campaign, and offered to ``research 
it.'' \461\ The Investigative Subcommittee did not receive any 
additional information from Representative Kim about that 
payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \460\ Exh. 107.
    \461\ Dep. of the Hon. Jay Kim, June 9, 1998, at 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the Investigative Subcommittee found credible 
evidence that as of late November 1996, Representative Kim 
could have made reimbursement payments totalling at least 
$47,000 in partial satisfaction of his obligation to repay 
excess outside earned income from his book. In connection with 
this time period, however, Representative Kim claimed that ``I 
didn't have any resources at that time.'' \462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \462\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about January 24, 1997, Representative Kim sent a 
letter to the Committee in which he again requested that he be 
allowed to refund money to the actual purchasers of the book. 
Representative Kim also requested that the repayment schedule 
be extended to 1998. He advised the Committee that he intended 
to use money from the sale of real estate to make reimbursement 
payments, and that the sale had not yet occurred. The letter 
did not include any mention of loan repayments to 
Representative Kim by his campaign.
    On or about February 27, 1997, the Committee responded by 
letter to Representative Kim's letter of January 24, 1997.\463\ 
The Committee again rejected Representative Kim's request to 
refund the money to actual purchasers of the book, and again 
directed him to make reimbursement payments to qualified 
charities or the U.S. Treasury.\464\ Regarding his request for 
an extended repayment schedule, the Committee ``note[d] that no 
payments have been made by you even though according to our 
previous agreement payments were due in December 1995, and 
October 1996. You made no effort to inform the Committee that 
payments had not been made according to schedule.'' \465\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \463\ Exh. 105.
    \464\ Id.
    \465\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Nonetheless,'' the Committee advised Representative Kim, 
``the Committee desires to work with you to ensure that the 
situation is dealt with fairly and in a timely fashion. We 
accept by this letter your offer to repay $37,500 no later than 
April 15, 1997 and $37,500 by no later than December 31, 1997. 
We further agree to extend the repayment schedule into 1998, 
but direct that that the last payment of $37,258 be made by 
June 30, 1998.'' \466\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \466\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about May 28, 1997, Representative Kim's campaign 
repaid him $5,000 toward outstanding loans he made to the 
campaign, according to a disclosure report that his campaign 
filed with the FEC on or about July 28, 1997.\467\ On the same 
day, Representative Kim purchased a cashier's check in 
California in the amount of $10,000, made payable to 
``Treasurer of the United States.'' \468\ On or about June 3, 
1997, Representative Kim transmitted that check to the 
Committee, thereby making his first payment in connection with 
the required reimbursement for excess earned income from his 
book.\469\ The payment was more than six weeks late, and it 
fell short of the required payment by $27,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \467\ Exh. 108
    \468\ Exh. 109.
    \469\ Exh. 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a letter accompanying the payment, Representative Kim 
asked the Committee to ``[p]lease be assured that I continue 
with my earnest efforts to raise the remainingfunds for 
reimbursement and will continue to make every effort to follow the 
repayment schedule and address any shortfalls as expeditiously as 
possible.'' \470\ Representative Kim further stated that ``[y]ou should 
be aware that the office complex I own remains on the market despite an 
aggressive sales effort. Unfortunately, California's real estate market 
continues to be weak--a condition beyond my control. I am hopeful that 
the property will sell soon as that development would have a very 
positive impact on my reimbursement efforts.'' The letter made no 
mention of any loan repayments by Representative Kim's campaign since 
the Committee had first advised him of the required reimbursement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \470\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about September 8, 1997, Representative Kim loaned 
$3,000 to his campaign according to a disclosure report that 
his campaign filed with the FEC.\471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \471\ Exh. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about September 16, 1997, Representative Kim sent 
another letter to the Committee regarding the book 
reimbursement issue.\472\ In that letter, Representative Kim 
stated that ``I now believe that I am in a better position to 
make future financial plans,'' and asked that the repayment 
schedule be further revised.\473\ Representative Kim proposed 
to pay $5,000 by no later than December 31, 1997; $40,000 by no 
later than June 30, 1997; and $67,258 by no later than December 
1, 1998.\474\ He also indicated he might seek further 
modifications to the payment schedule in connection with 
penalties or fines that might be imposed by the U.S. District 
Court in California in his criminal case.\475\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \472\ Exh. 112.
    \473\ Id.
    \474\ Id.
    \475\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about October 22, 1997, the Committee responded by 
letter to Representative Kim's letter of September 16, 1997. 
The Committee recounted the history of its past agreements with 
Representative Kim regarding reimbursement for excess earned 
income from the book, and stated that ``[t]he Committee 
believes it has been more than generous in extending the terms 
of the repayment schedule.'' \476\ The Committee advised 
Representative Kim that, ``[g]iven that you have repaid only 
$10,000 thus far, and your inability to meet previous repayment 
obligations, the Committee cannot accept your repayment 
schedule as offered in your September 16, 1997 letter.'' \477\ 
The Committee therefore requested that Representative Kim repay 
$40,000 by December 31, 1997, with the balance of $62,258 due 
by June 30, 1998.\478\ In addition, the Committee advised 
Representative Kim that ``[f]ailure to meet this repayment 
schedule will be considered by the Committee as it deliberates 
on other pending business pertaining to your guilty plea in 
U.S. District Court.'' \479\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \476\ Exh. 113.
    \477\ Id.
    \478\ Id.
    \479\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about December 31, 1997, Representative Kim 
transmitted three checks to the Committee totaling $20,000 
toward satisfaction of his obligation to repay excess earned 
income from his book.\480\ The checks consisted of a $10,000 
cashier's check purchased on December 31, 1997 from First Union 
National Bank of Virginia; a personal check in the amount 
$4,000 dated December 31, 1997, drawn on the joint account of 
Jay Changjoon Kim and June Kim at California Korea Bank in 
Rowland Heights, California; and a personal check in the amount 
of $6,000 dated December 31, 1997, drawn on the joint account 
of Jay Kim and June Kim at the Congressional Federal Credit 
Union in Washington, D.C.\481\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \480\ Exh. 82.
    \481\ Id. (copies of checks enclosed with letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In explanation for why he was not remitting $40,000, as 
required by the Committee in its letter of October 22, 1997, 
Representative Kim cited a continuing inability to sell an 
office building ``due to the continued weak commercial real 
estate market.'' \482\ He asked the Committee to ``please * * * 
understand that I am trying very hard to fully meet the 
Committee's schedule while at the same time cover the 
significant, pressing legal bills I have incurred over the past 
year.'' \483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \482\ Id.
    \483\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim stated in the letter that ``I expect to 
provide the Committee with another $20,000 no later than 
January 31, 1998. Though this arrangement does not match your 
request completely, it is the best I can do * * *.'' \484\ He 
further stated that ``[i]t remains my goal to repay the 
remainder ($62,258) by June 30, 1998 as requested by the 
Committee.'' \485\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \484\ Id.
    \485\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a letter dated January 7, 1998, the Committee 
acknowledged Representative Kim's payment of $20,000 on 
December 31, 1997.\486\ The Committee reminded Representative 
Kim that since its letter to him dated October 22, 1997, it had 
``established an investigative subcommittee to examine, among 
other things, the subject matter of your guilty pleas and the 
book repayment issue.'' \487\ The Committee advised 
Representative Kim that it ``wishes to make it clear that your 
failure to remit the entire $40,000 due on December 31, 1997, 
constituted yet another default of your obligation and prior 
agreement to remit the amount of $112,258 under the terms 
established by the Committee.'' \488\ The Committee told 
Representative Kim that it ``strongly urges you to make payment 
in full consistent with the terms of the Committee's letter of 
October 22, 1997.'' \489\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \486\ Exh. 114.
    \487\ Id.
    \488\ Id.
    \489\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about January 23, 1998, Representative Kim submitted 
a cashier's check to the Committee in the amount of $20,000 in 
connection with his book.\490\ In an accompanying letter, 
Representative Kim stated that ``I remain committed to 
reimbursing the U.S. Treasury the remaining $62,258 by June 30, 
1998.'' \491\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \490\ Exh. 115.
    \491\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim has made no further payments since 
January 1998 toward satisfaction of his obligation to repay 
excess earned income from the sales of his book. On or about 
March 31, 1998, however, he loaned $50,000 from personal funds 
to his campaign, according to a disclosure report that his 
campaign filed with the FEC in April 1998.\492\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \492\ Exh. 116; see Exh. 117 ($50,000 cashier's check).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The record as a whole indicates that Representative Kim did 
not act in good faith with respect to the Committee's 
requirement that he repay excess earned income reported from 
his book.

                   D. Legal Defense Fund for June Kim

    On or about July 11, 1997, Representative Kim sent a letter 
to Committee Chairman Hansen in which he requested Committee 
advice regarding the solicitation of funds on behalf of his 
wife, June Kim.\493\ Specifically, Representative Kim sought 
the Committee's permission for June Kim to accept financial 
support from third parties, including foreign nationals, to 
help pay for her own legal expenses resulting from the criminal 
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. He commented 
that June Kim had separate legal counsel in the criminal case, 
and asked the Committee ``to verify that her acceptance of 
[outside] resources for her own legal expense purposes would 
not violate any rules, laws or standards under the jurisdiction 
of the Committee.'' \494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \493\ Exh. 118.
    \494\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about July 28, 1997, the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member of the Committee sent a letter to 
Representative Kim in reply to his letter dated July 11, 
1997.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \495\ Exh. 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's letter stated in pertinent part:

          House Rule 51 (the gift rule) prohibits Members, 
        officers, and employees of the House from accepting any 
        gifts, except as specifically provided in the rule. The 
        gift rule further provides that a gift to a family 
        member of a Member, officer, or employee is considered 
        a gift to the Member, officer or employee, `if it is 
        given with the knowledge and acquiescence of the 
        Member, officer or employee and the Member has reason 
        to believe the gift was given because of the official 
        position of the Member, officer or employee.' 
        Accordingly, this Committee consistently has found that 
        a family member's acceptance of gifts independent of 
        the family member's relationship to a Member, officer, 
        or employee do not constitute a gift to such Member, 
        officer or employee and are not subject to the gift 
        rule.\496\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \496\ Id.

