Majority Anti-Samsung on Samsung Investigation Deliberation Committee, "Unfair Samsung Attacks Must Stop"

On the 26th, a member who completed the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Investigation Deliberation Committee meeting regarding the allegations of illegal succession of management rights involving Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, is answering questions from the press. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Changhwan Lee] Among the members of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Investigation Deliberation Committee who recommended 'suspension of investigation and non-prosecution' for Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, it has been identified that many were known to have an anti-Samsung stance. Looking at the overall composition of the committee, there are more members with opposing views than pro-Samsung ones, leading to criticism that there is insufficient basis for claims of the committee's bias toward Samsung.

According to industry sources on the 30th, a total of 14 people attended the Investigation Deliberation Committee that dealt with allegations of illegal succession of management rights by Vice Chairman Lee. The committee consisted of eight legal professionals, including four law professors and four lawyers, two religious figures, two educators, one journalist, and one technologist.

Among them, at least four are presumed to have had a disposition that was not at least favorable to Samsung.

Professor A, who is currently working at a law school in Seoul, stated in a 2005 interview with a media outlet regarding the Samsung Everland convertible bonds (CB) case, which was ultimately acquitted by the Supreme Court, that "the low-price issuance of Everland CB was widely viewed from the beginning as a gift to Vice Chairman Lee and others from a legal perspective, making it highly likely to be recognized as guilty," but added, "Considering the lack of legal standards to assess the value of unlisted stocks, the sentence can be seen as relatively reasonable." Professor A chaired the committee and led the meeting.

Committee member B, known as an active journalist, reportedly published several articles predicting a guilty verdict during his time covering the court cases involving Vice Chairman Lee. Committee member C, a religious figure, was listed as a South Korean participant in the 'New Year Solidarity Meeting for the Implementation of the June 15 North-South Joint Declaration,' which was formed mainly by progressive figures early last year.

Lawyer D participated in a declaration demanding the resignation of former President Park Geun-hye in November 2016. The declaration included many lawyers from the Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun). Minbyun issued a statement the previous day expressing that they could not accept the recommendation of the Investigation Deliberation Committee and pressured the prosecution to indict.

On the other hand, the only person presumed to have a pro-Samsung disposition is Professor E, who works at another law school in Seoul. Regarding the Samsung BioLogics accounting scandal, Professor E previously stated in an interview, "If a company makes a decision reasonably with advice from an accounting firm, there is no problem," and also said, "There is no suspicious element to consider that Samsung BioLogics violated the law."

The selection process for committee members followed procedures. Members are randomly drawn from a pool of 150 people. The system institutionalized mechanical random selection by the prosecution to completely block external influence.

A legal industry insider said, "All Investigation Deliberation Committee members are selected by lottery and are appointed directly by the Prosecutor General," adding, "Looking at the list of members, there seem to be more anti-Samsung members, so I don't understand how a controversy over bias can arise."

Independent lawmaker Kwon Seong-dong criticized on Facebook that day, saying, "They call the decision made by the organization created for prosecutorial reform under the current government a deep-rooted evil just because it did not suit their preferences," and added, "The behavior of deciding conclusions in advance and criticizing and pressuring all around if different is increasingly excessive."

Voices are also emerging from the business community urging the political sphere to stop 'attacking Samsung' and create an environment where management can focus on business.

An industry insider said, "Looking at various matters such as the decision of the Investigation Deliberation Committee and the court's dismissal of the arrest warrant, many experts believe that the prosecution's investigation of Samsung has been somewhat excessive," emphasizing, "Both the prosecution and the political sphere should stop attacking Samsung and allow Vice Chairman Lee to focus on managing the company."