Controversy Over the Public Disclosure of Lee Jae-yong's Indictment Expands

Ministry of Justice Policy and Recent Trend of Non-Disclosure Contradicted
Controversy Over Preferential Treatment of Former Officials by Lawyers... Vice Chairman Lee's Legal Team Calls It "Nonsense and Distortion of Facts"

Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, who is under prosecution investigation for allegations of unfair succession of management rights related to the merger of the former Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, as well as allegations of accounting fraud at Samsung Biologics, is entering the courtroom to attend the warrant hearing held on the 8th at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Ki-min Lee] With the public disclosure of the indictment against Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, the Ministry of Justice's policy of keeping indictments confidential, established earlier this year, is once again drawing attention. Unlike the established principle after Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae blocked the disclosure of indictments related to Blue House cases, citing a violation of the presumption of innocence, the disclosure of the investigation results and indictment in Lee's case is seen as infringing on the defendant's right to defense.

According to business and legal circles on the 16th, controversy is spreading as the full text of Vice Chairman Lee's indictment was released through the media. Earlier, on the 1st of this month, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office indicted Lee without detention on charges including unfair trading and market manipulation under the Capital Markets Act, and breach of duty related to Samsung's alleged illegal succession of management rights. At that time, Lee's charges were reported in detail through reference materials and the prosecution's briefing, and a few days later, the full indictment was disclosed through media outlets. Some have questioned whether different standards are being applied to the Ministry of Justice's policy and recent trend of non-disclosure of indictments versus the disclosure of Lee's indictment. Previously, Minister Choo stated at a press conference regarding the non-disclosure of indictments in the Blue House election interference case, "The recent actions by the Ministry of Justice concerning indictments are effectively the first step to correct the previously overlooked constitutional principle of presumption of innocence and to ensure the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial is substantially protected."

In response, a lawyer in Seocho-dong pointed out, "Wasn't the non-disclosure of indictments agreed upon this year to uphold the presumption of innocence for suspects? I don't understand why a different standard is being applied to Vice Chairman Lee." A business insider also expressed concern, saying, "In Lee's case, the investigation review committee had already recommended suspension of investigation and non-prosecution, and the arrest warrant was also dismissed, indicating the charges are being contested. Disclosure of the indictment could strengthen the presumption of guilt and disadvantage Lee's right to defense."

Meanwhile, Lee's legal team refuted some reports claiming they requested the prosecution to remove Samsung Life Insurance-related content from Lee's arrest warrant, stating, "The warrant was suddenly requested after the investigation review committee. We were unaware of the warrant request and did not know what charges it would include. The reports are inconsistent."

Regarding allegations that Lee's lawyers sought preferential treatment as former officials, they added, "Both sides engaged in uncompromising disputes, so the claim of preferential treatment is groundless and a distortion of facts. We will hold those responsible for the malicious false reports that seriously damaged the lawyers' reputations accountable both civilly and criminally."