    The Committee advised Representative Kim that ``your wife's 
acceptance of the financial support exclusively to pay for her 
individual legal expenses, as you describe, would not violate 
the rules or standards under the jurisdiction of this 
Committee, provided such support is received or acquired 
independent of her relationship to you as a Member of the 
House.'' \497\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \497\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he recalled receiving the 
Committee's letter, and reading the letter's provisions 
imposing conditions on the receipt or acquisition of funds by 
June Kim.\498\ When asked what his understanding was of the 
conditions imposed by the Committee, Representative Kim 
characterized the operative language in the Committee's letter 
as ``double-talk'' and said that he instructed his Chief of 
Staff Matt Reynolds to contact the Committee for 
clarification.\499\ According to Representative Kim, Reynolds 
spoke to an attorney on the Committee staff, and the Committee 
staff attorney advised that ``as long as you don't tell [a 
potential donor], look, I am [a] U.S. Congressman, you better 
give me some money, or I can do some favor, as long as you 
don't do that, it is okay.'' \500\ There is no record of such a 
conversation with Reynolds in the Committee's files, and 
Representative Kim offered no corroborating evidence that such 
a conversation occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \498\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 74-76.
    \499\ Id. at 79-80.
    \500\ Id. at 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that after reading the 
Committee's July 28, 1997, letter and speaking with his Chief 
of Staff, he understood that he could ask ``friends, relatives, 
and class alumni'' to contribute to a legal defense fund for 
June Kim.\501\ When asked if such contributions would be 
appropriate even if the donor did not know June Kim, 
Representative Kim testified, ``I never thought of that, 
whether they know June Kim or not. I assume they know my wife, 
too. We always appear together. We are in the newspaper all the 
time.'' \502\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \501\ Id. at 81.
    \502\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In approximately September 1997, Young Jack Lee, a senior 
statistician employed at the National Institutes of Health, 
contacted Representative Kim to discuss how members of the 
Korean Institute for Human Rights--a group that Lee chairs--
could contribute to Representative Kim's campaign.\503\ 
Specifically, Lee was interested in organizing a fund-raising 
event for Representative Kim.\504\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \503\ Id. at 20-23.
    \504\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lee met privately with Representative Kim at a 
restaurant.\505\ During their meeting, they discussed, among 
other topics, the criminal investigation of Representative Kim 
and his wife by the Department of Justice, and Representative 
Kim indicated that he and Mrs. Kim were facing burdensome legal 
expenses as a result of the criminal case.\506\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \505\ Id. at 24.
    \506\ Id. at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim produced a copy of the Committee's 
letter to him dated July 28, 1998, and gave it to Lee.\507\ 
Representative Kim asked Lee if he could raise funds to help 
pay for June Kim's legal expenses, and told him it was 
permissible to raise such funds in South Korea.\508\ Lee told 
Representative Kim that he would try to raise money for June 
Kim in South Korea.\509\ Representative Kim gave Lee the number 
of June Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank in South Korea, and told 
Lee to deposit any funds that he successfully raised into that 
account.\510\ Representative Kim asked Lee to raise 
approximately 200 million won (South Korean currency),\511\ 
equivalent at the prevailing exchange rate to approximately 
$220,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \507\ Id. at 18-19, 26; Dep. of Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 83.
    \508\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 26, 28; Dep. of Jay Kim, June 18, 
1998, at 82-83.
    \509\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 31-32.
    \510\ Id. at 29, 33; Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 85-86.
    \511\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to credible testimony by Lee, Representative Kim 
gave Lee no instructions or guidance regarding how to raise 
money for June Kim except to indicate that Lee could solicit 
contributions from ``my friends or somebody.'' \512\ When asked 
if Representative Kim gave him any other direction or guidance 
about how to conduct a fundraising effort, Lee responded, ``He 
left it to me. * * * [H]e knows that I have many friends and I 
have [a] fair amount of influence in Korea, so he didn't give 
me any directions.'' \513\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \512\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee, May 21, 1998, at 30-31.
    \513\ Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he gave Lee the names of 
some potential donors, possibly including relatives.\514\ He 
also testified that he simply told Lee to ``follow [the] 
guidelines'' set forth in the Committee's letter of July 28, 
1997.\515\ Initially, he testified that he did not discuss any 
of the conditions imposed by the Committee in the letter; 
subsequently, he testified that he did not remember if he 
discussed the conditions.\516\ Counsel for Representative Kim 
stated at Representative Kim's deposition--without correction 
by Representative Kim--that ``the Congressman gave Dr. Lee 
\517\ [the July 28, 1997] letter for Dr. Lee to interpret or 
follow up on, not for the Congressman to be the counsel to Dr. 
Lee.'' \518\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \514\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 85.
    \515\ Id. at 84.
    \516\ Id at 83-84.
    \517\ Lee holds a doctorate in statistics from Ohio State 
University and currently serves as chief of the biometrics and 
mathematical statistics branch of the National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health. Dep. 
of Young Jack Lee, May 21, 1998, at 8.
    \518\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lee testified that he does not know June Kim and has never 
met or spoken to her.\519\ He understood that he would be 
raising money to help pay June Kim's legal bills.\520\ But he 
believed that in raising funds for June Kim, he would also be 
helping Representative Kim, as, in his estimation, ``whether 
the money comes from this pocket or [that] pocket doesn't 
matter. It comes from the pocket belonging to the same 
couple.'' \521\ He testified that ``helping her is helping him. 
* * * [I]f I help raise legal defense fund for his wife, then 
the burden for Jay Kim could be reduced.'' \522\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \519\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 12, 16, 45; see Dep. of Hon. Jay 
Kim, June 18, 1998, at 86 (does not know if June Kim knows Lee).
    \520\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 31-32.
    \521\ Id. at 28-29.
    \522\ Id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On or about October 17, 1997, Lee traveled to South Korea, 
returning to the United States on or about November 3, 
1997.\523\ The primary purpose of that trip was to conduct 
polling for South Korean presidential candidate Kim Dae Jung, 
who is married to a sister of Lee's father and whom Lee has 
assisted in his political career.\524\ He made a second trip to 
South Korea on or about November 12, 1997, returning on or 
about December 23, 1997.\525\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \523\ Id. at 35-36; Exh. 120 (Lee's passport records).
    \524\ Id. at 6-7, 38.
    \525\ Id. at 37; Exh. 120 (Lee's passport records).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the first trip to South Korea, Lee approached 
approximately ten friends for contributions to help pay for 
June Kim's legal bills.\526\ He told these individuals that it 
was important to assist Jay Kim, and that helping to pay June 
Kim's legal expenses was an indirect way to help Jay Kim.\527\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \526\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 39-41, 44.
    \527\ Id. at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lee's fundraising efforts in South Korea resulted in 
contributions from five or six South Korean nationals totaling 
100 million won--equivalent at the time to approximately 
$51,000.\528\ The money was contributed entirely in cash and 
was collected on behalf of Lee by another person, who gave the 
money to Lee.\529\ On or about December 23, 1997, Lee 
personally deposited 100 million won in cash at a branch of Cho 
Hung Bank in Seoul, South Korea, from which it was wired to 
another branch of the bank where June Kim's account was 
located.\530\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \528\ Id. at 41, 53.
    \529\ Id. at 49-50.
    \530\ Id at 50-54, 60-62; Exh. 121 (bank deposit slip and bank 
record showing deposit by Lee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the two trips to South Korea, Lee received telephone 
calls from Jennifer Ahn in the United States.\531\ 
Representative Kim had told Ahn that he had asked Lee to raise 
money for June Kim.\532\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \531\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 42.
    \532\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Lee, Ahn asked him if his fundraising efforts 
had been successful, and she asked him whom he had 
contacted.\533\ Representative Kim did not contact Lee directly 
to inquire about his fundraising efforts, and Lee did not 
report back to Representative Kim after his second trip to 
South Korea.\534\ Representative Kim has not discussed with Lee 
the identities of the persons who contributed money in 
connection with June Kim's legal expenses.\535\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \533\ Dep. of Young Jack Lee at 43-44.
    \534\ Id. at 47.
    \535\ Id. at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim testified that he does not remember if 
Lee knows June Kim, or if they have ever met each other.\536\ 
Representative Kim testified initially that he did not inform 
June Kim at the time that he had asked Lee to raise money on 
her behalf.\537\ Subsequently, he testified that he did not 
remember if he informed her at the time.\538\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \536\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 86.
    \537\ Id. at 90.
    \538\ Id. at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By his own admission, Representative Kim took no follow-up 
action to determine whether any funds raised by Lee in South 
Korea complied with the terms of the Committee's letter of July 
28, 1997.\539\ He testified that ``I assume that he [i.e., 
Young Jack Lee] knows what he is doing.'' \540\ Representative 
Kim testified that Lee gave him a ``few names'' of individuals 
who contributed money on June Kim's behalf and asked 
Representative Kim to contact them to thank them, but he could 
not remember any of the names of those individuals.\541\ 
Representative Kim does not know whether any of the persons who 
gave money to Lee in South Korea on June Kim's behalf had a 
personal relationship with her.\542\ He testified, however, 
that ``I assume they do.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \539\ Id. at 96.
    \540\ Id.
    \541\ Id. at 98.
    \542\ Id. at 98-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Rule 51, clause 1(a), states that ``[n]o Member, 
officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall 
knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this rule.'' The 
term ``gift'' is defined in clause 1(b)(1) of Rule 51 as ``any 
gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, 
forbearance, or other item having monetary value.'' Clause 
1(b)(2)(A) of Rule 51 states that ``[a] gift to a family member 
of a Member * * * based on that individual's relationship with 
the Member * * * shall be considered a gift to the Member * * * 
if it is given with the knowledge and acquiescence of the 
Member * * * and the Member * * * has reason to believe the 
gift was given because of the official position of the Member * 
* *.'' As stated above, the Committee interpreted that rule in 
its letter to Representative Kim dated July 28, 1997, to mean 
that ``[June Kim's] acceptance of the financial support 
exclusively to pay for her individual legal expenses * * * 
would not violate the rules or standards under the jurisdiction 
of this Committee, provided such support is received or 
acquired independent of her relationship to you as a Member of 
the House.''
    According to his own testimony, Representative Kim knew 
that Young Jack Lee would be raising money for June Kim and 
depositing any money he successfully raised in June Kim's bank 
account in South Korea. Representative Kim also acknowledged 
that he had asked Lee to raise money for June Kim and deposit 
the money in her account. Finally, the record indicates that 
Representative Kim had reason to believe that contributions 
would be made on June Kim's behalf because of his official 
position as a Member of the House of Representatives. He asked 
someone to raise the money--Young Jack Lee--who does not even 
know Mrs. Kim, and the record indicates he either asked Lee to 
approach Lee's own contacts, or left the matter of who to 
approach completely up to Lee. Based on credible testimony from 
Lee, the record indicates that the persons who contributed to 
June Kim's legal defense fund did so primarily to benefit 
Representative Kim.
    Further, it was Representative Kim's responsibility as a 
Member of the House of Representatives to take all reasonable 
actions to ensure that any solicitation of funds on behalf of 
June Kim complied fully with the terms and conditions set forth 
in the Committee's letter of July 28, 1997. By his own 
admission, he took no such actions.
    The Investigative Subcommittee, however, was unable to 
interview any of the persons in South Korea who gave money to 
Young Jack Lee in connection with June Kim's legal defense 
fund, and therefore could not confirm the reasons why they 
contributed the money. In light of this evidentiary deficiency, 
the Subcommittee took no action regarding whether 
Representative Kim may have violated any laws or House rules 
with respect to the solicitation of funds on behalf of June 
Kim, or whether Representative Kim may have violated House Rule 
51 as it relates to gifts to family members of a Member of the 
House of Representatives.

                      E. june kim's autobiography

    On September 13, 1997, the Washington Post reported that 
South Korean corporations had purchased ``in bulk'' thousands 
of copies of an autobiographical book by June Kim entitled 
``There Are Opportunities,'' which had been published in Korean 
by a South Korean publishing company.\543\ The Washington Post 
based its report on information reportedly obtained from a 
senior official at the South Korean publishing company.\544\ A 
different, unnamed official at the publishing company 
reportedly estimated that Mrs. Kim's earnings from her book 
``would be `less than $70,000,' '' including an advance paid by 
the publisher in 1995.\545\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \543\ Exh. 8.
    \544\ Id.
    \545\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Washington Post article raised concerns among Committee 
members as to whether income received by June Kim or 
Representative Kim in connection with June Kim's book complied 
with House rules regarding limits on outside earned income. 
Those concerns were based in part on the discrepancy between 
the amount of income from the book reported by Representative 
Kim on his Financial Disclosure Statements and the reported 
estimate by the publishing company official of June Kim's 
earnings from the book. Representative Kim reported total 
income from June Kim's book of between $115,001 and $1,050,000 
on his Financial Disclosure Statements for calendar years 1995 
and 1996,\546\ whereas, as indicated above, a publishing 
company official reportedly estimated earnings at below 
$70,000. In light of Representative Kim's guilty plea regarding 
the receipt of an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign 
national, the Washington Post article also raised concerns 
about whether June Kim's book may have been part of an illegal 
scheme to funnel foreign money into Representative Kim's 
congressional campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \546\ See Exhs. 29-30. Representative Kim reported income from Mrs. 
Kim's book of between $15,001 and $50,000 on his Financial Disclosure 
Statement for calendar year 1995, and income between $100,001 and $1 
million on his Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, the Committee included the 
matter of June Kim's book within the original scope of the 
inquiry as specified in the December 17, 1997, letter to 
Representative Kim from Chairman Hansen and Ranking Democratic 
Member Berman.
    The Investigative Subcommittee questioned June Kim 
extensively about her book and received documents from her 
relating to her book. For the reasons discussed in Section VI 
of the Report, however, the Subcommittee subsequently decided, 
in its discretion, not to utilize Mrs. Kim's testimony for 
purposes of this Report. The information set forth below is 
derived primarily from documents provided by Mrs. Kim, 
testimony by Representative Kim, testimony and documents 
provided by the accountant for Representative and Mrs. Kim, 
testimony by the publisher of Mrs. Kim's book, and testimony by 
Jennifer Ahn.
    In December 1995, June Kim entered into a contract with 
Handut Publishing Company (``Handut''), a South Korean 
publishing company, to publish her autobiography.\547\ 
According to an English-language copy of the contract provided 
to Investigative Subcommittee by June Kim, Mrs. Kim was 
required to produce a manuscript by March 15, 1996.\548\ Handut 
was required to pay an advance to Mrs. Kim of 15 million won 
and a royalty of 10 percent of the sales of the book.\549\ Each 
party was responsible for its own expenses.\550\ The contract 
also entitled Mrs. Kim to purchase copies of her book directly 
from Handut at a discount of fifty percent of the retail 
price.\551\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \547\ See Exh. 122. (Korean-language copy of publishing agreement 
provided by June Kim to her accountant, Bong Yoo); see Exh. 123 
(English-language copy of publishing agreement); Dep. of Bong U. Yoo, 
May 26, 1998, at 86-88 (confirming that he received Korean-language 
copy of publishing agreement from June Kim).
    \548\ Exh. 123 (para. 4).
    \549\ Id. (para. 7); Telephone Interview of Myung Ook Rhim, Apr. 
27, 1998, at 10-11 (president of publishing company); Dep. of Bong U. 
Yoo at 89.
    \550\ Exh. 123 (para. 8).
    \551\ Id. (para. 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Myung Ook Rhim, the president of Handut, told Subcommittee 
Counsel that Handut paid Mrs. Kim 10 percent of the royalties 
from Handut's sales of the book, but he declined to provide 
further information regarding sales of the book without a 
written authorization from June Kim.\552\ Rhim advised counsel 
that Handut sold copies of Mrs. Kim's book to the general 
public, and that June Kim also purchased books directly from 
Handut.\553\ He said he did not know what Mrs. Kim did with the 
books she purchased from Handut.\554\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \552\ Telephone Interview with Myung Ook Rhim, at 9-11.
    \553\ Id. at 4, 9.
    \554\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a December 17, 1997, letter to Representative Kim, the 
Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the full Committee 
asked Representative Kim to comment on reported bulk purchases 
of Mrs. Kim's book by South Korean companies, to ``provide a 
full account of the events resulting in those bulk purchases, 
and [to] identify the Korean companies that reportedly made the 
bulk purchases.'' \555\ In his response dated January 29, 1998, 
Representative Kim stated that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \555\ Exh. 11; see Pinches, ``House Panel May Probe Kim Financial 
Reports,'' Washington Post, Sept. 13, 1997 (Exh. 8).

