"Choi Ji-sung and High School Classmate" Cited... "Everland Trial, Column, Brother-in-law Not the Reason"
Scheduled to Proceed on the 26th... Interim Chairman Elected by Ballot to Act in Office
Justice Yang Chang-soo Nominee
[Asia Economy reporters Seokjin Choi and Hyungmin Kim] Yang Chang-soo, chairman of the Prosecution Investigation Deliberation Committee (Investigation Deliberation Committee) (68, former Supreme Court Justice), who was embroiled in neutrality controversy, has ultimately decided to avoid the position of chairman of the current affairs committee that will deliberate on the case involving Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong (52) and not to be involved in the case.
Chairman Yang cited his friendship with former Samsung Future Strategy Office chief Choi Ji-sung (69), who is also under investigation along with Vice Chairman Lee, as the reason, but it appears to be a decision made due to the burden of repeated controversies over his qualifications as chairman, stemming from his past trials and connections with Samsung.
With Chairman Yang deciding to avoid the current affairs chairman position, the current affairs committee for the case involving Vice Chairman Lee will have an interim chairman elected by the attending members to act on behalf of the chairman.
On the 16th, Chairman Yang issued a statement saying, “I intend to avoid performing the duties as chairman at the current affairs committee meeting scheduled for the 26th,” and “In accordance with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office operational guidelines, I will attend the committee on the 26th, express my intention to avoid the duties to the members, explain the related procedures regarding the appointment of a deputy chairman and future progress, and then leave the committee meeting.”
Regarding the reason for avoiding the current affairs chairman position, he explained, “I have a long-standing friendship with Choi Ji-sung, a suspect in the case discussed by this committee,” and “Even if he is not the party who requested the referral to this committee, as one of the co-suspects involved in the case to be handled by this committee, sharing the same charges (criminal facts) as other suspects, such a personal relationship constitutes grounds for avoidance.”
Former chief Choi did not initially apply for the convening of the Investigation Deliberation Committee itself, but since he is accused of the same charges as Vice Chairman Lee and former Future Strategy Office team leader Kim Jong-joong (64), who are parties to the case to be handled by the current affairs committee, Chairman Yang judged from a practical perspective that performing the chairman role while having a friendship with Choi could affect the fairness of the deliberation. Former chief Choi and Chairman Yang are alumni of Seoul High School, class of 22.
Former Supreme Court Justice Yang had been criticized for giving Samsung a clean slate in the succession process due to his dissenting opinion of not guilty during the Supreme Court plenary session ruling on the ‘Everland convertible bonds (CB) low-price issuance case’ while serving as a Supreme Court Justice on May 29, 2009. Last month, he also mentioned this ruling in a column he contributed to Maeil Business Newspaper, stating that Vice Chairman Lee was not responsible for the management succession.
Additionally, the fact that Chairman Yang’s younger sister had worked as a professor in the obstetrics and gynecology department at Samsung Seoul Hospital in the past, and his brother-in-law currently serves as the director of Samsung Seoul Hospital, also became factors in the controversy over his qualifications as chairman.
However, in his statement on the day, Chairman Yang drew a line by stating that aside from his friendship with former chief Choi, these circumstances do not constitute grounds for avoidance.
Despite Chairman Yang’s avoidance of the chairman position, the schedule for the Investigation Deliberation Committee is expected to proceed as planned.
The Supreme Prosecutors' Office plans to form the current affairs committee by randomly selecting 15 current affairs members from among the Investigation Deliberation Committee members, who are experts from various fields including the legal community, academia, media, civic groups, and culture and arts, within this week.
A prosecution official said, “There is no plan to postpone the committee schedule yet,” and “Since the current affairs members are selected by random draw anyway and the chairman does not have a significant influence, Chairman Yang may inevitably have to conduct the draw to proceed with the procedure.”
The related guidelines stipulate that the chairman of the Investigation Deliberation Committee, as the chair of the current affairs committee, should devise measures to prevent the randomly selected current affairs members from being biased toward specific occupations or fields.
At the current affairs committee meeting scheduled for the 26th, among the 15 current affairs members, those attending the committee will elect an interim chairman by secret ballot to act on behalf of the chairman.
Unlike the previously held sub-deliberation committee, both the prosecution and the applicants, including Vice Chairman Lee, will be able to make oral statements within 30 minutes in addition to submitting written opinions, and will also be given opportunities to respond to questions from the members.
Chairman Yang, who has been evaluated as favorable to Samsung, avoiding the chairman position of the current affairs committee appears to be an unwelcome variable from the standpoint of Vice Chairman Lee and others. Although the chairman does not have the right to question during the deliberation or vote on the committee’s opinion on whether to indict, he presides over the entire meeting and is responsible for allocating time per agenda item, assigning questioners and questioning time, so it cannot be said that his influence on the meeting is negligible.
Lawyers for Vice Chairman Lee and former team leader Kim, who had responded individually up to the sub-deliberation committee stage, are considering whether to take joint action ahead of this current affairs committee.
A lawyer for Vice Chairman Lee said, “Since the chairman has changed, we may need to have a new rule meeting,” and “The committee side will probably ask whether to submit opinions together, so we are reviewing whether and how to discuss that issue.”
He added, “While the focus at the sub-deliberation committee was on persuading the necessity of referral, this Investigation Deliberation Committee will likely focus more on arguing that the charges do not hold.”
At the current affairs committee meeting on the 26th, if a unanimous opinion is not reached through discussions on whether to indict Vice Chairman Lee and others, a final decision will be made by a majority vote of the attending members.
The approved content will then be compiled into a deliberation opinion document and a copy sent to the chief prosecutor in charge. The chief prosecutor must attach the copy to the case record.
The guidelines only stipulate that “the chief prosecutor must respect the deliberation opinion of the current affairs committee,” so there is no binding force, but all eight previous Investigation Deliberation Committee results have been accepted.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