          [t]he Washington Post article is inaccurate and 
        overly speculative in nature. The only ``bulk'' 
        purchases with which either my wife or I am familiar 
        were my wife's own purchasing of a number of books 
        directly from the publisher (hence in ``bulk'') which 
        she then sold herself to family and friends on her own.
          As quoted in the Washington Post, the publisher 
        apparently sold sets of books in bulk to various 
        companies. However, neither my wife nor I am aware of 
        any of the details of these reported sales, including 
        to whom the sales were made. That has always been the 
        business of the publisher. We neither asked him about 
        how he was marketing the book nor did he volunteer such 
        specific information.\556\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \556\ Exh. 17 (response to question 12).

    At his deposition, Representative Kim testified that he had 
no knowledge regarding how Mrs. Kim's book was marketed or sold 
in South Korea.\557\ He also testified that he had no knowledge 
of who purchased the book.\558\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \557\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 110.
    \558\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on documents obtained from June Kim, and on testimony 
and documents provided by Mrs. Kim to the accountant for she 
and Representative Kim, the Investigative Subcommittee learned 
that Handut paid June Kim the amount of 15 million won (then 
equal to approximately $20,000) on or about December 19, 1995, 
for a manuscript.\559\ Mrs. Kim also told her accountant that 
she received an advance from Handut of an additional 20 million 
won in 1995, thereby producing a total of 35 million won 
received by June Kim in connection with the book in 1995.\560\ 
The accountant divided the amount of 35 million by the 
prevailing exchange rate to arrive at a total amount of book-
related income of $45,454.55.\561\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \559\ Exh. 124; (Korean-language receipt); Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 
81-84. Mr. Yoo testified that he calculated the amount of the payment 
based on a prevailing exchange rate of 770 won to $1. Dep. of Bong U. 
Yoo at 81-82.
    \560\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 81-82, 84; see Exh. 125 (handwritten 
notes of accountant based on information provided by June Kim, combined 
with handwritten notes of June Kim).
    \561\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 84-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As confirmation of the amount of money she received in 1995 
regarding the book, Mrs. Kim provided the accountant with a 
copy of a document from Cho Hung Bank inSouth Korea relating to 
a savings account in her name.\562\ According to a translation of the 
bank document provided by the Congressional Research Service, the 
document reflects a deposit of 35 million won to June Kim's savings 
account on December 19, 1995, the same day that she apparently received 
the payment of 15 million won by the publisher for the manuscript.\563\ 
Mrs. Kim did not provide the accountant with any royalty statements, 
invoices, or any other documents regarding sales of her book.\564\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \562\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 97-99; Exh. 126 (copy of Korean-
language bank document provided by June Kim to her accountant with 
annotations by translator).
    \563\ Exh. 127 (CRS translation of Cho Hung Bank document).
    \564\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In reliance on the information provided to him by Mrs. Kim, 
the accountant prepared a joint federal income tax return for 
Representative and Mrs. Kim for calendar year 1995 that 
reported ``autobiography income'' of $45,455.\565\ The 
accountant advised Subcommittee counsel that he relied 
exclusively on information from June Kim to prepare the tax 
return, and did not communicate with Representative Kim 
regarding the return.\566\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \565\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 74-76, 101; Exh. 128 (signed, 
certified joint tax return for 1995).
    \566\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 74-76, 101-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee obtained further information 
regarding June Kim's book from documents and testimony 
regarding Representative and Mrs. Kim's joint tax return for 
1996. Mrs. Kim provided handwritten notes to the accountant 
indicating that she had received a total of $130,635 in 1996 in 
connection with her book, including cash totaling $20,000.\567\ 
The accountant did not know the basis for the amounts that June 
Kim cited as book income on the handwritten notes that she 
provided to the accountant.\568\ Based on the information that 
received from by June Kim,\569\ however, the accountant 
indicated on Schedule C of the joint tax return for 1996 that 
June Kim had received $130,635 in gross income from the book, 
minus $9,745 in book-related expenses that Mrs. Kim 
claimed.\570\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \567\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 109-13, 119-121; Exh. 129 (handwritten 
notes given to accountant by June Kim). The accountant recognized the 
handwriting on the notes as June Kim's handwriting. Dep. of Bong U. Yoo 
at 109.
    \568\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 121.
    \569\ As was the case regarding the tax return for 1995, Mrs. Kim 
was the exclusive source of information that the accountant used to 
prepare the joint tax return for 1996, and he had no communication with 
Representative Kim regarding his preparation of the return. Dep. of 
Bong U. Yoo at 107-08, 130.
    \570\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 112-13, 127-28; Exh. 130 (1996 joint 
federal income tax return).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In connection with the preparation of the joint tax return 
for Representative and Mrs. Kim for 1997, Mrs. Kim advised Mr. 
Yoo, the Kims' accountant, that $2,200 had been received in 
1997 from book sales, and provided handwritten notes indicating 
the amounts comprising the total of $2,200 and the dates on 
which the money had been received.\571\ She also advised the 
accountant that $40,000 had been deposited into a bank account 
in South Korea resulting from book sales, as also reflected in 
the handwritten notes she provided to the accountant.\572\ 
Based on his communications with Mrs. Kim, the accountant's 
understanding was that the book sales at issue related to Mrs. 
Kim's book, not Representative Kim's book.\573\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \571\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 140-41, 143; Exh. 131 (handwritten 
notes given by June Kim to accountant).
    \572\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 151; Exh. 131.
    \573\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Kim also provided the accountant with copies of 
statements regarding a bank account in her name at Cho Hung 
Bank in South Korea, indicating various transactions during the 
period of November 1996 through January 1998.\574\ Among the 
transactions indicated on the statements was a deposit of 100 
million won on December 23, 1997.\575\ June Kim advised the 
accountant that this deposit corresponded to the entry for 
$40,000 in book-related income indicated in the handwritten 
list of 1997 income that she had provided to him.\576\ Mr. Yoo 
subsequently determined, however, that the deposit of 100 
million actually was equivalent to $58,824, rather than 
$40,000, based on the exchange rate on December 23, 1997, when 
the deposit was made.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \574\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 135; Exh. 132. English-language words 
handwritten on the bank statements, such as ``debit,'' ``deposit,'' and 
``balance'' were added by the accountant. Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 135.
    \575\ Exh. 132.
    \576\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 151.
    \577\ Id. at 138, 145; see Exh. 133 (handwritten ledger prepared by 
accountant analyzing foreign bank statements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Kim also advised the accountant in a letter dated 
April 12, 1998, that she had received personal loans from 
relatives in 1997 in Korean currency totaling the equivalent of 
approximately $57,000.\578\ In that regard, Mrs. Kim provided 
the accountant with copies of ``Certificate[s] of Remittance'' 
reflecting transfers of funds from a California branch of Cho 
Hung Bank to Mrs. Kim's checking account at California Korea 
Bank in Rowland Heights, California.\579\ Those documents 
correspond, at least in part, to the loans identified by Mrs. 
Kim in her April 12, 1998, letter to her accountant, although 
they apparently conflict with other information provided to the 
accountant by Mrs. Kim regarding loans from relatives.\580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \578\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 136-38; Exh. 134 (April 12, 1998, 
letter from June Kim to Bong Yoo regarding personal loans).
    \579\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 139-40; Exh. 135 (copies of bank 
transfers). The account number for June Kim's account at California 
Korea Bank shown on the bank transfer documents corresponds to the 
number of a checking account for June Kim provided by Representative 
Kim in a February 5, 1998, letter to the Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member of the Investigative Subcommittee.
    \580\ See Exh. 131 (handwritten list of 1997 income provided to 
accountant by June Kim). Bong Yoo testified that June Kim had told him 
that 14 separate amounts recorded on the handwritten list, totaling 
$70,205, related to loans from foreign relatives. Dep. of Bong U. Yoo 
at 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon his review of all the information provided to him by 
Mrs. Kim, including copies of bank statements regarding her 
account at Cho Hung Bank in South Korea, the accountant 
determined that Mrs. Kim had received approximately $3,123 in 
book-related income in 1997 in addition to the $2,200 also 
claimed by Mrs. Kim and the deposit of 100 million (equal to 
approximately $58,824) on December 23, 1997.\581\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \581\ Exh. 133 (accountant's handwritten ledger analyzing June 
Kim's foreign bank statements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to preparing the Kims' joint tax return, Mr. Yoo 
spoke to Representative Kim about the deposit of 100 million 
won into Mrs. Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank in December 
1997.\582\ According to the accountant, Representative Kim told 
him that the 100 million won deposit represented funds intended 
for June Kim's legal defense.\583\ As indicated above, however, 
June Kim told the accountant that the deposit of 100 million 
won represented proceeds from sales of her book.\584\ The 
accountant relied on the explanation given by June Kim, and he 
prepared a return reporting $61,147 in income attributed to 
``autobiography & royalty,'' as well as an additional $2,200 
attributed only to ``autobiography.'' \585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \582\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 131.
    \583\ Id. at 132.
    \584\ Id.
    \585\ Dep. of Bong U. Yoo at 132; Exh. 136 (certified copy of 1997 
tax return).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim signed the 1997 return prepared by Mr. 
Yoo, notwithstanding the fact that the return reported income 
designated as book proceeds that he had previously told the 
accountant related to June Kim's legal defense.\586\ After the 
tax return had been filed with the Internal Revenue Service, 
however, Representative Kim advised Mr. Yoo in writing that 
``there needs to be an immediate revision to my 1997 Form 1040 
Tax Filing to correct the entry [sic] regarding the 100,000,000 
Won you erroneously considered as `book income.' '' \587\ 
Representative Kim further advised Mr. Yoo that ``[t]his is not 
book income and is certainly not from my book. It is the sum of 
funds raised for the purpose of Mrs. Kim's legal defense.'' 
\588\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \586\ Exh. 136.
    \587\ Letter from Jay Kim to Bong U. Yoo, May 8, 1998 (Exh. 137).
    \588\ Id. (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee determined that the $61,147 
in income reported on the Kim's joint income tax return for 
1997 was based primarily on funds raised by Young Jack Lee for 
June Kim's legal defense, not--as indicated on the tax return--
on proceeds from the sale of a book. For the reasons specified 
below, the Subcommittee was unable to confirm the accuracy of 
other income attributed to Mrs. Kim's book and reported by 
Representative and Mrs. Kim on their tax returns, or by 
Representative Kim on his Financial Disclosure Statements for 
calendar years 1995 and 1996:
          The Investigative Subcommittee obtained only limited 
        testimony from June Kim regarding sales of her book, 
        and as previously discussed, the Subcommittee decided 
        not to make direct use of her testimony.
          Representative Kim invoked his rights under the Fifth 
        Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to decline to 
        respond to questions at his deposition regarding the 
        tax returns on which income attributed to June Kim's 
        book was reported to the Internal Revenue Service.\589\ 
        Representative Kim also invoked his Fifth Amendment 
        rights to decline to testify about Financial Disclosure 
        Statements he filed that listed income from Mrs. Kim's 
        book.\590\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \589\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 18, 1998, at 113-14.
    \590\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Myung Ook Rhim, president of the South Korean company 
        that published Mrs. Kim's book, was unwilling to 
        disclose specific information regarding the number of 
        book that were printed, sales of Mrs. Kim's book, or 
        the amount of money the publisher paid to Mrs. Kim 
        without a written authorization from Mrs. Kim.\591\ 
        June Kim declined to sign an authorization form 
        prepared by counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 
        with the assistance of a Korean translator, requesting 
        instead that the Subcommittee use a different 
        authorization form that she prepared. Counsel to the 
        Subcommittee found the alternative authorization 
        prepared by Mrs. Kim to be unacceptable, and no 
        authorization form was transmitted to Handut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \591\ Telephone Interview of Myung Ook Rhim, Apr. 27, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Subcommittee was unable to confirm whether 
        deposits made to June Kim's account at Cho Hung Bank in 
        South Korea in 1995 and 1996 related to sales of her 
        book, or how much money, if any, she received from her 
        own sales of the book.
    In sum, the Investigative Subcommittee was unable to reach 
any conclusions as to whether the facts regarding June Kim's 
book complied with House rules regarding limits on outside 
earned income, or whether the book was part of a scheme to 
funnel foreign money into Representative Kim's congressional 
campaign.

                       VI. Conduct of the Inquiry

    The Investigative Subcommittee conducted a nine-month 
inquiry requiring the resolution of numerous procedural issues.

                      a. investigative methodology

    The Investigative Subcommittee obtained information from 
more than thirty-five witnesses during the inquiry, including 
the respondent, the respondent's wife, and witnesses residing 
in South Korea. In many instances, the Subcommittee obtained 
sworn testimony from witnesses in Executive Session by means of 
a subpoena. Counsel to the Subcommittee also conducted informal 
witness interviews and, on several occasions, obtained unsworn 
testimony from witnesses in transcribed interviews. Interviews 
with witnesses residing in South Korea were conducted by 
telephone with the assistance of a translator.\592\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \592\ The Subcommittee expresses its appreciation to Ms. Ansook 
Park, who provided translation services for several depositions and 
interviews with Korean-Americans and South Korean nationals. Ms. Park 
also provided timely translation of documents in the Korean language. 
The Subcommittee also thanks the Congressional Research Service for its 
assistance in obtaining the translation of Korean-language documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee obtained documents by the 
issuance of subpoenas and by the voluntary cooperation of 
witnesses. As discussed further below, the Subcommittee also 
received documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
Central District of California that it had obtained in 
connection with its criminal investigation of Representative 
Kim. Documents independently obtained by the Subcommittee 
included the personal financial records of Representative Kim, 
Mrs. Kim (including documents regarding bank accounts of Mrs. 
Kim in South Korea), and material witnesses; personal 
appointment records; personal income tax returns of 
Representative and Mrs. Kim; hotel records; passport records; 
publishing contracts and related records regarding books 
written by Representative and Mrs. Kim; and filings with the 
Federal Election Commission by Representative Kim's campaign 
committee.
    The Subcommittee's ability to develop a comprehensive 
evidentiary record concerning certain issues was impeded by the 
fact that key witnesses and documents were situated in South 
Korea beyond the Subcommittee's subpoena power. Thislimitation 
was particularly problematic with respect to the portions of the 
inquiry concerning books written by Representative Kim and June Kim, 
his wife.
    Among the first issues confronted by the Subcommittee was 
whether to take independent investigative action regarding the 
matters to which Representative Kim, June Kim, and 
Representative Kim's campaign committee pleaded guilty in 1997. 
The Subcommittee considered, for example, whether to simply 
rely on the factual admissions set forth in the plea agreements 
for purposes of its inquiry. Instead, however, the Subcommittee 
decided to develop its own evidentiary record regarding the 
principal matters at issue in the criminal investigation. The 
Subcommittee or its counsel, therefore, deposed or interviewed 
most of the key participants in Representative Kim's 1992 and 
1994 campaigns for election to the House of Representatives.

                     b. expansions of jurisdiction

    On February 12, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee 
unanimously voted to expand the jurisdiction of its inquiry, 
pursuant to Committee Rule 20(c), to include two additional 
matters: (1) the possible misuse of official resources with 
respect to a contract between Representative Kim's 
congressional office and Image Media Services, Inc.; and (2) 
whether Representative Kim made false statements in a letter to 
the Investigative Subcommittee dated January 29, 1998.\593\ On 
February 25, 1998, the full Committee voted to expand the 
Investigative Subcommittee's jurisdiction to include the two 
additional issues specified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \593\ The Subcommittee investigated the issue regarding Image Media 
Services, Inc. and found no basis to take further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 1, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee again 
unanimously voted to expand the jurisdiction of its inquiry to 
include the issue of whether violations of Federal law were 
committed with respect to Representative Kim's 1994, 1996, and 
1998 campaigns for election to the U.S. House of 
Representatives.\594\ On April 22, 1998, the full Committee 
voted to expand the Investigative Subcommittee's jurisdiction 
as specified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \594\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, Apr. 1, 1998, 
at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 28, 1998, the Committee issued a public statement 
announcing its expansion of the inquiry on April 22. The 
statement also disclosed for the first time the scope of the 
Investigative Subcommittee's original jurisdiction and the 
subjects of the previous expansion of jurisdiction on February 
25, 1998.
    On May 21, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee voted 
unanimously again to expand the jurisdiction of its inquiry to 
include four additional issues: (1) whether Representative Kim, 
or persons acting with his knowledge or approval, have 
obstructed, or have tried to obstruct, the discovery of 
information by investigative authorities; (2) whether 
Representative Kim, or persons acting with his knowledge or 
approval, have reported false or misleading information to the 
House of Representatives or the Internal Revenue Service in 
connection with income relating to books written by Jay Kim and 
June Kim; (3) whether Representative Kim made false statements 
in his May 21, 1998, letter to the Honorable Lamar Smith and 
the Honorable Ed Pastor; and (4) whether Representative Kim 
received gifts in violation of House Rules during the period of 
1993-1998.\595\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \595\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, May 21, 1998, 
at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 22, 1998, the full Committee voted to expand the 
Investigative Subcommittee's jurisdiction to include the four 
additional issues that were the subject of the Subcommittee's 
action on May 21, 1998. In its discretion, the Committee 
decided to forgo a public statement regarding the expansion of 
jurisdiction in order not to influence the outcome of 
Representative Kim's primary election in California in early 
June 1998.
    On June 18, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee again 
unanimously voted to expand the scope of its inquiry to include 
three additional matters: (1) whether Representative Kim 
knowingly made false statements during his testimony before the 
Investigative Subcommittee; (2) whether JayKim Engineers, Inc., 
or its successor, reimbursed a company employee for a political 
contribution to a candidate for Federal election in or about 
March 1993 with the knowledge and approval of Representative 
Kim; and (3) whether Representative Kim failed to comply with 
the terms and conditions of a letter to him from the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct dated July 28, 1997, 
concerning the solicitation and acceptance of funds to pay for 
June Kim's legal expenses.\596\ On June 19, 1998, the full 
Committee voted to expand the Investigative Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction to include the three additional issues specified 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \596\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, June 18, 1998, 
at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notified Representative Kim of each expansion 
of jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 27(g)(4).\597\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \597\ Exh. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             c. assistance from the u.s. attorney's office

    The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of 
California, including FBI agents working with that office, 
provided valuable assistance to the InvestigativeSubcommittee 
throughout its inquiry.\598\ Subcommittee counsel met on several 
occasions in Los Angeles with officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
and conferred often with them by telephone regarding the results of 
their investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \598\ The Investigative Subcommittee expresses its particular 
appreciation to U.S. Attorney Nora Manuela; Richard E. Drooyan, Chief 
Assistant U.S. Attorney; former Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen 
Mansfield, Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Morton; FBI Special Agent 
Anthony Gordon; and FBI Financial Analyst James Komura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. Attorney's Office advised the Investigative 
Subcommittee at the outset that it could share with the 
Subcommittee only information and documents that did not 
constitute grand jury material within the meaning of Rule 6(e) 
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ``Rule 
6(e)'').\599\ Notwithstanding this substantial limitation, the 
information and documents provided by the U.S. Attorney's 
office contributed significantly to the work of the 
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee hopes that the cooperation 
extended by the Department of Justice in this case will serve 
as a model for future cases where such cooperation is necessary 
and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \599\ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) provides a general 
rule against disclosure of ``matters occurring before the grand jury'' 
unless a specific exception to the rule applies. Fed. R. Crime. P. 
6(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's attorney made an evidentiary objection 
during Representative Kim's deposition that documents that the 
Investigative Subcommittee introduced into evidence had been 
obtained in violation of Rule 6(e).\600\ Pursuant to his 
authority under Committee Rule 20(b)(2), the Subcommittee 
Chairman overruled the objection and admitted evidence that the 
Subcommittee had obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office.\601\ 
Representative Kim appealed the Chairman's ruling, but the 
Subcommittee denied the appeal by a vote of a majority of the 
members present.\602\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \600\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 11, 14, 18.
    \601\ Id. at 6-21.
    \602\ Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequently, Representative Kim's attorney continued to 
question whether the Subcommittee received materials from the 
U.S. Attorney's Office in violation of Rule 6(e).\603\ In a 
letter to Representative Kim's attorney dated July 2, 1998, the 
Subcommittee Chairman reaffirmed his previous ruling.\604\ In 
that letter, the Subcommittee Chairman stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \603\ Letter from Adam H. Kurland to the Hon. Lamar S. Smith and 
the Hon. Ed Pastor, June 18, 1998, (Exh. 139).
    \604\ Exh. 140.

          Because the grand jury that investigated the 
        respondent was located in Los Angeles, California, we 
        have considered your assertion that information may 
        have been provided to the Subcommittee in violation of 
        Rule 6(e) in the context of decisions by the U.S. Court 
        of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Subcommittee's 
        position on this matter derives support from the 
        express provisions of Rule 6(e) concerning disclosure 
        of grand jury materials. Subsection (3)(D) of Rule 6(e) 
        states that ``[a] petition for disclosure * * * shall 
        be filed in the district where the grand jury 
        convened.'' \605\ In that regard, the Advisory 
        Committee note concerning Rule 6(e) states that 
        ``[i]deally, the judge who supervised the grand jury 
        should review the request for disclosure.'' \606\ Thus, 
        I reject your view that decisions by the District of 
        Columbia Circuit provide the controlling legal 
        authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \605\ Fed. R. Crime. P. 6(e)(3)(D) (emphasis added).
    \606\ Id. (advisory committee note concerning 1983 amendment).

    The Subcommittee Chairman also based his decision on 
further information obtained from Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Drooyan. As stated in his July 2, 1998, letter,

          Mr. Drooyan confirmed that his office regards the 
        Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Dynavac 
        \607\ as the controlling legal authority regarding this 
        issue. In Dynavac, the Ninth Circuit stated that ``if a 
        document is sought for its own sake rather than to 
        learn what took place before the grand jury, and its 
        disclosure will not compromise the integrity of the 
        grand jury process, Rule 6(e) does not prohibit its 
        release.'' \608\ The court of appeals indicated that 
        the concern that disclosure might compromise the 
        integrity of the grand jury process is reduced ``when 
        the grand jury investigation is already terminated and 
        an indictment has been issued. * * *'' \609\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \607\ 6 F.3d 1407 (9th Cirri. 1993).
    \608\ Id. at 1411-12 (citation omitted).
    \609\ Id. at 1412 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. Drooyan confirmed that Subcommittee counsel never 
        asked for grand jury materials and were never told if 
        the materials requested were obtained through the grand 
        jury process or were presented to the grand jury. In 
        addition, pursuant to Dynavac, the materials provided 
        to the Subcommittee by the U.S. Attorney's Office 
        consisted of either documents which had an independent 
        existence prior to the grand jury, or other documents 
        to which Rule 6(e) does not apply, such as FBI reports 
        of witness interviews. Finally, the fact that the grand 
        jury investigation by which the government obtained the 
        documents and information in question long ago ended 
        reduces the possibility that the grand jury process 
        would be compromised by the transmittal of those 
        documents and information to the Subcommittee.\610\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \610\ Exh. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          D. Witness Immunity

    During its inquiry, the Subcommittee sought the testimony 
of Dobum Kim regarding a $30,000 check that he reportedly had 
given to June Kim in January 1994 in connection with 
Representative Kim's autobiography.\611\ Following the service 
of a properly issued subpoena for Dobum Kim's testimony, Mr. 
Kim's attorney advised Subcommittee counsel that his client 
would assert his Fifth Amendment rights if the Subcommittee 
sought to compel his testimony.\612\ Mr. Kim's attorney also 
advised Subcommittee counsel that Dobum Kim, ``upon a grant of 
immunity, will answer any and all questions fully, completely 
and truthfully to the best of his ability.'' \613\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \611\ See discussion above regarding Count V of the Statement of 
Alleged Violation; see also Exh. 73 (FBI notes regarding interview of 
Dobum Kim, dated June 3, 1997).
    \612\ Exh. 141.
    \613\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dobum Kim's attorney declined to make a substantive proffer 
to the Subcommittee regarding his client's anticipated 
testimony. The Subcommittee, however, determined that obtaining 
Dobum Kim's testimony under oath was substantially important to 
its inquiry. For that reason, the Subcommittee unanimously 
voted on April 21, 1998, to recommend that the full Committee 
seek a grant of ``use immunity'' for Dobum Kim in exchange for 
his testimony.\614\ On April 22, 1998, the full Committee voted 
to seek a court order granting use immunity to Dobum Kim, 
pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6005.\615\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \614\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, Apr. 21, 1998, 
at 2-3. Specifically, the Subcommittee voted to recommend that the full 
Committee ``direct the House General Counsel to apply to a United 
States district court for an order immunizing from use and prosecution 
the testimony of and other information provided by Dobum Kim at 
proceedings before or ancillary to the Committee, the Investigative 
Subcommittee, or an adjudicatory subcommittee.'' Id. The Department of 
Justice did not interpose any objection to a grant of immunity for 
Dobum Kim. See Exh. 142
    \615\ Section 6005 of Title 18 sets forth the procedures for 
obtaining a court order immunizing a witness in a congressional 
proceeding. A copy of the Committee's application for an immunity 
order, and a supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, is 
included in the Documentary Appendix to this Report. See Exh. 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early May 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee obtained 
a court order granting testimonial (i.e., ``use'') immunity to 
Dobum Kim.\616\ Pursuant to the court's order, Dobum Kim 
testified under oath before the Investigative Subcommittee on 
May 20, 1998. As discussed further below, his testimony formed 
the basis for Count V of the Statement of Alleged Violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \616\ Exh. 144. Upon a motion by the full Committee, the district 
court subsequently issued an order permitting materials previously 
filed under seal--such as the Committee's application for an immunity 
order and the court's order--to be unsealed. Exh. 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   E. Alleged Mistreatment of Witness

    Jennifer Ahn, a witness in the inquiry, claimed that 
Subcommittee counsel mistreated her during an interview on May 
18, 1998, by allegedly making threats and using profane 
language. Ahn was represented by counsel at that interview, but 
no Subcommittee Members were present. Representative Kim and 
his attorney each expressed concerns about Ahn's allegations on 
several occasions during the inquiry, and Representative Kim 
requested that the Subcommittee respond to the allegations.
    During Ahn's interview, Subcommittee counsel expressed 
frustration in reaction to unresponsive answers by Ahn to a 
series of questions regarding trips she made to South Korea. 
Subcommittee counsel indicated that he would pursue the line of 
questioning until the witness provided responsive answers. The 
comments by Subcommittee counsel were directed to Ahn's 
attorney, not to Ahn.
    In his July 2, 1998, letter to Representative Kim's 
attorney, Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith stated that ``I and 
other Subcommittee Members have spoken to both Subcommittee 
attorneys who were present for [the] interview and have also 
reviewed the record of that interview. I am satisfied that Ms. 
Ahn was not mistreated, and I regard this matter as closed.'' 
\617\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \617\ Exh. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the Subcommittee Chairman's letter of July 
2, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney continued to raise Ahn's 
allegations with the Subcommittee, and accused the Subcommittee 
of failing to give proper attention to theallegations.\618\ The 
Subcommittee here reiterates that it took all necessary and appropriate 
actions in response to Ahn's allegations, and reaffirms its conclusion 
that she was not mistreated at her interview on May 18, 1998.\619\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \618\ Exh. 146.
    \619\ Subsequent to the appearance at which she asserted that she 
had been mistreated by Subcommittee counsel, Ahn appeared again before 
the Subcommittee on May 28, 1998. On that occasion, she voluntarily 
testified in the absence of her attorney, who had previously advised 
the Subcommittee that he no longer represented Ahn. Dep. of Jennifer 
Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 4. Ahn read a prepared closing statement at her 
May 28, 1998, deposition in which she made no mention of the alleged 
mistreatment by Subcommittee counsel at her appearance on May 18, 1998. 
See id. at 130-133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a separate matter, Ahn told the Subcommittee that 
Federal officials had subjected her to a ``strip-search'' at 
Dulles airport on May 10, 1998, upon her return from South 
Korea.\620\ Ahn asked whether ``subcommittee members or any 
staff had knowledge of [the search] or had influenced the FBI, 
INS, or the U.S. Customs Office to undertake such actions * * 
*.'' \621\ Representative Kim and his attorney repeatedly asked 
the Subcommittee to investigate the circumstances surrounding 
the search of Ahn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \620\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 132; see also Dep. of 
Jennifer Ahn, May 12, 1998, at 7-12; Exh. 147 (written statement by 
Jennifer Ahn submitted at deposition on May 28, 1998).
    \621\ Dep. of Jennifer Ahn, May 28, 1998, at 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his July 2, 1998, letter to Representative Kim's 
attorney, Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith stated that he and 
Ranking Democratic Member Ed Pastor had determined that 
``neither Committee Members nor staff have ever requested 
physical searches of Ms. Ahn or anyone else.'' \622\ Based on 
their consultation with Subcommittee counsel, the Subcommittee 
Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member further determined that 
the search of Ahn at Dulles Airport was conducted at the 
initiative of Federal law enforcement officials, and in no way 
was instigated by the Subcommittee or its counsel. In addition, 
they determined that Subcommittee counsel did not disclose 
information regarding travel by Ahn to the FBI or other law 
enforcement officials in violation of Committee Rule 11.\623\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \622\ Exh. 140. The Subcommittee Chairman also stated in the letter 
that ``upon inquiry by Subcommittee counsel following Ms. Ahn's 
complaint, Subcommittee counsel were advised by the FBI office in Los 
Angeles that Ms. Ahn was the subject of a `pat-down' search, not a 
strip-search.'' Id.
    \623\ Committee Rule 11 states, in pertinent part, that ``Committee 
Members and staff shall not disclose any evidence relating to an 
investigation to any person or organization outside the Committee 
unless authorized by the Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       F. Exculpatory Information

    Committee Rule 26 states that ``[i]f the Committee, or any 
investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee at any time receives 
any exculpatory information respecting a Complaint or Statement 
of Alleged Violation concerning a Member, officer, or employee 
of the House of Representatives, it shall make such information 
immediately known and available to the Member, officer, or 
employee.'' The rule defines exculpatory evidence as ``any 
evidence or information that is substantially favorable to the 
respondent with respect to the allegations or charges before an 
investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee.'' \624\ (Emphasis 
added.) Based on its consultation with the Chief Counsel to the 
Committee, the Investigative Subcommittee did not interpret 
Rule 26 to require the disclosure of information that simply 
could be used to try to impeach a witness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \624\ The rule regarding ``exculpatory information'' was modified 
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on September 30, 
1997, when it adopted its rules for the 105th Congress. Previously, the 
rule did not contain any definition of ``exculpatory information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee provided exculpatory 
information to Representative Kim on several occasions during 
the inquiry.\625\ Because of conflicting investigative 
priorities, the Subcommittee was not able in each instance to 
provide such information to Representative Kim ``immediately'' 
upon its receipt by the Subcommittee and, instead, provided the 
information as soon as practicable. The Subcommittee is unaware 
of any instance in which the respondent was prejudiced by a 
delay in the transmittal of exculpatory information.\626\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \625\ See Exh. 148.
    \626\ The first two transmittals of exculpatory information 
occurred on May 1 and May 11, 1998, respectively, prior to 
Representative Kim's depositions in June. The third and final 
transmittal of exculpatory information occurred on or about June 1, 
1998--approximately two months before the Subcommittee adopted a 
Statement of Alleged Violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's attorney asserted at the end of the 
inquiry that the Subcommittee violated Committee Rule 26 by not 
disclosing an FBI report of an interview with Dobum Kim until 
August 1998, when the Subcommittee provided a draft Statement 
of Alleged Violation to Representative Kim along with the 
evidence on which the draft charges was based. The 
Subcommittee, however, did not construe Committee Rule 26 to 
require disclosure of the interview report. As noted above, 
Dobum Kim testified under oath, pursuant to a grant of 
immunity, that the statements he made to the FBI were 
false.\627\ He also testified that he made false statements to 
the FBI because of a request by Representative Kim in 1994 that 
he disguise the true nature of a $30,000 check given by Dobum 
Kim to Representative Kim in January 1994.\628\ Contrary to the 
assertion by Representative Kim's attorney, the FBI report of 
its interview with Dobum Kim therefore constituted inculpatory 
evidence, as manifested in the portion of Count V of the SAV 
charging Representative Kim with an attempt to influence 
statements by Dobum Kim to investigators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \627\ Dep. of Dobum Kim, May 20, 1998, at 155, 158, 170, 172.
    \628\ Id. at 155, 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   G. Assertion of Marital Privileges

    Representative Kim's attorney objected to certain questions 
asked of Representative Kim on the grounds that those questions 
violated the marital communications privilege. In addition, he 
argued that certain questioning of June Kim violated the 
marital communications privilege,\629\ and that information 
obtained from June Kim in alleged violation of that privilege 
improperly formed the basis for questions the Subcommittee 
posed to Representative Kim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \629\ The marital communications privilege ``bars testimony 
concerning privately communicated between spouses.'' United States v. 
Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1990); see SEC v. Lavin, 111 F.3d 
921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1997) The privilege may be asserted by either the 
testifying or non-testifying spouse. See United States v. Marashi, 913 
F.2d at 729 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's attorney argued that the Subcommittee 
should suppress any testimony by Mrs. Kim against 
Representative Kim pursuant to the marital communications 
privilege and the privilege regarding adverse spousal 
testimony.\630\ Based on his assertion that the Subcommittee 
improperly obtained information from Mrs. Kim, Representative 
Kim's attorney further argued that her testimony and any 
testimony or other information derived from that testimony 
should be suppressed.\631\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \630\ This privilege concerns giving testimony against one's 
spouse. The privilege not to testify against one's spouse belongs 
solely to the witness-spouse, not the non-testifying spouse. Trammel v. 
United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980) .
    \631\ Dep. of Hon. Jay Kim, June 8, 1998, at 68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee Chairman responded to these arguments in 
his July 2, 1998, letter to the respondent's counsel, as 
excerpted below: \632\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \632\ Legal citations and narrative footnotes contained in the 
Subcommittee Chairman's letter of July 2, 1998, have been omitted here 
but may be reviewed in the full copy of that letter contained in 
Exhibit 140 of the documentary appendix to this Report.

          Committee Rule 20(b) governs ``the procedure 
        respecting the admissibility of evidence and rulings'' 
        in an inquiry. Subsection (b)(1) of Rule 20 states that 
        ``[a]ny relevant evidence shall be admissible unless 
        the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the 
        House of Representatives.'' (Emphasis added.) The 
        Committee's adoption in 1991 of the language comprising 
        what is now Rule 20(b) manifested an intent not to be 
        bound by evidentiary precedent that did not constitute 
        a precedent of the House of Representatives, as the 
        previous rule in effect during the 101st Congress 
        provided in pertinent part that evidence was admissible 
        unless it ``is privileged or unless the Constitution 
        otherwise requires its exclusion.'' (Emphasis added.)
          I have previously determined, and now reiterate, that 
        the information in question obtained from Mrs. Kim is 
        relevant to the matters under investigation. In 
        addition, we have consulted with the House 
        Parliamentarian and the Office of General Counsel 
        regarding the existence of any formal precedents of the 
        House of Representatives recognizing either the common 
        law privilege regarding marital communications or the 
        common law privilege regarding adverse spousal 
        testimony. We are unaware of any formal precedent 
        regarding the marital communications privilege, and we 
        are aware of only one case where the privilege against 
        adverse spousal testimony was at issue.
          House Committees presented with the assertion of a 
        common law privilege often look to judicial precedent 
        for guidance, and the Subcommittee in this instance 
        takes cognizance of both the marital communications 
        privilege and the privilege against adverse spousal 
        testimony. However, the investigative authority of the 
        House of Representatives is not restricted, as a matter 
        of law, by non-constitutional evidentiary privileges. 
        In the context of assertions of the attorney-client 
        privilege, for example, ``the precedents of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, which are founded on 
        Congress' inherent constitutional prerogative to 
        investigate, establish that the acceptance of [such 
        claims] * * * rests in the sound discretion of a 
        congressional committee regardless of whether a court 
        would uphold the claim in the context of litigation.'' 
        In the exercise of that discretion by legislative 
        oversight committees, ``the process of committee 
        resolution of claims of privilege has traditionally 
        been informed by weighing considerations of legislative 
        need, public policy, and the statutory duty of 
        congressional committees to engage in continuous 
        oversight of the application, administration, and 
        execution of laws that fall within its jurisdiction, 
        against any possible injury to the witness.''
          It is appropriate for the Investigative Subcommittee 
        to employ a similar balancing test tailored to the 
        specific constitutional responsibilities of the 
        Congress to discipline its Members. If I or the 
        Subcommittee determined that either of the two marital 
        privileges applied in a given instance, the appropriate 
        course would be to decide whether the privilege at 
        issue ``promotes sufficiently important interests to 
        outweigh the need for probative evidence'' in an ethics 
        investigation.
          Under Committee Rule 20(b), therefore, the evidence 
        at issue is admissible without reference to other 
        considerations. In the exercise of my discretion as 
        Subcommittee Chairman, however, and with the 
        concurrence of other Subcommittee Members, I have 
        referred to relevant judicial precedent for guidance in 
        ruling upon evidentiary objections based on common law 
        privileges.

    The Subcommittee Chairman then explained the basis for his 
ruling on objections premised on the assertion of the marital 
communications privilege:

          Because the House of Representatives is a Federal 
        forum, we have referred to decisions by Federal courts 
        for guidance in considering your objections based on 
        the marital communications privilege. Because the 
        record indicates that most of the communications at 
        issue occurred in California and the marital domicile 
        is located in California, our analysis has focused on 
        decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
        Circuit as well as decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
          The marital communications privilege ``bars testimony 
        concerning statements privately communicated between 
        spouses.'' The non-testifying spouse may invoke the 
        privilege. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, ``[t]he 
        privilege applies only to marital communications which 
        are confidential. That is, the privilege does not 
        extend to statements which are made before, or likely 
        to be overheard by, third parties.'' In addition, ``the 
        privilege applies only to words or acts intended as 
        communication to the other spouse.''
          Consistent with the judicial practice of narrowly 
        construing other testimonial exclusionary rules and 
        privileges, courts ``narrowly construe the marital 
        communications privilege because it obstructs the 
        truth-seeking process. * * * Use of the privilege in 
        criminal proceedings requires a particularly narrow 
        construction because of society's strong interest in 
        the administration of justice.'' In that regard, the 
        Ninth Circuit has held that ``the marital 
        communications privilege does not apply to statements 
        made in furtherance of joint criminal activity.''
          Insofar as the House of Representatives is not bound 
        by judicial precedent regarding non-constitutional 
        evidentiary privileges, however, the Subcommittee, in 
        its discretion, reserves the right to adopt a more 
        flexible version of the exception for criminal activity 
        if it determines that such an approach is necessary and 
        appropriate to fulfill the constitutional mandate of 
        the House of Representatives to discipline its Members. 
        For example, the Subcommittee may determine that this 
        exception should apply if it believes that the 
        communication in question related to conduct that may 
        have resulted in violations of House Rules, as opposed 
        to violations of law.
          Regarding the question of a waiver, I concur that 
        Mrs. Kim, by her testimony, cannot waive Representative 
        Kim's right to assert the marital communications 
        privilege. Insofar as Representative Kim objects on the 
        grounds of the marital communications privilege to 
        statements or testimony given by Mrs. Kim, it should be 
        noted that Representative Kim was not entitled under 
        Committee Rules to attend informal interviews or 
        depositions of Mrs. Kim, and therefore was in no 
        position at that time to interpose objections on 
        privilege grounds. In light of Representative Kim's 
        objections at this juncture, the Subcommittee will 
        analyze any such statements or testimony by Mrs. Kim in 
        the context of whether that privilege should apply, and 
        whether any exception to the privilege should apply. If 
        the Subcommittee determines that the privilege should 
        apply, and that no exception to the privilege should 
        apply, it will assess whether the probative value of 
        the information at issue outweighs the interests that 
        the privilege promotes. Should the Committee determine 
        that the privilege should apply, it will strike from 
        the record the relevant statement or testimony by Mrs. 
        Kim. Consistent with Federal judicial precedent, 
        however, the Subcommittee reserves the right to make 
        derivative use of any statements or testimony by Mrs. 
        Kim.
          Finally, you have asserted that any information or 
        evidence derived from Mrs. Kim's testimony must be 
        suppressed or excluded, assuming that such testimony 
        itself was obtained in violation of the marital 
        communications privilege. That view is without merit as 
        a matter of law. Because the marital communications 
        privilege is not ``constitutionally grounded,'' the 
        Ninth Circuit has expressed ``doubt that a secondary 
        source of information obtained through information 
        protected by the confidential marital communications 
        privilege would in any way be `tainted.' '' The court 
        of appeals has further observed that even if ``some 
        version of a `taint' theory were independently 
        applicable to violations of this privilege,'' the 
        independent source doctrine could serve as a basis for 
        the admissibility of evidence.

    Pursuant to his authority under Committee Rule 20(b)(2), 
the Subcommittee Chairman ruled on thirteen separate objections 
based on the assertion of the marital communications 
privilege.\633\ Based on the factors discussed above, the 
Subcommittee Chairman overruled each objection.\634\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \633\ Exh. 140.
    \634\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the same letter of July 2, 1998, the Subcommittee 
Chairman separately ruled on evidentiary objections based on 
the privilege regarding adverse spousal testimony:

          The Supreme Court held in Trammel v. United States 
        that the privilege not to testify against one's spouse 
        belongs solely to the witness-spouse, not to the non-
        testifying spouse. Hence, this privilege belongs to 
        June Kim, not to Representative Kim. Representative Kim 
        therefore has no standing to prevent Mrs. Kim from 
        giving testimony against him, except as to 
        communications protected by the marital communications 
        privilege.
          At no time during any deposition or interview did 
        June Kim ever invoke the privilege against adverse 
        spousal testimony. The Subcommittee is unaware of any 
        law, House rule, or Committee rule imposing an 
        affirmative obligation on the Subcommittee or its staff 
        to advise a witness-spouse of the ability to assert the 
        adverse spousal testimony privilege. In any event, the 
        Subcommittee has no reason to believe that Mrs. Kim 
        would have invoked this privilege if she had been 
        explicitly so advised, in light of the adverse 
        testimony regarding Representative Kim that she 
        volunteered to the Subcommittee.
          In the June 24, 1998, letter to me and Ranking 
        Democratic Member Pastor from you and Adam Kurland, you 
        appear to claim that the Subcommittee was required by 
        law to obtain a formal waiver from June Kim of the 
        privilege against adverse spousal testimony. In that 
        regard, you speculate that Subcommittee counsel made 
        representations to Mrs. Kim about applicable laws, that 
        these supposed representations misstated the law, and 
        that the purported misrepresentations ``led Mrs. Kim to 
        an involuntary and uninformed waiver.'' In addition, 
        you observe that Mrs. Kim's statements and testimony do 
        not constitute a waiver of Representative Kim's right 
        to assert the marital communications privilege.
          We are not aware of any law or House rule that would 
        have required the Subcommittee to obtain a formal 
        waiver from June Kim of the adverse spousal testimony 
        privilege. Nonetheless, Subcommittee counsel expressly 
        advised Mrs. Kim at her initial interview that counsel 
        would be asking her about confidential communications 
        between her and Representative Kim and about 
        Representative Kim's own conduct, and she voluntarily 
        provided information about such communications and 
        Representative Kim's conduct. Your suggestion that 
        Subcommittee counsel induced Mrs. Kim into making 
        statements about confidential marital communications by 
        misrepresenting the law is entirely inaccurate, and it 
        is regrettable that you engaged in such speculation.

    In a letter to Subcommittee counsel dated July 14, 1998, 
June Kim for the first time invoked the privilege regarding 
adverse spousal testimony, and asked that her prior testimony 
be withdrawn.\635\ She also alleged, for the first time, that 
Subcommittee counsel had ``abused'' her, and that her testimony 
had been ``obtained by false representations.'' \636\ 
Similarly, one of Representative Kim's attorneys previously had 
claimed that Mrs. Kim was ``hoodwinked, coerced, lied to, and 
kind of told vague things about the application of the marital 
privileges * * *'' \637\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \635\ Exh. 149.
    \636\ Id. Mrs. Kim stated at the end of her letter that ``I declare 
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 
America, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge and recollection.'' Id. At a meeting of the Investigative 
Subcommittee on July 16, 1998, the Subcommittee Chairman asked 
Representative Kim's attorney what involvement he had with the 
preparation of Mrs. Kim's letter of July 14, 1998. Executive Session, 
Investigative Subcommittee, July 16, 1998, at 22. Representative Kim's 
attorney said that he did not prepare the letter and had not spoken 
directly to Mrs. Kim. Id. He failed, however, to respond to the 
Subcommittee Chairman's question of whether he spoke to Mrs. Kim's 
civil attorney about the letter. Id. at 22-23. The contents and timing 
of Mrs. Kim's letter, combined with the comments by Representative 
Kim's attorney in response to questioning by the Subcommittee Chairman, 
raised concerns on the part of Subcommittee Members as to whether 
Representative Kim's attorney induced Mrs. Kim to seek the withdrawal 
of her testimony, either directly or indirectly. The Subcommittee was 
unable to resolve those concerns.
    \637\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, July 16, 1998, 
at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee ruled on Mrs. Kim's request 
to withdraw her testimony at a meeting on July 22, 1998. As 
explained subsequently to Mrs. Kim in an August 4, 1998, letter 
from the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member,

        the Investigative Subcommittee acknowledged the 
        applicability in this inquiry of the marital 
        communications privilege and the privilege against 
        adverse spousal testimony, within certain limitations 
        that the Subcommittee previously had explained to 
        counsel for Representative Kim. The Subcommittee found, 
        however, that you were duly advised of your right to 
        counsel pursuant to Committee Rule 27, and that you 
        made a knowing and voluntary decision not to retain an 
        attorney. In addition, the Subcommittee found that 
        neither the Subcommittee nor its staff was required by 
        law or House or Committee rules to specifically advise 
        you of either the marital communications privilege or 
        the privilege against adverse spousal testimony.
          Nonetheless, counsel to the Subcommittee made it 
        clear to you at the outset of their communications with 
        you that they would be asking you questions about your 
        husband. Moreover, counsel to the Subcommittee informed 
        you of the two marital privileges, even though not 
        required to do so by House or Committee rules. You were 
        most willing to provide information to the Subcommittee 
        about Representative Kim, including information about 
        communications you had with him. In that regard, the 
        Subcommittee found that you knowingly and voluntarily 
        waived your rights to assert the two marital 
        privileges.
          Based on the record before the Subcommittee, 
        including your deposition over a two-day period, the 
        Subcommittee did not credit your claims about the 
        alleged manner in which the Subcommittee or its counsel 
        treated you. In its discretion, however, the 
        Subcommittee decided that it will not base any possible 
        charges against Representative Kim on testimony that 
        you provided, unless there is an independent source for 
        the information in question or the Subcommittee 
        inevitably would have discovered that information. The 
        Subcommittee also has reserved the right to include 
        documents that you have provided in its report to the 
        full Committee, as well as evidence derived from 
        testimony that you provided.

                  H. June Kim's Fifth Amendment Rights

    June Kim initially was interviewed by Subcommittee counsel 
in California in March 1998, and subsequently was deposed by 
the Subcommittee for two days in April 1998. In an effort to 
suppress Mrs. Kim's testimony, Representative Kim's attorney 
asserted that the Investigative Subcommittee had an affirmative 
obligation to advise June Kim of her rights under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and to obtain a waiver from 
her of those rights.\638\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \638\Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, June 8, 1998, 
at 68-69. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in 
pertinent part that ``[N]o person * * * shall be compelled in any 
criminal case to be a witness against himself.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his July 2, 1998, letter to Representative Kim's 
attorney, the Subcommittee Chairman explained that 
``Representative Kim has no standing to assert his wife's Fifth 
Amendment rights,'' citing a Supreme Court case in support of 
his ruling.\639\ The Chairman therefore denied objections by 
Representative Kim based on Mrs. Kim's Fifth Amendment 
rights.\640\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \639\ Letter from the Hon. Lamar Smith to Ralph Lotkin, July 2, 
1998 (Exh. 140) (citing Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 327-29 
(1973) (Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a 
personal privilege)).
    \640\ Exh. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subcommittee counsel expressly advised Mrs. Kim of her 
right to counsel, and provided her with a copy of Committee 
rules, prior to her initial staff interview in March 1998. The 
Subcommittee Chairman noted in his July 2, 1998, letter that 
Mrs. Kim was informed of her right to counsel before testifying 
before the Subcommittee, and had previously been provided with 
a copy of the Committee's rules. He also stated in the letter 
that ``[w]e have consulted with the House Parliamentarian and 
the Office of General Counsel and are unaware of any precedent 
of the House of Representatives requiring a witness testifying 
before a congressional committee, which is not a criminal 
tribunal, to be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, 
the Subcommittee was under no obligation to advise Mrs. Kim of 
her rights under the Fifth Amendment or to obtain a waiver of 
those rights.'' \641\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \641\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also worth noting that, prior to the inquiry 
undertaken by the Investigative Subcommittee, Mrs. Kim had been 
a defendant in a lengthy criminal prosecution by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office in which she had been represented by counsel. 
In light of that experience, and the express acknowledgment of 
her right to counsel by Subcommittee Members and counsel, the 
Subcommittee believes that Mrs. Kim made a knowing and 
voluntary decision to provide information and testimony without 
the assistance of counsel.

            I. Deferral of Rulings on Procedural Objections

    During the Investigative Subcommittee's deposition of 
Representative Kim, Representative Kim's attorney asserted 
numerous objections on procedural grounds. In many instances, 
the Subcommittee Chairman ruled on objections when they were 
made pursuant to his authority under Committee Rule 20(b)(2). 
In other instances, the Chairman deferred a ruling, preferring 
to take the matter under advisement.
    Representative Kim's attorney later argued that the 
Subcommittee Chairman acted improperly by deferring a ruling on 
certain procedural objections.\642\ The Subcommittee Chairman 
rejected that view. In his July 2, 1998, letter to 
Representative Kim's attorney, the Chairman explained the basis 
for his decision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \642\ Exh. 150.

          Committee Rule 20(b) states in pertinent part that 
        ``[t]he Chairman of the subcommittee or other presiding 
        member at any investigative subcommittee proceeding 
        shall rule upon any question of admissibility or 
        pertinency of evidence, motion, procedure or any other 
        matter * * *.'' According to the House Parliamentarian, 
        the Chairman or other presiding Member possesses 
        inherent discretion under Committee Rule 20(b) to take 
        a given objection under advisement and defer a final 
        ruling until he or she has the information deemed 
        necessary and appropriate to issue such a ruling.\643\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \643\ Exh. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         J. Compelled Testimony in Absence of Two-Member Quorum

    On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee served a subpoena on 
Jennifer Ahn through her attorney requiring her testimony 
before the Subcommittee. Ahn first appeared before the 
Subcommittee pursuant to that subpoena on May 12, 1998, and 
submitted to questions by Subcommittee Members and counsel. At 
that deposition, the Subcommittee advised Ahn, in response to 
her request, that she would be afforded an opportunity to make 
a closing statement. Questioning of Ahn was not completed on 
May 12, and her deposition was continued. The Subcommittee 
directed counsel to reschedule the continuation of Ahn's 
deposition as soon as possible.
    Because of scheduling considerations, including respect for 
Ahn's own business travel schedule, Subcommittee counsel 
scheduled the continuation of Ahn's deposition for Monday, May 
18, 1998, pursuant to the subpoena originally issued on March 
19, 1998. No Subcommittee Members were present for Ahn's 
appearance that day.
    Subcommittee counsel explained to Ahn and her attorney, 
Tysun Ihm, that her testimony would not be sworn because a 
quorum of two Members was not present, but that her testimony 
would be transcribed and subject to the prohibitions of 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Mr. Ihm objected to the continuation of the 
deposition on the grounds that Members were not present, and 
that she was entitled to the presence of at least two Members.
    Subsequently, Subcommittee counsel, in consultation with 
the House Parliamentarian, determined that Ahn should not have 
been required to submit to questioning on May 18, 1998. The 
Subcommittee did not utilize Ahn's testimony of May 18, 1998, 
for either the SAV or this report.

             K. Cooperation Requirements of Plea Agreements

    As a condition of their plea agreements with the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, Representative Kim and June Kim each agreed 
``to cooperate fully with the Federal Election Commission, the 
United States Congress, this Office, and other law enforcement 
authorities, including providing truthful and complete 
testimony, interviews, documents, and other information as 
requested.'' \644\ The Subcommittee or its counsel cited this 
requirement several times in seeking information or cooperation 
from Representative Kim and June Kim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \644\ Exhs. 1, 4 (emphasis added). The same condition was included 
in the plea agreement for Representative Kim's campaign committee, 
whose guilty plea Representative Kim was required to enter as a 
separate condition of his own plea agreement. See Exh. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kim's attorney expressed concern that the 
Subcommittee improperly cited the cooperation requirements of 
Representative and Mrs. Kim's plea agreements with respect to 
certain requests for information or cooperation, such as 
information concerning Representative Kim's autobiography, 
``I'm Conservative.'' \645\ Upon further consultation with the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, Subcommittee counsel confirmed that the 
plea agreements of Representative and Mrs. Kim required them to 
cooperate with the Committee on any matter within the scope of 
the criminal investigation, including matters concerning 
Representative Kim's book. Subcommittee counsel did determine, 
however, that the subject matter of certain requests directed 
to Representative Kim had exceeded the scope of the Kims' plea 
agreements; although the Subcommittee properly could have 
sought to compel a response to some of those requests, it was 
improper to invoke the plea agreements as a basis to require 
the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \645\ Representative Kim's attorney raised questions about the 
Subcommittee's recitation of Representative Kim's cooperation agreement 
in a letter dated July 28, 1998. See Exh. 151 The Subcommittee Chairman 
and Ranking Democratic Member responded in a letter dated July 31, 
1998, in which they deemed moot most of the issues raised by 
Representative Kim's attorney. Exh. 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At a Subcommittee meeting on July 22, 1998, at which 
Representative Kim and his attorney both were present, the 
Subcommittee considered a motion that included the following 
provision: ``[t]hat to the extent the subcommittee or its 
counsel asked any question of Representative Kim or June Kim or 
sought the production of any document by improperly citing the 
cooperation provisions of their respective plea agreements, * * 
* they may modify or withdraw their answers, or obtain return 
of such document, if they state in writing that they provided 
the answer or document solely because of the reference to the 
cooperation agreement.'' \646\ The Subcommittee unanimously 
agreed to the motion.\647\ In addition, the Subcommittee 
advised Representative Kim and his attorney that Representative 
Kim could withdraw answers to various questions previously 
directed to him by the Subcommittee.\648\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \646\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, July 22, 1998, 
at 3-4.
    \647\ Id. at 4.
    \648\ Id. at 8. The questions at issue concerned June Kim's book, 
Representative Kim's 1998 campaign, bank records for 1997 and 1998, and 
Image Media Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee advised June Kim of its decision in a 
letter dated August 4, 1998, in which it asked her to notify 
Subcommittee counsel in writing if she believed that she was 
entitled to withdraw any answer pursuant to the Subcommittee's 
ruling.\649\ On or about August 24, 1998, Mrs. Kim responded in 
writing to the Subcommittee's letter, asking that the 
Subcommittee ``forward to me a copy of the transcrip [sic] of 
all questions and answers which would fall within the [terms of 
the Subcommittee's letter] as well as any and all documents 
which may be withdrawn.'' \650\ The Subcommittee subsequently 
determined that the issue regarding Mrs. Kim's cooperation 
agreement had become moot with respect to her testimony in 
light of the fact that the Subcommittee had decided, in its 
discretion, not to utilize any testimony by Mrs. Kim for 
purposes of the SAV or this Report.\651\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \649\ Exh. 153. The letter to Mrs. Kim explained that the 
Subcommittee's ruling did ``not pertain to questions directed to you 
during your deposition regarding matters within the scope of the 
Subcommittee's inquiry, as your testimony occurred pursuant to a 
properly issued subpoena.'' Id.
    \650\ Exh. 154.
    \651\ It should also be noted that it is Committee policy, pursuant 
to Committee Rule 27(p), not to distribute copies of witness testimony 
outside of the Committee's office. Witnesses or their counsel may 
review transcripts of testimony at the Committee's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subcommittee counsel did invoke Mrs. Kim's plea agreement 
to obtain copies of her South Korean bank records regarding 
transactions in 1994, when most of the funds purported to be 
revenue from Representative Kim's book apparently were 
deposited into Mrs. Kim's bank account at Cho Hung Bank in 
Seoul. The Subcommittee Ranking Member, however, separately had 
personally asked Mrs. Kim on several occasions to provide those 
documents, and she had explicitly promised on the record to 
obtain the documents from Cho Hung Bank and provide them to the 
Subcommittee.\652\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \652\ Deposition of June O. Kim, Apr. 21, 1998, at 100-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    L. Appeals of Procedural Rulings

    Committee Rule 20(b) states in pertinent part that ``[a] 
witness, witness's counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may 
appeal any evidentiary rulings to the members present at [a 
proceeding of the investigative subcommittee]. The majority 
vote of the members present at such proceeding on such appeal 
shall govern the question of admissibility, and no appeal shall 
lie to the full Committee.''
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 20(b)(2), the Investigative 
Subcommittee accorded Representative Kim a hearing to appeal 
evidentiary rulings by the Subcommittee Chairman.\653\ On July 
15-16, 1998, Representative Kim and his attorneys appeared 
before the Investigative Subcommittee to appeal rulings 
discussed in the Subcommittee Chairman's letter dated July 2, 
1998, including the rulings regarding June Kim's marital 
privilege and Fifth Amendment rights, documents provided by the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, and the alleged mistreatment of 
Jennifer Ahn. Representative Kim's attorneys also appealed a 
ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning 
possible conduit campaign contributions during the 1980's, 
before Representative Kim was elected to the House of 
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \653\ Exh. 155. On July 14, 1998, Representative Kim's attorneys 
submitted a letter to the Subcommittee explaining the basis for their 
various appeals. Exh. 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By a unanimous vote on July 22, 1998, the Subcommittee 
found that the issues regarding Mrs. Kim's marital privileges 
and Fifth Amendment rights were moot.\654\ The Subcommittee 
denied Representative Kim's appeal regarding documents obtained 
from the U.S. Attorney's Office because it had ``no reason to 
believe that any documents provided by the U.S. Attorney's 
Office were provided in violation of [R]ule 6(e) of the Federal 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.'' \655\ The Subcommittee also 
explained that it was ``unaware of any law or rule that would 
have required either the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, or this investigative 
subcommittee to seek an order of a Federal district court to 
permit disclosure of the documents in question.'' \656\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \654\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, July 22, 1998, 
at 3, 5-6. In explaining the Subcommittee's ruling, the Subcommittee 
Chairman reconfirmed that (1) neither the Subcommittee nor its counsel 
was required by law or by House or Committee rules to advise Mrs. Kim 
of either the privilege against adverse spousal testimony or the 
marital communications privilege; and (2) that neither the Subcommittee 
nor its staff was required by law or by House or Committee rules to 
advise Mrs. Kim of her Fifth Amendment rights, or to seek a waiver of 
those rights. Id. at 5, 7. The issues raised by Representative Kim's 
attorneys were moot, however, because the Subcommittee, in its 
discretion, chose not to utilize Mrs. Kim's testimony for purposes of 
the SAV or this Report.
    \655\ Id. at 3, 9.
    \656\ Id at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regarding Jennifer Ahn, the Subcommittee found that the 
Subcommittee Chairman's previous rulings regarding alleged 
witness mistreatment and the airport search of Ahn were not 
evidentiary rulings, and therefore were not subject to appeal 
under Committee Rule 20(b).\657\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \657\ Id. at 3, 10. The Subcommittee also questioned whether 
Representative Kim had standing to assert any claims on behalf of 
third-party witnesses. Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Representative Kim's attorney had asserted that a 
waiver by the full Committee of the so-called ``three-Congress 
rule'' was required in order for the Subcommittee to inquire 
about possible conduit campaign contributions \658\ during the 
1980's, and sought to appeal the denial of objections 
previously raised in response to questions concerning such 
contributions. The Subcommittee denied Representative Kim's 
appeal, explaining that it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \658\ It is illegal for any person to make a contribution to a 
federal candidate by using the name of another person. 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 441f. Such a contribution is commonly referred to as a ``conduit 
contribution.''

        did not pose questions to Representative Kim about 
        possible conduit contributions during the 1980s because 
        it was interested in charging him with respect to those 
        contributions. Rather, the questions were posed to 
        establish his prior knowledge regarding campaign 
        finance laws and to try to determine whether there was 
        a pattern [and] practice of illegal conduit 
        contributions going back to the 1980s. In that regard, 
        the purpose was to ascertain whether there was 
        corroborating evidence with respect to possible illegal 
        conduit contributions in 1993 and 1994, a time period 
        well within the third previous Congress.\659\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \659\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, July 22, 1998, 
at 11.

    The Subcommittee added that ``[w]e do not interpret 
[C]ommittee [R]ule 19(d) to prohibit the asking of questions 
aimed at developing evidence regarding possible charges that * 
* * concern conduct within the statute of limitations specified 
by the rule.'' \660\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \660\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             M. Adoption of Statement of Alleged Violation

    Committee Rule 27(c) states, in pertinent part, that 
``[n]ot less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote by 
an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged 
Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a 
copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to adopt 
together with all evidence it intends to use to prove those 
charges which it intends to adopt, including documentary 
evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interview, 
and physical evidence * * *.'' This rule was adopted as part of 
the procedural revisions resulting from the work of the House 
Ethics Reform Task Force (``Task Force''), and passed by the 
House of Representatives as H. Res. 168 in September 1997. In 
its report to the House, the Task Force indicated that one of 
the purposes of the new rule was to ``encourage realistic and 
productive settlement negotiations between the parties.'' \661\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \661\ Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H. Res. 168, 105th 
Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1997) (Committee Print).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 24, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee, by an 
affirmative vote of a majority of its members, voted to confirm 
its intent to adopt a draft Statement of Alleged Violation 
prepared by Subcommittee counsel.\662\ On July 28, 1998, the 
Subcommittee delivered to Representative Kim a draft Statement 
of Alleged Violation and the evidence on which the draft 
charges were based.\663\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \662\ Executive Session of the Investigative Subcommittee, July 24, 
1998, at 4-5. Rule 27(c) is silent with respect to how an investigative 
subcommittee should manifest its intent to adopt a draft SAV. In this 
case, the Subcommittee decided in its discretion to demonstrate its 
intent to adopt the draft SAV by a formal vote. The Subcommittee also 
authorized Subcommittee counsel to make technical changes to the draft 
SAV. Id.
    \663\ Exh. 156 (letter accompanying draft SAV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to an earlier commitment made to Representative 
Kim by the Subcommittee in the exercise of its discretion, 
Subcommittee counsel notified Representative Kim's attorney by 
letter on July 29, 1998, that Representative Kim would be 
afforded an opportunity to appear before it on August 5, 1998, 
to comment on the proposed charges contained in the draft 
SAV.\664\ In the letter, Subcommittee counsel asked 
Representative Kim's attorney to confirm whether Representative 
Kim desired to appear before the Subcommittee for the specified 
purpose, and, if so, to submit a letter to the Subcommittee 
``specifying the purpose of Representative Kim's proposed 
appearance * * *.'' \665\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \664\ Exh. 157. It should also be noted that the Subcommittee, in 
its discretion, had scheduled a special meeting to afford 
Representative Kim an opportunity to make a closing statement following 
the completion of his deposition, and that Representative Kim failed to 
take advantage of that opportunity. The Subcommittee was not required 
under House or Committee rules to afford Representative Kim either 
opportunity to appear before it.
    \665\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 3, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney, Ralph 
Lotkin, responded by letter to the July 29, 1998, letter from 
Subcommittee counsel.\666\ The letter stated that ``[i]n light 
of our ongoing review of the draft Statement of Alleged 
Violations, we believe it would be helpful for the Congressman 
to meet with the Subcommittee for the purpose of identifying 
whether a mutually-acceptable resolution can be achieved.'' 
\667\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \666\ Exh. 158.
    \667\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subcommittee counsel responded by letter to the August 3, 
1998, letter from Mr. Lotkin on the same day.\668\ Subcommittee 
counsel advised Mr. Lotkin that counsel ``interprets your 
letter to mean that Representative Kim will make a settlement 
offer to the Investigative Subcommittee at the meeting on 
August 5,'' and asked Mr. Lotkin to submit a settlement offer 
by August 4, 1998, if counsel's interpretation was 
correct.\669\ Subcommittee counsel further advised Mr. Lotkin 
that a written settlement offer from Representative Kim ``will 
form the basis for discussion at the meeting on August 5.'' 
\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \668\ Exh. 159
    \669\ Id.
    \670\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 4, 1998, Mr. Lotkin sent a letter to the 
Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member in response 
to the August 3, 1998, letter from Subcommittee counsel.\671\ 
The letter did not contain any settlement offer with respect to 
the proposed charges contained in the draft SAV.\672\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \671\ Exh. 160.
    \672\ Instead, Mr. Lotkin proposed ``that the Subcommittee (and, as 
appropriate, the full Committee) work with Representative Kim in the 
drafting of a mutually-acceptable 'report' which simultaneously 
recognizes the efforts undertaken and maintains the Congressman's 
presumption of innocence.'' Id. (emphasis in original). Mr. Lotkin 
added that the proposal ``does not represent the totality of options 
available to the Subcommittee or Representative Kim,'' but did not 
identify any such ``options.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 5, 1998, the Subcommittee afforded Representative 
Kim an opportunity to appear before it to comment on the 
proposed charges contained in the draft SAV.\673\ At the 
meeting, Representative Kim declined to discuss the proposed 
charges contained in the draft SAV. Instead, Mr. Lotkin advised 
the Subcommittee that any comments Representative Kim might 
have could be found in Mr. Lotkin's August 4, 1998, letter to 
the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member, which 
made no reference to the proposed charges contained in the 
draft SAV.\674\ Mr. Lotkin did say, however, that 
Representative Kim ``will under no circumstances agree to [the 
draft] Statement of Alleged Violations.'' \675\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \673\ Executive Session of the Investigative Subcommittee, Aug. 5, 
1998, at 3.
    \674\ Id. at 7.
    \675\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Lotkin also remarked at the meeting that ``I sit here 
in total confidence with the knowledge that I can disprove some 
of what is alleged as not having occurred.'' \676\ In that 
regard, Representative Robert C. Scott invited Mr. Lotkin to 
identify any evidence that, in his estimation, would disprove a 
proposed charge contained in the draft SAV.\677\ Mr. Lotkin 
declined to provide such information, remarking that ``I am not 
going to . . . help you perfect a Statement of Alleged 
Violation.'' \678\ The Subcommittee meeting was adjourned soon 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \676\ Id. Mr. Lotkin subsequently remarked at the meeting that `` I 
am not going to tell the prosecution how to perfect its indictment. We 
will beat it on the facts. * * * I am not saying it for effect. * * * I 
am just telling you what I know.'' Id. at 10.
    \677\ Id. at 9.
    \678\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking 
Democratic Member sent a letter to Mr. Lotkin regarding 
``matters that arose at the meeting of the Investigative 
Subcommittee on August 5, 1998.'' \679\ They advised Mr. Lotkin 
that the Subcommittee had denied his request that 
Representative Kim be permitted to participate in the drafting 
of the report of the inquiry.\680\ In addition, they advised 
Mr. Lotkin that ``you indicated to the Subcommittee that you 
possess exculpatory information with respect to the proposed 
charges, and declined to share that information with the 
Subcommittee. If, in fact, you are in possession of such 
information, we believe you have done a disservice both to 
Representative Kim and to the ethics process by refusing to 
provide that information to the Subcommittee at this critical 
procedural juncture.'' \681\ The letter further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \679\ Exh. 161.
    \680\ Id.
    \681\ Id.

          As you know, the Subcommittee already has manifested 
        its intent to adopt charges contained in the draft SAV, 
        and that vote may occur as early as tomorrow, August 7, 
        1998. It is essential to a full and fair evaluation of 
        the evidence for the Subcommittee to review any 
        exculpatory information before voting to adopt an SAV. 
        If, in fact, you possess any exculpatory information 
        regarding any proposed charge, we direct you to provide 
        such information to the Subcommittee immediately.\682\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \682\ Id.

    Mr. Lotkin responded to the Subcommittee's August 6, 1998, 
letter, on the same day.\683\ He reconfirmed ``our refusal to 
share with you what we believe is exculpatory information in 
our possession related to your draft Statement of Alleged 
Violation,'' maintaining that ``it is not, nor should it be, 
our duty to assist you in the preparation of any charging 
document.'' \684\ He also requested another meeting with the 
Investigative Subcommittee.\685\ In a letter to Mr. Lotkin 
transmitted later the same day, the Subcommittee Chairman and 
Ranking Democratic Member denied Mr. Lotkin's request for an 
additional meeting.\686\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \683\ Exh. 162.
    \684\ Id.
    \685\ Id.
    \686\ Exh. 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 7, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee 
unanimously voted to adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation 
consisting of six counts of alleged violations of laws and 
House rules.\687\ Pursuant to Committee Rule 20(e), the 
Subcommittee's action was based on its determination that there 
was ``substantial reason to believe'' that Representative Kim 
committed the alleged violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \687\ Executive Session of the Investigative Subcommittee, Aug. 7, 
1998, at 27-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the August 7, 1998, meeting, the Subcommittee 
unanimously voted to authorize the Subcommittee Chairman to 
rule on a motion by Representative Kim for a bill of 
particulars, a motion to dismiss, or a motion for an extension 
of time, upon consultation with members of the 
Subcommittee.\688\ The Subcommittee based its action on the 
fact that Committee rules regarding the disposition of a motion 
for a bill of particulars or a motion to dismiss refer only to 
a ``reply'' by an investigative subcommittee to such motions 
and, unlike other Committee rules, do not expressly require a 
meeting of the Subcommittee or a vote.\689\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \688\ Id. at 33-34.
    \689\ Id. at 29-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later on August 7, 1998, the Investigative Subcommittee 
transmitted the SAV to Representative Kim and his attorney, 
pursuant to Committee Rule 20(e).\690\ In a letter accompanying 
the SAV, the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic 
Member advised Representative Kim of his right to submit an 
answer to the SAV or to precede the filing of an answer with a 
motion for a bill of particulars or a motion to dismiss.\691\ 
They also advised Representative Kim that the SAV adopted by 
the Subcommittee contained changes in comparison with the draft 
SAV originally transmitted on July 28, 1998, and that those 
changes would not affect any time periods specified by 
Committee rules.\692\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \690\ Exh. 164.
    \691\ Id.
    \692\ Id. Subcommittee counsel met personally with Representative 
Kim's attorney to review in detail the changes made to the draft SAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 24, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney filed a 
Motion for a Bill of Particulars on behalf of Representative 
Kim pursuant to Committee Rule 23(b), along with a supporting 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities (``Memorandum'').\693\ In 
the Memorandum, Mr. Lotkin asserted that he was in possession 
of ``documentary'' exculpatory information regarding Count V of 
the SAV, described the general nature of that information, but 
maintained his intention to withhold the information from the 
Subcommittee.\694\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \693\ Exh. 165.
    \694\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee Chairman conferred with other Subcommittee 
Members and Subcommittee counsel regarding Representative Kim's 
motion. Pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the 
Investigative Subcommittee, the Subcommittee Chairman responded 
to Representative Kim's motion in a letter dated August 25, 
1998, in which he denied Representative Kim's motion.\695\ In 
that letter, the Subcommittee Chairman explained that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \695\ Exh. 166.

          [t]he Subcommittee has carefully reviewed 
        Representative Kim's Motion and supporting Memorandum, 
        and has determined that the information contained in 
        each of the counts comprising the SAV is sufficient to 
        advise Representative Kim of the allegations against 
        him, and sufficient to afford him a meaningful 
        opportunity to respond to those allegations. Further, 
        Representative Kim previously received an annotated 
        draft of the SAV that identified witnesses, cited 
        specific testimony, and included supporting 
        documentation.\696\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \696\ The Subcommittee Chairman also advised Mr. Lotkin that his 
continued refusal to provide exculpatory information purportedly in his 
possession was ``regrettable.'' He commented in the letter that 
``[a]lthough Representative Kim is not required by House or Committee 
rules to provide exculpatory information to the Subcommittee, it is 
clearly in his best interests to do so without further delay. The 
integrity of the ethics process, and the ability of Subcommittee and 
full Committee Members to make informed judgments on matters critical 
to a respondent's interests, are both diminished when a respondent or 
his or her counsel deliberately withholds information that could be 
exculpatory.'' Id. (emphasis in original).

    In a letter to the Honorable Lamar Smith dated August 27, 
1998, Mr. Lotkin asserted that the Subcommittee Chairman's 
denial of Representative Kim's Motion for a Bill of Particulars 
was procedurally invalid on the grounds that the Subcommittee 
itself did not meet to vote on the motion.\697\ On September 2, 
1998, the Investigative Subcommittee met and considered Mr. 
Lotkin's letter. At that meeting, the Subcommittee--by a 
majority of its members--found that the Subcommittee Chairman's 
denial of Representative Kim's Motion for a Bill of Particulars 
``was consistent with the rules of the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct.'' \698\ The Subcommittee further ratified 
the Subcommittee Chairman's previous denial of the motion by 
separately voting to deny Representative Kim's motion.\699\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \697\ Exh. 167.
    \698\ Executive Session, Investigative Subcommittee, Sept. 2, 1998, 
at 18.
    \699\ Id. The Subcommittee Chairman advised Mr. Lotkin of the 
action taken by the Subcommittee in a letter dated September 2, 1998. 
Exh. 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 9, 1998, Representative Kim's attorney filed a 
Motion to Dismiss the SAV pursuant to Committee Rule 
23(c)(2).\700\ On September 10, 1998, the Subcommittee voted to 
deny the motion by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
members. In a letter to Representative Kim's attorney, the 
Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member explained 
that the Subcommittee had ``determined that each of the counts 
comprising the SAV states facts that constitute a violation of 
the Code of Official Conduct or other applicable law, rule, 
regulation, or standard of conduct and that the Committee has 
jurisdiction to consider the allegations contained in each 
count of the SAV.'' \701\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \700\ Exh. 169.
    \701\ Exh. 170. On September 16, 1998, the Subcommittee Chairman 
and Ranking Democratic Member sent a follow-up letter to Representative 
Kim's attorney providing further explanation for the Subcommittee's 
denial of the Motion to Dismiss. See Exh. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 25, 1998, Representative Kim filed an Answer 
to the Statement of Alleged Violation, in which he admitted the 
statutory violations of Federal election campaign laws to which 
he pleaded guilty in 1997, but denied all charges by the 
Investigative Subcommittee, including alleged violations of 
House Rules based on those statutory violations.\702\ Thus, 
Representative Kim denied all of the charges contained in the 
SAV.\703\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \702\ Exh. 171. The Subcommittee responded in part to 
Representative Kim's Answer in a letter dated September 29, 1998. See 
Exh. 172.
    \703\ The Investigative Subcommittee charged Representative Kim 
only with violations of House Rules in connection with the statutory 
violations to which he had pleaded guilty--not with statutory 
violations of federal election campaign laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 2, 1998, the Subcommittee voted to adopt this 
Report. On the same day, the Subcommittee Chairman, pursuant to 
Committee Rule 23(g), transmitted to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the full Committee the SAV, related motions, 
replies to those motions, and related pleadings. The 
Subcommittee Chairman also transmitted the Subcommittee's 
report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full 
Committee.
    In transmitting the SAV and the other referenced materials, 
the Subcommittee recommended that no adjudicatory subcommittee 
be established, and that no further action be taken in this 
matter. The Subcommittee based its recommendation on the fact 
that Representative Kim had lost his primary election in June 
1998, and that the Committee therefore would lose its 
jurisdiction over him in January 1999.
    On October 6, 1998, the full Committee unanimously voted to 
adopt the Subcommittee's report, and to approve the 
Subcommittee's recommendation that no further action be taken 
in this matter.





                              
